It often seems as though the world is not nearly doing enough to prevent genocide unfolding in Sudan, and we continually applaud the Harvard Darfur Action Group (HDAG) for their efforts in stopping what is clearly a horrific situation. Their latest plandespite its good intentionsis unfortunately ill-considered, and could have adverse effects on the student body as a whole.

We are, of course, in favor of efforts to end the genocide in Darfur or anywhere else and have been amazed by the dedication and leadership that HDAG has demonstrated for the cause, culminating last week with a new fundraising plan. HDAG, in conjunction with students at many of Harvards graduate schools, began online circulation of a petition last week that would enable students to donate leftover BoardPlus and Crimson Cash to support peacekeepers in Sudan. It is called Swipe for Darfur, and its gathered a few thousand signatures already. Swipe for Darfur is a valid and genuinely well-meaning plan, but alas one that has not been fully developed, nor adequately explained to the Harvard community.

The problem lies in the structure of student billing accounts and the way in which students money almost exclusively funds HUDS operations. Under the current system, the BoardPlus surplus goes back into HUDS annual budget; it is money that has already been counted on in planning board budgets. The money from BoardPlus, which amounts to $100 per student per year, is expected to funnel into HUDS either through spending at HUDS-operated cafes or through the surplus. If the surplus money were to be directed elsewhere, HUDS would be running on a deficit. The obvious result would be an increase in student dining fees across the board next year, since the missing BoardPlus funds would have to be accounted for. An unfortunate consequence of the swiping would be one that places more financial burden on all students living on campus.

Regardless of how one feels about the HUDS system, in practical terms this is a fundamentally inequitable proposal. If the donation, and the aftereffects of it, affected only those who chose to swipe for Darfur, then there would be no real problem. The reality, however, is that even those who dont elect to swipe will be facing the extra term-bill costs, and that is unfair. Understandably, a student paying more for room and board completely pales in comparison to the suffering of others in Darfur and elsewhere, but we cannot in good conscience endorse a plan that financially burdens those who elect to not participate.

Donating Crimson Cash, however, another part of the Swipe for Darfur plan, runs into none of these problems. Focusing on Crimson Cash will carry all the benefits of fundraising for Darfur and none of the systemic pitfalls.

We genuinely support all efforts to eliminate murder and harm in the worldand, currently, those efforts are particularly required in Darfur. We are, however, wary of well-intentioned endeavors that seem to be not fully considered. We caution the greater community to not be overly hasty in donating this unused money. While on the surface it seems as though the funds will disappear if they are not redirected to this very worthy cause, the Swipe for Darfur BoardPlus plan will actually divert much-needed funding from HUDS, funding that effectively is being used already.