Campus Politics: A Look at SGA’s Current Projects

Editor’s Note: Daniel Hartsoe will be writing a regular column concerning the goings-on at Student Government Association meetings

This past Thursday the Student Government Association (SGA) discussed several different issues in their weekly meeting. Highlights of the meeting were the election of students to student representative positions on numerous campus committees, amongst them the Health and Wellness Committee, the Physical Plant Committee, the Dining Services Committee and the Campus Parking Appeals Committee. The vote for the positions on five of the ten committees was uncontested, which suggested either a lack of interest in the campus issues addressed in those committees or a general lack of interest in student leadership on campus.

An election for a temporary committee was also held. This committee, the Centennial Committee, has been formed to plan the college-wide celebration of the College’s 100th birthday, which will officially be April 5, 2011. According to Vice President for College Relations, Patricia Carey, the festivities will begin with a celebration of the college’s 99th birthday this spring and will formally commence next January, running for eighteen months until the end of the 2012 academic year.

The most contentious business of the evening, however, involved the official approval of new clubs. The first of these organizations to come up for debate, Connecticut College Students Against Drunk Driving (CC SADD), seeks to prevent drunk driving and alcohol abuse on campus, to study drinking patterns in the student body and to promote non-drinking forms of entertainment.

A few representatives began the discussion period by arguing that the new club is unnecessary, as the established Peer Educators already serve a similar purpose. These representatives argued that the efforts of SGA should be directed at overseeing and coordinating the several alcohol abuse-related groups on campus instead of approving yet another group to grapple with the very same problems existing organizations currently attempt to address.

After a few comments along this line of reasoning, several representatives began to passionately counter that one more group would not hurt the attempt to curb alcohol abuse on campus, especially because alcohol is such a huge problem.

While I haven’t had much exposure to alcohol culture on campus, recognizing a student organization with the mission of addressing alcohol abuse and preventing drunk driving would not at all impair the campaigns of other groups on campus that seek to do similar things.
Moreover, SGA’s own constitution states that the assembly can only deny a club official recognition if it fits any of four descriptions: if it duplicates the purpose of another club, ‘threatens the safety and wellness of students’, is not deemed to ‘enhance the quality of life at the college’ or violates the college’s anti-discrimination clause. Since Peer Educators is run through the Office of Student Wellness and Alcohol/Drug Education and is not a student club, the club met all four criteria. Therefore, it could not be rejected by SGA. The assembly approved CC SADD’s constitution for official recognition as a club.

Another club applying for SGA ratification, One in Four, did not have as a clear a case. One in Four is an all-male organization whose purpose is to raise awareness among men of the prevalence and consequences of sexual violence. However, as the club’s constitution prohibits women from joining the organization, it violates the college’s anti-discrimination clause, and thus runs afoul of the fourth criterion for approval. However, the SGA constitution clearly states, “the Assembly may reject a constitution only if one or more of the following is true.”

This clause suggests that the SGA Assembly could choose to grant official recognition to a club that does violate the non-discrimination clause, as the wording merely prohibits the Assembly from rejecting student clubs, and does not prohibit the Assembly from approving a club for any reason. This issue became the subject of a debate that lasted half an hour, with some members arguing that One in Four should be exempted from the clause because its “discrimination” against women is not malicious, while others argued that no exceptions should be made in the non-discrimination policy.

The best solution was put forward by student body President Peter Friedrichs ’10, who proposed a resolution to signal the Assembly’s support for One in Four to soften the blow of the potential rejection of the club’s constitution.

SGA recognition isn’t necessary for a club to operate on campus – as one executive of the assembly said, the only real advantage a recognized club has over an unrecognized club is the ability to request SGA funding. Beyond the immediate issue of One in Four, SGA should look at the language in its constitution regarding the club recognition process in order to clear up the confusion about whether or not the assembly has the obligation to reject a club if its constitution violates the college’s non-discrimination clause.