At first glance, the latest bill to modify how the Undergraduate Council (UC) awards grants seems like little more than a technical shift. Currently, groups of students qualify for funding only if they comply with the UC’s strict nondiscrimination code. Under the new proposal, however, a group could also receive funding if Harvard College’s Committee on College Life (CCL) recognizes it as an official student group, regardless of whether the group meets the UC’s nondiscrimination policies. In both the current and proposed frameworks, the event or project for which a student organization requests UC funds must be nondiscriminatory itself. (So far, opponents of the bill have had to resort to parliamentary tactics to prevent this bill’s passage.)

But this proposed expansion of eligible groups has two consequences that are unacceptable. First, it would mean that UC is improperly deferring to another group’s guidelines when it is the UC, as a student government, that should set and adhere to its own rules. Second, it would allow the UC to fund groups that have clauses in their bylaws that explicitly prohibit some individuals from becoming officers of the group based on their religious views. For these reasons, we ask that the UC vote “no” on this bill or any similar proposal.

The UC should not defer to the CCL’s more lenient standards, which recognize groups that discriminate on the basis of religion. (However, the CCL, which is comprised primarily of College administrators as well as three appointed undergraduates, does not recognize student groups that discriminate on the basis of many other factors, including race.) The UC and CCL have distinct purposes with respect to student groups. The CCL’s role is to grant to groups basic recognition, which effectively means access to campus space and use of the Harvard name. The UC’s role, on the other hand, is to allocate students’ money, which has been specifically designated on students’ termbills for distribution by the UC (and not by the College). Since students pay this fee with the understanding that their elected representatives will decide how to spend the money, the UC should not defer to any other body’s standards in deciding how to distribute students’ money.

Under the current standards, some groups that are recognized by the CCL may not qualify for UC funding. And that’s the way it should be. Last November, the UC suspended its bylaws in order to fund a study break, thrown by the Asian American Christian Fellowship (AACF), that was open to all students. According to the constitution of the AACF’s parent organization, the Harvard-Radcliffe Christian Fellowship, officers of the group must “subscribe without reserve” to articles of Christian faith, although any student can join the group, and any student could attend this particular study break.

The members of the UC who favor grants like this one point out that events such as open study breaks are nondiscriminatory in the sense that anyone can attend. But granting money to a student organization that is inherently discriminatory (at least with respect to its bylaws) is to misuse funds that are meant to serve all Harvard students. Money is fungible: Funding any event is tantamount to a subsidy for the entire group.

Then what separates the AACF from, for example, single-sex a cappella groups, at least one of which rejects all female members despite the lack of an explicit clause in its bylaws? We acknowledge that this is a fine line. But a group’s bylaws are an obvious basis for judgment when it comes to UC funding. If groups such as the AACF desire UC funding, then they should simply change their bylaws. Although de facto discrimination may be difficult to evaluate, explicit discrimination is not. The UC is reasonable to err on the side of generosity when giving funds to groups that may discriminate in some de facto manner, but it should certainly not fund when discrimination is de jure. Eliminating discriminatory clauses from bylaws will help to alleviate the alienation that may discourage students from attending the events in the first place.

Even if students disagree with this logic of why discriminatory groups should not be funded, they should still not support the UC’s proposal to defer to CCL’s standards. Instead, students should shape the UC through the power of their vote, rather than let administration rules shape the UC. In the mean time, UC representatives should not run away from responsibly managing their constituents’ funds.