Editor’s Note: Leah Rosofsky ’16 is the Presidential Associate for the 2015-2016 academic year for SGA. As Presidential Associate, she is appointed by the President, and not elected by the student body.
The Executive Board and Chairs Council has had lapses in judgment, reflected in cell phone correspondence. GroupMe messages, which Exec Board members and Chairs have taken responsibility for, are said to be the catalyst for creating a “toxic environment.” However, this correspondence is not an indicator of a toxic environment; it is instead a reminder that SGA, as a space, has been structured in a way that has disenfranchised students.
I would like to acknowledge that I am not speaking on behalf of the entire Executive Board and Chairs Council. My purpose in writing this article, as Presidential Associate, is not to deny that negative events occurred; rather, my goal is to shift the focus of our conversations and broaden the contextual scope. I argue that SGA exists and operates within a system that would never be able to meet the demands being asked of it. SGA does not have the type of institutional pull that students want it to have.
Student government acts as a liaison between the students and the administration. Taking a root cause approach to solving the broken student government would involve changing a hierarchy that extends far beyond the confines of Ernst at 7:15 p.m. Not only is this semester’s Executive Board and Chairs Council the most diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, sex, class, gender and sexual orientation that the Class of 2016 has seen in their four years at Conn, it is also the first time in recent history that there has been any attempt at restructuring and revising SGA processes.
I don’t do SGA because I am interested in government, I do SGA because I like to make connections with other students who believe in making this school better. As elected members, the students on the Exec Board and Chairs Council should be held accountable for their actions by the greater student body. However, they should be held accountable as students. If we break it down, “Student” represents all students, “Government” addresses the political nature of the organization, and “Association” refers to the individuals who work together to provide for students. But, as of now, the parts of this sum are being reviewed selectively and individually.
SGA serves as a singular voice for the collective student body, and this benefits the administration. With the presence of SGA, student clubs and organizations are cut off from direct interaction with the administration. Consequently, blame for institutional failure often rests on the shoulders of students in SGA, rather than on administrators themselves. The administration is often granted the privilege of silence; meanwhile, individuals on SGA Exec and Chairs—our peers—are under immense pressure to perform institutional responsibility.
The third resolution that SGA passed this year, “CC 15-16 #3 Resolution for the Connecticut College Association to Deconstruct the Previously Adhered to Standards of Dress at the General Body Meetings,” addressed a long-term concern of SGA performing a traditional and privileged status within the campus community: requiring business casual attire at Assembly meetings. Passing this resolution came with the acknowledgement that this year’s SGA would challenge and rethink norms.
The restructuring process opens a space in which more voices can finally be heard, but this should not come at the expense of other students’ well being. Students in leadership positions work in a historically and politically situated space. Members of SGA, especially those who have been on SGA for multiple years, have the difficult task of attempting to better a system while simultaneously continuing to work within its channels. This has resulted in hurt feelings, both on the part of people in the Assembly, as well as Exec Board members and Chairs.
At this moment, SGA has passed more resolutions than last year’s SGA passed all year. These include initiatives to fund student research, to create a task force to restructure club processes and to support numerous sustainability projects. In order for SGA to work for students, students must work with SGA. In the past few weeks, I have questioned SGA and its potential to incite change through legislation. I have come to the conclusion that the system is flawed, but we’re doing the best we can. We want the system to improve, and we want to keep support student endeavors. It is incredibly difficult to do both at the same time.
It is unfortunate that the first Exec Board and Chairs Council to attempt restructuring is being blamed for a structure that has existed for years. Restructuring is a process, not an event. It is not our faults that define us, and we should not let them divide us. •
