Dana Lake ‘23
Production Editor
Because funding negotiations remain ongoing between student clubs and administration, the Law Weekly will avoid naming specific clubs or joining in the speculation as to the overall cause in this year’s funding reduction. The purpose of this article is to fulfill our policy of publishing columns of interest to the Law School--to bring attention to an ongoing issue happening largely behind the scenes.
Applying for funding from the University every year is one of the most important responsibilities for club leaders. Sufficient funding is the difference between catered lunches and BYOB, between guest speakers and PowerPoints. Whatever money is needed for the club to function that isn’t awarded by the school is expected to be made up for in membership dues or private sponsors.
Private sponsorship is an expectation more easily met by some organizations than others. Clubs with a national footprint have a much wider support network than smaller or newer organizations, and clubs focused on channeling students into private practice or particular markets have established donors they can lean on. In the yearly jostling for funds, it is unfortunately often the organizations in the worst position to win outside donations that receive the least amount of money from the school. They are left to make up their budgets with membership dues.
Photo by Robert Llewellyn.
The result is a choice between a rock and a hard place. They can charge their members high dues and host events and activities that will hopefully increase membership and the club’s reputation over several years—the downside being, of course, that these smaller organizations are often affinity groups for people underrepresented in the law, and high dues are a barrier to entry for what is meant to be a supportive space. The other option is cheaper dues, but fewer activities that address the organization’s needs and purpose.
For the 2021-2022 school year, most student organizations at UVA Law saw a reduction in funding from the year before. The Law Weekly, like many groups, received less funding than requested. The reduction in funding this year, when in-person events are actually possible, compared to last year’s COVID-induced freeze on most meetings, is difficult to understand. Why clubs with greater access to outside funding receive more help from the school than clubs with smaller networks is difficult to understand. Why some organizations received substantial funding for travel expenses when their events will remain virtual this year, is difficult to understand. For the organizations interviewed to get background information for this article, that is the central issue—understanding how exactly these determinations are made.
Clubs this year received funding that appeared to be arbitrarily calculated. The funding determinations are meant to be need-based, but understanding how exactly to demonstrate need has been described as a “black box” and “very confusing.” The amount of money requested is clearly not a useful indicator, as most clubs received less than what they asked for and some clubs actually received more. If an organization’s own estimate of their expenses is not the determining factor, what is?
Other factors that may influence the decision are club membership levels, suspected savings levels, scheduled events, and club purpose. We can address club purpose first, because it has some background. Religious affinity groups receive equal funding, regardless of other factors. Their funding was equally reduced this year. For the other factors, it is unclear what the pattern of reasoning is. While some organizations experienced substantial growth in the last year and others had consistent membership numbers or a reduction, the funding awards did not seem to reflect this disparity. It will certainly be difficult to manage an organization of significantly larger size with less money than last year, and some clubs fear they will lose enrollment momentum. Suspected savings seems to be influential in the process, but the savings are not self-reported by clubs. Administration seems to have their own method of determining the fiscal health of different organizations, and this has led to serious misappraisals.
If the amount of money requested based on a club’s estimates of their expenses is not the determining factor (and no one is advocating for a system of blank checks), membership level is not the determining factor, and a club’s ability to successfully solicit donations is not the determining factor, then what determines funding awards? Universally, student organizations understand there will be years with less money available and years with more. What student leaders need to be successful is simply transparency. Without knowing how the decisions are made, organizations have little to go on for appeals. An organization may not know its award was reduced by a significant margin (and Administration will not know if they overfunded by a significant margin) due to misunderstanding, or a real change in circumstances.
---
dl9uh@virginia.edu