Student Senate President Michael Adeyanju ran on a ticket promising Ability and Accountability but has so far proven that he lacks both.
In the last month, Ohio University's Student Senate has rejected on at least three occasions the notion that students should have a voice on this campus. The senate twice rejected a confidence vote on the Board of Trustees. Now, its president opposes a student referendum on a fee to help pay for a $40-million technology upgrade.
This was a chance for students to be heard - too often do administrators make decisions without input. It's disappointing - however unsurprising - to see Adeyanju and Company join those ranks, even as a similar referendum passed at Bowling Green State University.
The arguments against the vote are weak. Adeyanju claims that students who elected him are not educated enough to adequately evaluate the board. He says that he and his cronies were elected to make decisions and that students should trust their leaders.
While past senates mostly ignored campus complaints, they at least gave students a voice. In 2007, a ballot initiative allowed students to evaluate whether they had faith in OU President Roderick McDavis' leadership. A significant number of students showed they wanted a chance to evaluate top leadership - a record 4,600 turned out to vote compared to 2,700 students in 2008, the year Adeyanju was elected. As their opinions are repeatedly shot down, student turnout might be even lower this year without a chance to evaluate the trustees.
Adeyanju lacks ability because he does not stand up for his constituents or give them a way to express concerns about trustees who make major decisions on how to use their tuition dollars. He has repeatedly approved student fees without presenting another solution and has ignored widespread student opinion.
He lacks accountability because he feebly agrees as administrators burden students - the people who elected him in good faith that he would act in their interests - with additional fees without even asking for input from those affected. Adeyanju even criticized students whose constituents expressed a desire to evaluate the trustees, telling them there was no need to revisit the issue.
When Adeyanju was asked in a Post interview if the technology fee should be put to a student vote, he said that these decisions should be made in closed administrative meetings without consideration for student input. The representatives ... that's what they're here for
that's what they elect us to do - to govern for them and make decisions in their best interests Adeyanju said. Statements like this, coupled with his refusal to let a confidence vote in trustees get on the ballot, show his disdain for the basic tenets of democracy, responsibility and shared governance.
Even if he were to argue on behalf of students, Adeyanju's input is limited. Student Senate has been a doormat for the administration for as long as we can remember, but Adeyanju takes the ineptitude of student government to a whole new level.
Senate has a valuable tool at its disposal: It can poll the student body and find out what it really thinks, but instead it passively writes meaningless recommendations on university policies. Now we can add the technology fee to the laundry list of decisions made without meaningful student input.
A person who does not have the courage to speak up for his or her rights cannot earn the respect of others, much less lead them. Student Senate cannot hope to gain real input with a president who smiles and nods as bad decisions are made. A real leader would stand up for constituents - not express approval for decisions that ultimately hurt them.
Editorials represent the views of The Post's executive editors.
4
Opinion
Adeyanju fails to take stand for student voices on campus
