We applaud the Union Judiciary Board for invalidating the signatures acquired by the Debate Society to hold a referendum to incorporate them into the Secured Allocations Fund (SAF) system. Inaccurate data presented to the student body -- albeit to a probably small portion thereof -- made for misinformed students. That the Debate Society carelessly misrepresented the cashflow of the Archon and WBRS is in itself deplorable. Worsening the case against the Debate Society, they never confonted Archon's business manager to acquire accurate figures. Upon examination, they were obtained by a source already graduated from Brandeis, who relied largely on hearsay and failed to go on the record about how he got certain pieces of data. And, to think that the referendum called to lessen Archon's SAF revenue by $14,000 per year.

The Debate Society's need for substantial funding is irrelevant to their incorporation into the SAF. The seven SAF groups receive secured funding because they cannot be subject the inconsistency of the marathon system. They merit security because they are service-oriented groups that benefit every member of the Brandeis community. Debate can hold community events on speaking, packaging themselves to sway voters, but service will never be their raison d'atre.

To their credit, the Debate Society will hold a national tournament here in the fall and is ranked in the top 25 nationally. They market their service as one of prestige. But, prestige is not a service. That their referendum called for nearly $30,000 means that a large portion of the Student Activity Fee would be allocated towards only a select group -- optimistically 35 active members, according to Debate President Jeff Nelson '03 last week.

That this measure was ever proposed in the first place suggests a grave misunderstanding and lack of appreciation for the SAF system. We implore the Debate Society to reconsider their proposal and hope that the administration will work toward an viable solution.