The Student Government Association (SGA) is perhaps confused by the negative reaction towards its latest amendment. Let’s make things clear for them.
First, why has the amendment generated a wave of opposition? The answer is simple. The student government does not get to do whatever it wants, simply because they themselves have voted on the passing of some “amendments” for a document titled “SGA Constitution,” without any public support. The amendment at issue is one that fundamentally changes the premise of the SGA. Every election in the past has consisted of candidates with no prior experience in the organization— the amendment means the exclusion of these candidates as well as the majority of the campus student body. With the passing of the new amendment, elections are limited to a small circle of student “elites,” and it is no longer accessible to most students. Such a drastic change was agreed upon only between the SGA, and on March 18, is suddenly announced to the student body. Has the SGA communicated with any student—whom they are supposed to and have claimed to represent—prior to making the decision? If only they had gauged popular opinions, they would not find themselves in the current predicament.
The SGA needs to understand that although the public has not expressed an interest in student government affairs, they are supposed to act within the confines of public expectations. The SGA claims that the amendment serves as a remedy to low public turnouts for student elections. However, they fail to understand that the majority of the students who do not vote in student elections do not wish to bother with them. They are apathetic to the SGA because it bears no relevance. Making the organization more elitist and reducing its accessibility to the general student body render the organization less relevant, not more. In addition, due to the low turnout rates, it is unfounded for the SGA to claim that they represent the student body when “representatives” are mere appointees due to a lack of willing candidates. To equate silence with approval or support is a shameless pretense. Instead of boasting about mandates and representation, the SGA should focus on improving its presence among the student body. It should not double down on its seclusive game of elitism.
As an ex-student representative, I understand the trivial or even non-existent role that the SGA plays in our community. I recall that during my term as a representative, my colleagues and I sat down in front of the Red Square to hear from students personally every two weeks. We believe representatives need to make themselves known to the student body. Though we accomplished little in hindsight, we tried our best and dedicated ourselves to the service of the community (perhaps we provided some emotional support). How many students have even interacted with the current SGA? How many students know who their representatives are, and what they do? How many people believe that the SGA serves a purpose? These are questions that the current “leaders” do not dare to ask. Instead of engaging with the widespread discontent with the new amendment, these “leaders” merely dismiss them.
Comments