Let me start off with a quick history lesson: the history of Washington University’s Social Programming Board. Founded in 2012 through the combination of Team 31 Productions, the Gargoyle Committee and the Campus Programming Council to unify undergraduate programming under one group, SPB has the highest budget of all Student Union entities. Even though SPB controls so much of every student’s activities fee, its members still are not elected, do not advertise their process effectively and consistently make decisions that are short-sighted, wasteful, repetitive and dismissive of the student voice.

Student Life has previously cited the failings of SPB, talking about the board’s flimsy reasoning for not releasing the survey results and how when it makes a colossal mistake, the rest of the student body has to suffer.

Social Programming Board. SPB. The group that had $212,483.70 to spend on fall WILD. Our collective student activity fees for the 2017-2018 academic year totaled $3.3 million dollars, and 18 percent of that went toward the SPB budget, with six percent allocated for fall WILD itself. That works out to about 419 complete student activity fees being used to produce a concert for which the headlining artist has routinely displayed a shocking lack of awareness for other people—while also not being talented enough to excuse his own deficiencies. As most of you are already aware, the activity fee continues to rise as tuition increases, while SPB continues to raise the number of people who question their judgment by making the same mistakes. People have started to ask: Should the activity fee be optional? If my voice is completely ignored by these planning groups, why should I have to pay the bill? Some people are here for school and nothing more—and their money should not be required for something that they have no interest in and no decision-making power.

Putting on a production like WILD is immensely expensive. But given how much of our money is being used, it would make sense to bring in more diverse acts and create a pseudo-music festival atmosphere. Why not have WILD be a multi-day event that we market to the St. Louis community? It could be a way to celebrate the start of autumn while simultaneously giving people a less costly, more welcoming alternative to LouFest. This could lower our own student costs for WILD, serve as a fundraiser for student groups and bridge the gap between the notoriously distant Wash. U. and St. Louis communities. Universities around the country use this method to raise millions for their internal operations; why should Wash. U. stay behind in the dark ages when compared to other colleges?

I am not going to waste a lot more time delving into how horrible Lil Dicky is as an artist and as a person. Instead, I will provide the highlights that serve as a very accurate, yet succinct, portrayal of this (at best) mediocre artist. A quote from author Sam Rosen referenced in the now widely shared VICE article about Lil Dicky really sums him up perfectly: “[Lil Dicky] is constantly lamenting the fact that he is not black while simultaneously celebrating the spoils of white privilege.” He is an upper-middle-class white guy who appeals to, you guessed it, upper-middle-class white guys. Like the ones who so heavily populate Wash. U. and get offended when you call them out on their b.s. They are the basis for the phrase, “Go through life with the confidence of a mediocre white man.”

Lil Dicky’s album, “Professional Rapper,” is a giant, self-serving effort by this East Coast Macklemore to prove to the world that he is able to pay real artists to be featured in his so-called attempts at music. He is another symptom of money being used in place of talent (cough, cough Taylor Swift).

Ultimately, I don’t trust the students on SPB. Will their new bimonthly forums be properly advertised, or will these be similar to the survey? By limiting access to their few forums which allow public input, SPB loses the trust of the student body. SPB president and junior Noah Truwit, along with the rest of the executive board, put out a bland, boilerplate statement about doing better. If SPB really wants to include the student body and stick to its intended changes, then it needs to fundamentally alter its structure. The lack of oversight will not be solved by consulting with outside groups. SPB needs to be brought under the guidance of a preexisting group to ensure that all decisions are properly vetted by competent and diverse leaders. If you’re under 21, the government does not trust you with alcohol, so why should we trust those same kids with more than a half of a million dollars?

Sadly, because of contractual obligations, this below-average entertainer is going to perform Friday, Oct. 6. If you want better choices in the future, demand change. First, from the group itself, then from the ones who give them that money (I’m talking about you, Student Union). We already invest a tremendous amount of money into this University and usually get little say in how our funds are used, but this need not be true in every area. We pay the bills sent by this University, so anything that involves our investment should be transparent. If these groups of students wish to continue to ignore our voices, then maybe we should start to ignore those concerts and comedy shows, too.