THE AMENDMENT
The March 18 Student Government Association (SGA) constitutional amendments have sparked intense debate across campus, dividing students between supporters and dissenters. The constitutional amendments published by the SGA have created tense apprehension across the campus. At the heart of the controversy are the new eligibility requirements for SGA presidential and vice-presidential candidates—intended to ensure that executive leadership have experience as well as to increase class representative participation (according to many SGA members who spoke with The Gazette)—but which some argue could limit student representation. In the past few days, The Georgetown Gazette has been in correspondence with members of the SGA and the student body, while closely monitoring the engagement in different class group chats. As of late, the SGA has committed to holding a student-wide referendum, and have highlighted their guidelines through an email sent to the student body.
According to the SGA’s official email, the amendments include:
Presidential Candidates: Must have served at least one year on the SGA.
Vice Presidential Candidates: Must have served at least one semester on the SGA.
First-Year Elections: Will continue as before, taking place two weeks into the fall semester.
Election Assistance Committee: A small SGA committee will formally assist the administration with election-related tasks, such as managing timelines.
The most contentious aspects of these amendments are the new eligibility requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, which critics argue could restrict leadership opportunities for students outside the SGA. The Georgetown Gazette editorial board does not take a position on these amendments. Instead, we have conducted a thorough investigation—through interviews, student surveys, and official statements—to provide a well-rounded perspective on the issue. Our goal is to equip our readers with the information needed to make an informed decision about the student-wide referendum.
REASON FOR THE AMENDMENT
GU-Q’s Student Body President Nagla Abdelhady outlined two key justifications for the amendments. The first was the declining appeal of class representative roles. “When positions like class representatives and Chief of Staff lose their appeal, it creates structural challenges that affect SGA’s ability to truly represent the student body,” she said. The second reason was the need for leadership experience. “While leadership skills can be gained over time, understanding how the SGA works, how the SLC operates, and how to navigate the institution’s systems can only be learned through direct involvement,” Abdelhady asserted.
PROCESS OF THE AMENDMENT
According to Jay Pacer, 2026 Class Representative, the amendments were “proposed and sent to the rest of the SGA by the executive team, specifically the President, Public Relations Officer and Chief of Staff on March 10. The following Sunday, March 16, the whole team met to discuss the amendments.” Two days later, they were introduced to the student body. Sama Alissa, Chief of Staff, traces the amendments to an earlier conversation. “The reasoning for this amendment originated from a discussion between Dean Ken and President Nagla Abdelhady during their routine weekly meeting.” The discussion centered on low engagement in class representative elections. “In two of the four batches, there were three or fewer candidates running, which limited the competitiveness and diversity of the election,” Alissa told the Gazette.
However, students have criticized the amendments for being passed in closed-door discussions without consulting the student body. Former SGA President Benjamin Kurian (2022–2023) defended the process, stating that SGA amendments have historically been passed through internal discussions. Yet, he believed in a deeper issue at hand: class representatives failing to properly convey their batch’s sentiments. “If class representatives knew their batches well enough, the amendments wouldn’t have passed,” he argued.
While SGA members officially told The Gazette that extensive discussions took place before voting, anonymous SGA sources provided conflicting accounts. An anonymous account claimed the amendments were rushed, with “10 minutes or less” of discussion per amendment. They also noted that “It appeared that executive members had a preconceived stance in favor of the amendments,” making them more focused on refuting opposition rather than genuinely considering it. Other anonymous sources stated, “You cannot disagree, or else you will be cornered,” arguing that SGA lacks strong internal opposition. All anonymous sources highlighted that class representatives had little influence in discussions and that personal opinions often took precedence over student interests. “Most of the SGA body voted based on personal opinions, even the representatives themselves. It was about what made the most sense to SGA, not the student body,” one said.
CRITICISM AND COMMENTS
Despite these criticisms, the anonymous SGA sources expressed their belief that the amendments were well-intentioned but flawed in execution. One suggested that student discontent stemmed from a broader perception of the SGA as an “elitist” and “disconnected body,” exacerbating frustrations over the amendments. These concerns align with the perspective of Tashafee Masoodi ‘26, who served as a class representative last year. She sees the amendments as continuation of a pattern of increasing exclusivity within SGA. She pointed to previous changes—such as the introduction of the Chief of Staff position to the executive board and the now-rescinded shared ticket system for presidential and vice-presidential candidates—as contributing to this issue. According to Masoodi, these changes created an environment where executive members held their own meetings, reached decisions privately, and then enforced them in meetings with class representatives. This, she argued, sidelined representatives and deepened their sense of disillusionment. Reflecting on her experience, she said, “I personally did not feel included in the decision-making process and felt like there was barely anything I could do through the SGA.” Regarding the latest amendments, she believes they “ensure that power stays within a specific group of people. This exclusivity creates more discontent with the already irrelevant body that the SGA has become.”
TESTIMONIALS FROM SGA MEMBERS
Many SGA members expressed their openness to discussions with their student body. Lawrence Mararac, 2026 Class Representative, asserts that “the real issue arises when students don’t engage with the SGA and then criticize it for being disconnected or out of touch.” He acknowledges that the student body’s disconnection to the SGA, most highlighted recently, needs to be addressed. “Constructive discussions and collaborative efforts on both sides are essential for rebuilding trust and creating a more effective student government” are what he calls for.
They also stressed out that there are multiple SGA positions that one can seek that do not require experience. Yasmin Ahmed, the SGA’s Public Relations Officer, told us that “the SGA is not just the President or Vice-President and it is ignorant to believe that those are the only positions which matter. Any and all agenda items are submitted through class representatives, the Chief of Staff leads the Academic Council and coordinates our meetings, the Public Relations Officer, my current role, handles all events and SGA imaging to the public, all of which require no past SGA experience. 2 of these 10 positions are on the executive board.”
TESTIMONIALS FROM PAST MEMBERS
All seven current SGA members who spoke to The Gazette echoed the concern of low engagement. Kurian (2022–2023) also reinforced this view in an interview with the editorial board. He emphasized that understanding the institutional structure of GU-Q is essential for an efficient SGA. “Otherwise, things will get delayed,” he said. Former SGA Presidents mirrored the same opinion. “Having someone in leadership who has never worked within the SGA before made things way harder than they needed to be. There’s a huge learning curve, and when the people at the top don’t know how things work, it slows everything down and makes it frustrating for everyone involved,” Mohammad Jaski (Fall 2023) said. Maryam Al-Ansari (Spring 2024) pointed out that “Looking at the past four presidents of the SGA, we all had at least one year of SGA experience prior to adopting our roles.” This echoes what Abdelhady mainly argues. “This is simply formalizing a pattern that has already been in place.” In a tabling that took place on March 20, Noof Al Mulla ‘27, stated that “It was not a big deal until the SGA made it a big deal,” referencing how the SGA’s constitutional amendments could have formalized an unspoken role.
TESTIMONIALS FROM STUDENT ADVISERS
When the staff members at Student Affairs most closely in contact with the SGA consulted in regards to the situation, Dean Ken Grcich and Uday Rosario emphasized their support towards every student at GU-Q. Both Rosario and Grcich stated that their job is simply to provide advice, as the SGA is a student-led organization. Furthermore, they do not want to be seen as ‘administration’ so as to not form an apparent divide between them and the SGA. The SGA is an independent organization, therefore they formulate their own plans and decisions. To them, it is up to the student body to ask questions and reserve their rights for their own stances in regards to the fulfilment of the vision behind the amendments and whether they align with broader goals for the student governance. They do not plan to address student concerns about inclusivity unless it crosses a line. However, they value engagement highly and are open to discuss this with students who wish to approach them.
FROM THE GAZETTE
The Georgetown Gazette Editorial Board commends the SGA for its responsiveness, including its tabling session and willingness to hold a referendum if enough student support is demonstrated. Sahana Farleen, 2028 Class Representative, told the Gazette that “If a majority of the students do believe that a change needs to be made, then we will be here to address this concern and take the necessary steps towards ensuring that we do serve the students at the end of the day.” Alexander Sandner, 2025 Class Representative, “urge[s] anyone with questions to speak with me directly.” The Editorial Board encourages students to engage with the SGA through a proactive and constructive approach that ensures strong relevance of the SGA to the student body. However, we ask everyone to maintain well-mannered behavior and refrain from any inappropriate behavior towards SGA members. We are a small campus and we’re tied in a small space where we encounter each other on a daily basis. Sama Alissa expressed these concerns to the Gazette, “Attacks have been directed at individuals, like Sama the student, instead of addressing concerns to Sama the Chief of Staff.” We also reference the most recent anonymous Gazette article, entitled, “When Disagreement Becomes Disrespect: The Troubling Response to SGA Amendments” that mentioned coercion of a freshman and more inappropriate incidents that we urge our student body to refrain from. This is a true venue to show our educational values in a real-world setting.
Moreover, The Gazette strongly disagrees with the SGA’s alleged approach of requesting members to internally examine their answers prior to submission, as it raises concerns about potential messaging control. As a response to the interview we conducted with the SGA President, the Georgetown Gazette refutes the SGA’s accusations, based on incomplete information, that The Gazette was writing a biased and non inclusive report on the matter, simply because not all SGA members were not initially contacted. While we understand the SGA’s concern for inclusivity, we ask for understanding from the SGA regarding our methodology for contacting them. We would like to clarify that we contacted SGA members for interviews based on having an equal number of members who voted for and against the amendments. We were also in contact with students from all four batches, ensuring a diverse and inclusive set of opinions. The Gazette would also like to clarify that no one who contacted the Editorial Board was turned away. We would like to reiterate our commitment to a high level of journalistic integrity and our strict ethical code enforced on anyone who intends to publish with The Gazette, including the Editorial Board.
CONCLUSION
After a collection of interviews and data gathering, the Editorial Board can conclude that the problem goes beyond the current amendments. While these amendments sparked immediate response from students, we think this a great opportunity to address deeper issues related to power distribution. We think that to make the class representative position more appealing, the solution is not to force people into the role, but to empower them. They should be given an equal voice, not just a vote. An anonymous SGA source pointed out that “No opinion should weigh more than the other because we are all supposed to be representatives, to represent the voices of the student body.” The Gazette also introduces itself as a check and balance force that aims to ensure transparency and accountability, and thus, calls the SGA and all entities of our campus to be more collaborative and responsive. We do not aim to be biased or to ignite disagreement, but we aim to foster a healthy campus journalistic platform that reflects on our vibrant voices and concerns. The SGA has referenced Gazette articles in their SLC meetings before, which we appreciate and call to be sustained.
As of now, the calls for change have led the SGA to open a student-wide referendum which needs a 50% turnout rate to pass. Failure to reach 50% will result in the amendment being left as it is. We as the Editorial Board fully encourage and urge all students to vote appropriately to what they see fit for the greater good of the student body.
Finally, we commend all active students on their energy and initiative and we encourage more to expand on their activism to advocate for the release of Dr. Badar Khan Suri. We also remind our student body that Israel has broken its ceasefire and resumed its aggressive genocidal operations. Let us not direct all of our passion towards university politics while ongoing injustices, at much larger scales, still plague the world– like the genocide in Gaza among other things.
Comments