Spring Break
EDITORIAL: Intervention killed compromise
Editorial | 12/4/07
Posted online at 11:10 PM EST on 12/3/07
/ Last updated at 2:50 AM EST on 12/3/07
Vice President for Students and Enrollment Jean Eddy's acceptance of the Student Events proposal to receive a direct portion of the Student Activities Fee and her unwillingness to give enough time to allow for compromise reveal an administration out of touch with student life.
What was most troubling about the administration's decision was its unwillingness to allow students to solve their problems on their own initiative. When a club disagrees with a funding decision, it has several options for recourse. Members can take their voices to the student body and arrange a vote for a constitutional amendment, as was done with the SAF amendment two years ago, or they can negotiate with Student Union leaders on a compromise, as is currently being done over this very issue.
Instead, by accepting this proposal and putting Student Events under control of professional planning, the administration has declared that students do not have the capacity to create their own successful campus social dynamic or the maturity to resolve their own funding disputes.
By allowing for a third option, appealing to the administration, to trump more traditional ways of dealing with disputes, the administration has punctured the vital social dynamic that it hoped to enhance. Once such a breach of our constitution is made, further breaches are far more likely.
While we believe that disregard for the Union Constitution is dangerous, what is perhaps even more disturbing is the timetable. The Union only found out about the proposal after it had already been submitted to the admnistration. This meant that they had a very narrow window of time to reach any accommodation with Student Events before an administrative decision could be reached. Yet, the administration rejected an Executive Board petition and issued a ruling over Thanksgiving.
In her letter to the Student Union, Eddy wrote that she would be willing to re-evaluate her decision if Student Events and the Student Union could come to a mutual agreement. However, her decision to implement the change at the start of next semester left Union officials with scant days to barter some sort of a compromise. Petitions to delay implementation and give the two groups more time to negotiate were also not respected.
There have been no indication that any disputes could not have been settled within the system. Student Events and the Union could have, and are currently attempting to, come to a reasonable accommodation in terms of funding and power sharing, if the administration had only respected the constitution and let student decisions stand.
What was most troubling about the administration's decision was its unwillingness to allow students to solve their problems on their own initiative. When a club disagrees with a funding decision, it has several options for recourse. Members can take their voices to the student body and arrange a vote for a constitutional amendment, as was done with the SAF amendment two years ago, or they can negotiate with Student Union leaders on a compromise, as is currently being done over this very issue.
Instead, by accepting this proposal and putting Student Events under control of professional planning, the administration has declared that students do not have the capacity to create their own successful campus social dynamic or the maturity to resolve their own funding disputes.
By allowing for a third option, appealing to the administration, to trump more traditional ways of dealing with disputes, the administration has punctured the vital social dynamic that it hoped to enhance. Once such a breach of our constitution is made, further breaches are far more likely.
While we believe that disregard for the Union Constitution is dangerous, what is perhaps even more disturbing is the timetable. The Union only found out about the proposal after it had already been submitted to the admnistration. This meant that they had a very narrow window of time to reach any accommodation with Student Events before an administrative decision could be reached. Yet, the administration rejected an Executive Board petition and issued a ruling over Thanksgiving.
In her letter to the Student Union, Eddy wrote that she would be willing to re-evaluate her decision if Student Events and the Student Union could come to a mutual agreement. However, her decision to implement the change at the start of next semester left Union officials with scant days to barter some sort of a compromise. Petitions to delay implementation and give the two groups more time to negotiate were also not respected.
There have been no indication that any disputes could not have been settled within the system. Student Events and the Union could have, and are currently attempting to, come to a reasonable accommodation in terms of funding and power sharing, if the administration had only respected the constitution and let student decisions stand.
Be the first to comment on this story