American University ranks ninth in the nation for most politically active students. AU’s Student Government is ranked fifth most active. The turnout of the last SG election, however, raises eyebrows at these laurels.
1,356 students voted in the recent Student Government election, a decrease of roughly 44 percent from last election. As of fall 2022, 7,408 undergraduate students were eligible to vote in the SG election. That means around 18 percent of students voted. This is dismally low.
Why aren’t some of the most politically active students in the country voting? The answer lies in both the function and performance of SG.
SG is an advocacy body, not a legislative one. It is meant to be the bridge between the University’s administration and students, a place for our voices to be amplified. This means that most resolutions passed in the Senate or orders from the executive branch do not actually create change, because it is ultimately up to the administration to follow through with SG legislation.
Because of this system, it is challenging for SG to do much for students in terms of policy. Since students do not see their representatives actually causing a difference, it disheartens students to the entire process. What’s the point of voting if our senators and executives can’t actually do much? Why should a massive budget be allocated for something that doesn’t directly help all students?
SG is allocated $45,000 for stipends each year from the Center for Student Involvement, which is funded through the undergraduate student activity fee. The executive branch members (president, vice president, secretary and comptroller) are compensated $6,000 each. This number feels strikingly high, creating apathy, and sometimes resentment, from students who do not feel understood or represented by SG. Why should students support paying for $6,000 stipends for jobs that have seemingly no tangible benefit on our lives?
The SG website does not help clarify questions students may have about what SG accomplishes. Instead, it is riddled with vague descriptions that don’t clarify what our representatives do on a day-to-day basis. When students are faced with a confusing website, they are dissuaded from caring about their votes. If we do not know what our vote can accomplish, it is not worth voting at all.
This election was particularly difficult to find information about. Before the election began, the SG Instagram posted an infographic about how candidates can find more information on how to run. After that, silence. There were no posts explaining who was running or how to find more information about them on Instagram, the SG Twitter account has not been updated since 2022 and the Facebook page has not been updated since 2021. SG emailed information on the candidates running to students, but not all students received it. If a student was not on the email list, they had no way of voting or finding out who is running. The lack of social media presence disallows students from learning about SG and building trust with the organization.
To compare, let’s look at another organization on campus that holds elections and receives a relatively high budget from AU: the Residence Hall Association. The spring 2022 budget for RHA was $38,000, with $5,400 for all stipends. RHA’s social media is constantly in use, updating students about new events that our money pays for. During the election season, RHA posted information about who was running in a timely fashion, giving students enough leeway to research candidates before the election season. RHA not only emailed students living on campus about the election, but also posted a link to vote on their Instagram.
If SG wants students to trust it and participate in elections, it must work on being more transparent and effective. SG’s rigid rules and parliamentary procedures turn many students off from learning more about it and seem frankly ridiculous for an organization that does not have much real power. SG must start acting like what it is: an advocacy body. It should frequently post about its accomplishments and agendas. Not only would this allow students to better understand its function, but it would also allow us to see if administration is actually listening to our demands. To effectively hold administration accountable, we must know what we have asked for. SG must be more transparent or risk losing student support entirely, although there is not much there to begin with.
This article was edited by Alexis Bernstein and Abigail Pritchard. Copy editing done by Isabelle Kravis, Leta Lattin, Natasha LaChac
editor@theeagleonline.com
