The Student Union Judiciary ruled unanimously that a $900 Senate Money Resolution to help bring Bill Ayers and Robert H. King to campus violated the Union's constitution because the events were not "Union projects," according to the UJ's majority opinion.The statement released by the Union Judiciary last Tuesday stated that "in order to qualify as a Union project, the project must, at the very least, represent a true collaborative effort between the Union and another individual or group."

The case was brought before the UJ March 7, when Senator for the Class of 2009 Eric Alterman filed a petition against the Senate and Senators for the Class of 2011 Alex Melman and Lev Hirschhorn, who supported the Union's SMR, whichwas passed March 1.

Alterman claimed the SMR was in violation of bylaw Article IX, Section 1. The Bylaw states, "All Senate Money Resolutions must be used for Student Union Government projects and/or operations." Hirschhorn and Melman argued that the Ayers event was always meant to be a Senate project. As the Ayers' visit had the support of the Social Justice Committee, Melman and Hirschhorn argued that it was a Senate project.

Referring to previously passed SMRs such as the Brandeis Open Mic Series' presentation on activist poet Jason Paul and the Winter Gala in support of hopeFound, the majority decision, written by Chief Justice Rachel Graham Kagan '09, stated, "Just because these instances were never ruled on by the UJ does not make them useable as precedent. Precedent based on a flawed reading of the rule is not legitimate and incorrect past practice is no justification for future action."

UJ Associate Justice Judah Marans '11 told the Justice "that it is important to remember that what the senators were attempting to do, [bringing the event to campus], was not disingenuous. Simply the way in which they went about doing it, [seeking money from the Senate for a non-Senate project], went against the spirit of the written Student Union law."

Alterman commented, "I think that worthwhile projects where the planners want to involve the Union in a significant way will still be able to bring their projects before the discretionary fund as long as they show that they're not solely involving the Union for financial reasons."

Hirschhorn stated, "I feel the ruling sets a bad precedent because the Senate Discretionary [Fund] should be used to support and fund projects on campus, and I think this severely limits the Senate's ability to support projects that were originally created by clubs."

Castle Senator Nathan Robinson '11, the Union's counsel, said, "I do feel the verdict sets a poor precedent for future uses of Senate money and greatly restricts what the Senate can do with its discretionary money, which should be left up to [the Union's] discretion."

He added, "I do think a number of our arguments and points were misinterpreted or misconstrued by the justices. Perhaps it's our fault for not presenting in the most clear way we could.