Does AU Student Government effectively represent the student body?
It’s a simple question, and one that often receives a less than ideal answer.
All too often, mentioning the SG in conversation lead to groans and eye-rolls.
After an article detailing SG cooperation with Safe Space training was featured on the front page of The Eagle, we’re told via Eagle Rant to “stop pretending that what they [Student Government representatives] do actually matters.”
It shouldn’t be this way.
An organization dedicated to “the needs and collective voice of over 6,000 undergraduates” should inspire sentiments of admiration from the students they represent, not apathy and disdain.
Recognizing this serious image problem, the SG Senate is attempting to significantly improve their public appeal.
The Eagle applauds this move, because frankly, it is a much needed one.
It is likely that many SG senators have aspirations for elected office beyond AU. And that’s an expected, even a welcome part of our school’s political activism. Yet this has led to an imitation of politicians that is just a little too accurate.
Recent debates have made it seem like the senators relish the minutiae of procedure over concrete accomplishments.
For example, in an effort to foster a welcoming environment for senators’ office hours, senators pushed a bill that would require office doors to be left open. But this bill was nearly squandered by an extended debate about the cost of the required doorstops.
Yes, you read that correctly. Doorstops.
Even the fact that the senators felt they needed to legislate the state of their office doors is absurd. It is this type of mundane activity that causes students to lose interest in student government in any form.
The near-obsession with procedure and process has perpetuated SG’s reputation as an out-of-touch and inaccessible behemoth.
Both A New AU and Occupy AU are symptoms of our SG straying from the path of effective student advocacy.
These separate organizations have been formed as a response to the AU administration’s perceived lack of transparency. Isn’t this the very type of advocacy the SG is meant to perform? The fact that students felt the need to go outside of the very organization formed to represent their interests truly depicts the SG’s need for improvement.
Significant outreach is needed to revamp student perception of the SG. We’ve been told that a number of SG senators hold office hours on the Quad in an attempt to truly mingle with their constituents. This is a great start, but efforts like these must be publicized.
Another simple improvement would be if newly elected senators wrote regular emails to their constituents, introducing themselves and sharing their accomplishments and goals.
If the majority of AU students can’t name their class senators, an introductory email alone would be a vast improvement.
Some may say that the student body has little right to complain about the state of the SG. After all, the SG senators and executive were elected, not appointed.
But, when less than 30 percent of students turn up to vote — as was the case in the Spring 2011 election — AU students hardly seem invested in the process. Should the SG be expected to be responsive to an apathetic electorate?
Essentially, yes.
We at The Eagle believe this apathy would easily be fixed if the outreach strategies specified above were utilized. Once AU students begin to view the SG as an accessible and open group, the disinterest that has clouded SG activities may clear up.
In an act of impressive perception, the SG Senate passed a bill forming a committee to address student engagement as this very editorial was being written.
Yet the idea of establishing a committee — as opposed to forming concrete action — certainly doesn’t bode well for those of us waiting to see the Senate venture beyond procedure.
We encourage the Senate to convert this new focus on SG’s lackluster image into concrete action. Acceptance is only the first step to recovery. ? E
Send all responses and reactions to edpage@theeagleonline.com.
