Is Luke Skywalker a terrorist?

Well, it depends on your definition of terrorism. He can the fit the role of freedom fighter, but he is also regarded as a terrorist.

Same with the Galactic Empire. Do you consider its actions to be necessary in maintaining order in the galaxy, or is it a propagator of evil?

It’s all about how you define, and while the example I presented was a classic example of nerddom, the problem of definitions is universal. Everyone has their own frame of reference, so when I refer to terrorism, a political science professor might have a different interpretation than the student in their class who served in Iraq for two tours.

When two opposing definitions meet, they can bring things to a halt, as the Student Association knows all too well.

The SA has recently waged a war of words–and definitions–with the NIU chapter of the Students for Sensible Drug Policy over its definition of political organizations.

All student groups at NIU are SA-recognized. This allows them to use campus resources, like checking out rooms in the Holmes Student Center, etc.

But not every group is SA funded. Before the controversy hit, the SA did not fund groups that charged dues or were political, religious, pre-professional, or exclusive in nature. The SSDP described itself as a social justice group; the SA disagreed.

The SSDP and the SA have been operating on different definitions. According to Jeremy Orbach, SSDP president and founder, they use the Internal Revenue Service’s definition, which labels groups as political if they are spending money (or gathering it) for an election. The SA, on the other hand, defined groups as political if they are trying affecting the political process through lobbying or informational campaigns.

Honestly, both the SA and the SSDP are right. They are both legitimate definitions of political organizations; the process broke down when neither side was willing to make a consensus.

So what happens now? Orbach said in Tuesday’s story that the matter is being taken care of, but that’s it. So will SA policy change? I hope it does and doesn’t.

The SA’s policy needs to be more specific. Vagueness can work in policy because you never know what the situation will be like in five years. But as the Northern Star has written in a previous editorial, the SA needs to get specific so it can fight accusations of unfairness.

But the SSDP is also wrong. The letter they sent in conjunction with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which also threatened legal action if NIU did not respond, was an unnecessary escalation of things. It’s like breaking out an assault rifle when arguing with your roommates over who does dishes when.

But who should get funding? Well, think of the student fees as taxes; not everything that is funded with my tax dollars are going to be spent on things that I use. But because it is the government, I generally accept that what is being paid is a communal benefit.

My tax dollars, on the other hand, should not go to the Democratic Party. Even though I, for the most part, support the Democratic Party, I would find it unacceptable if my tax dollars went to President Barack Obama’s war chest because it is supporting a political cause.

The same should go for the SA. They should keep their current policy on who gets what, because it seems to be the fairest way to distribute such a limited resource.

All of this, of course, comes back to definitions. What is a political organization? Hopefully, the SA can answer that question in full next semester.