Changes Coming to Identity-Based Funding
Every year, posters pop up around campus asking students to Top Six their clubs in order to qualify for funding. These clubs range from Photography Club to Beer Nation to the Quest. After the funding poll ends, the student body eagerly waits to see how the clubs measure up in the fight for the approval of their peers. The practice of Top Six-ing and upvoting clubs is a long held tradition at Reed, allowing students greater autonomy in deciding where their student body funds go. However, this custom is not without flaws.
One of the greatest flaws of the Top 6 system is in regards to how funding for identity and affinity based groups are allocated funding. This past spring, many students voiced concerns through feedback on the club funding form about including identity groups in the Top Six poll, expressing concern over ranking different minorities and feeling as though this system pitted these groups against one another. One student highlighted these issues in a comment on last year's funding survey, stating that “Identity clubs should have guaranteed funding separate from enrichment/traditions clubs…It is a self-perpetuating issue. They need funding BECAUSE they are minority/identity clubs but they aren’t going to get much funding BECAUSE they are minority/identity clubs. Democratic funding polls should be voting on hobbies/traditions, not safe spaces or accessibility.” This comment was one of many left by various students asking for a change to the system of clubs on campus competing against each other for coveted student body funding.
While we’re all familiar with Top Six and upvoting, there was a time when it existed alongside Deep Six and downvoting. Before 2018, students had the opportunity to vote for different clubs to lose funding alongside voting for clubs to gain funding. In the history of Deep Six-ing, both The Thinkery and Airpods for All managed to get negative scores, with other student groups also being negatively affected by downvoting. The process of Deep Six-ing and downvoting quickly turned sour, as people began to downvote identity-based groups. As Savannah Hugueley ‘19 mentioned in a Quest article from 2018, “For any identity group, even one deep-six vote would feel significant because, to me, it shows a disregard for the ways that our college is lacking support for students who need it to make it through college.” Shortly after, this process was removed, due in part to the negative consequences.
It became apparent recently that the student body needs a change to the system of club voting and Top Six-ing, but what that change looks like is not immediately clear. In order to come up with a better plan for club funding this year, three meetings were held in the basement of Eliot Hall this August to discuss the issue. Presented by Senator Maya Gutierrez ‘27, these meetings covered the history of club funding at Reed, as well as the history of identity-based funding at Reed, the current status, and proposed alternatives for identity group funding moving forward.
Last spring, with the large amount of student groups on campus, as well as the competitive nature of Top 6 and Top 40 polls, only six of 17 identity-based groups placed within the Top 40. This was a noticeable decline from fall and spring 2025, wherein ten and eight identity clubs placed in the Top 40, respectively. In the past, student affinity groups that did not receive funding from Top 40 and Funding Circus were able to receive funding from a separate fund which allocated $10,000 to be used by various student identity groups. While this fund guaranteed that student groups would receive funding, the funding set aside for these groups was unchanging, and bigger groups continued to get better funding.
So, what changes are coming to this year's funding pool? Instead of having a set amount of money set aside for identity-based groups, these groups will instead receive 40% of the money set aside for clubs. The percentage of funding allocated was determined based off of demographic makeup and historical funding patterns. The percentage is also based on an estimate of the percentage of the student body that these funds will be serving. This change means that identity groups will no longer be ranked by the student body for funding purposes or priority funding. Instead, groups will present their budgets for approval based on order of registration. While the order of registration affects the order of presenting the budget, it will not affect consideration for funding.
During the meetings, concerns were brought up over having these focus groups during the summer, before students arrived on campus, pointing out that many students would not have the opportunity to provide input due simply to not being on campus when these discussions took place. Gutierrez addressed this concern by pointing out that other sessions discussing this issue were held in the spring semester, but they did not have enough attendees to come to any meaningful conclusions. Gutierrez also noted that the changes being discussed in these summer meetings would hopefully go into effect in time for the next funding poll. Due to the changes being implemented so soon, these focus groups could not be held at any other time.
Although there are changes going into effect now, these changes are far from permanent. Throughout the semester, discussions will be held with various student groups to figure out the best way to proceed in funding identity and affinity groups, with changes to be implemented as soon as they can be.