I am appalled and incensed by those in Student Senate, our supposed elected representatives, who believe there should be a limit on students' opportunities to collectively voice their opinion. The Post reported on April 9 that the Senate, for the third time, voted down a resolution calling for an evaluation of the Board of Trustees on this spring's ballot.
I fully reject Senator Chauncey Jackson's idea that it is not the Board's job to adequately respond to student input. Obviously the Board is not expected to do whatever we want. There are many other constituent groups who are affected, often in opposing ways, by the Board's decisions. But as the primary source of funds for the institution, the Board has an obligation to consider and to respond in some fashion to our concerns. This ballot initiative would be one outlet for communicating those concerns to the Board.
I agree with the opposition to the resolution that questions on a ballot are not the best means for gauging student opinion of what are very complex issues. The move to conduct more thorough research on student's feelings toward the Board is laudable.
But why are these mechanisms mutually exclusive? I should think Student Senate is competent enough to do many things at once: conduct a survey, interview stake-holders and, most importantly, let the entire student body register their opinions through a vote. What is the justification for limiting students' avenues for expressing their opinions? It is disgusting that President Michael Adeyanju actually criticized those senators who worked diligently to develop a compromise ballot initiative that would expand students' ability to have their voices heard.
The true insult to students is the suggestion from Senator Jackson that students are too uninformed to know how they feel about the Board. I, and many other students, are informed enough to know that the Board rehired (with a raise) a president under heavy criticism without conducting a full evaluation first, even though its own policy required one. I'm informed enough to know that the Board considered and may still adopt a Statement of Expectations that seriously threatens Board members' ability to express dissent. I'm aware that the chairman of the Board, Daniel DeLawder (whose name I did already know) is hostile to any form of accountability for the administration of this university and is sickened by the waste and unproductive time spent in the name of open records and freedom of the press. And I damned well know that this is enough information for me to decide where on a scale of 1 to 5 to put my mark.
Even if most students do not know much about the Board, the deliberation surrounding a ballot initiative would itself be an informative process. By keeping that debate off the agenda, the opponents of the resolution have simply ingrained ignorance.
Alas, perhaps it is true that students are not informed enough about the issues they vote on in Student Senate elections to accurately express their own interests. After all, last year I believed that voting for Mr. Adeyanju and Mr. Jackson's senate party would lead to a student government that would be competent at advocating for its constituents' concerns. How ignorant of me.
Luke Myers is a senior studying political science.
4 Opinion
Letter to the Editor
