We are disappointed to learn that the WSA rejected the Student Leadership Stipend proposal that was discussed on Sunday. We were, however, encouraged to hear that various members of the WSA support the measure in theory, and we believe that this rejection should provide the supporters of the proposal with a chance to improve the proposal and the program itself.

It is a common problem on this campus that students cannot join student groups because they have to devote almost all of their free time to working a job in order to pay for their education or their living expenses. The proposal was meant as a way to bridge the gap between students who can (literally) afford to go to, and be active in, student groups, and those who cannot. Active commitment to and participation in student groups should not be limited to those who can’t afford to work as many hours.

Unfortunately, however, the proposal itself leaves much to the imagination. The absence of concrete numbers—of how much the plan will cost, and where the money will come from—and the vague definitions inherent in the plan, leave the informed reader with a dilemma: how can one support a resolution asking for a non-quantified sum of money to be directed towards fuzzy “student leaders,” even if the theory behind the proposal is noble? Unanswered questions abound in the proposal, which forgets to address how to define “student leaders,” (Are all student groups considered eligible? What is a student leader?), or how to ensure that the ill-defined “leaders” are paid according to their work.

That being said, this project is still worth the approval of the WSA: allowing students to engage in extracurricular activities without forcing them to kill themselves with work-study jobs is certainly worth the work and the funding that should go into this proposal. Leadership stipends would not just be a big stride towards allowing less privileged students to become extremely active in student groups, they would also go a long way toward infusing socioeconomic diversity into student groups themselves. While the proposal in its current incarnation does little to address the methods by which the project would be implemented, its theory and message are correct. It simply needs some fine-tuning.

While the proposal was drafted with the best intentions, it was extremely unwise not to define “student leader” or provide some hard numbers in regards to how much the project will cost and where the money for the project will come from. The project would be better served through a competitive grant system, where each leader could submit a proposal to the SBC (or a committee in charge of disbursing the funds) in which they described what they planned on doing and how long per week they would be involved in their activity. The committee could then decide which student leaders to fund, and then disburse the money accordingly. Even if only five or ten of these stipend grants were given out per year, it would still be a great leap forward in advancing the central theme of the proposal: equal access to student groups, no matter the student’s socioeconomic status.