Change Through Councils

Like the anti-war protests in 1968, the anti-apartheid protests in 1985, and even the hunger strike in 1996, last year’s hunger strike created a whirlwind that set many different parts of the campus against each other. Each time the University met at least some of the students’ demands, the success was accompanied by a divided campus. Some might say that this trade-off is the effect of the University’s proud culture of protest, that somehow the repeated cycle of built-up frustration exploding every five or ten years is a good pattern to have. Yet, given that in most of these cases the students have been successful, perhaps the University should create a new culture of more cooperation between students and administration.

These divisive incidents could have been prevented had the University been more forthcoming about its own efforts and more receptive to student concerns. To start, the University needs to give the student councils and other student representatives the respect and voice their positions merit. To do otherwise is to stifle the voices of the student community and to continue the pointlessly roundabout cycle of anger and protest instead of reaching the same accomplishments without the accompanying furor.

The end of the hunger strike offers the most recent example of the problem. As many remember, the University negotiated directly with the hunger strikers. While private, confidential negotiations had been ongoing between the councils and the University, publicly the elected student councils were mere observers in these negotiations, relegated to the same status in those meetings as the journalists sent to cover the proceedings. When the University acceded to the strikers’ demands late at night, it was without consultation or vote from any of the student councils or other representatives. In short, the same people that students had elected to represent them to the administration had little say and no power in a fundamentally important decision involving $50 million towards undergraduate studies as well as several other education projects.

What message does blocking out the student councils send? Does it encourage the next group of concerned students to make any effort to go through the councils? Does it encourage trust in the student councils to actually represent the undergraduate schools? No. As a result, the concessions to the strikers were seen as unfair, given that they were towards a group of students rather than the councils. This is particularly tragic given that the University said it was planning to implement these changes anyway. Regardless of how true that claim may be, many students will now be more skeptical about the successes of the hunger strike than they otherwise might be. This is unfortunate given the validity of their proposals. This is not to say that representatives of the strikers should not have been allowed to negotiate. They absolutely should have, as the strike was for their own particular point of view. Yet the exclusion of the student councils from a more central role put an unnecessarily divisive edge on the successes of the hunger strikers.

More importantly, it continues the tradition of blocking more measured methods of change until students become so frustrated that they decide their message can only be heard by hunger-striking or by taking over a building. Currently, students seeking major reform are often frustrated at every turn because the powers of the student councils are limited for forcing through what the student body would prefer. Some might object that the student councils would not use the power given to them or that they will not represent smaller groups correctly. If that is the case, then we simply come back to square one. If it is possible, though, there is no reason to have to go through a phase of raised passion before every major change is accomplished or to have each accomplishment preceded by a showdown. If the same goals can be met without the furor, and the anger, then should we not try to do so?

Thus, the next time that a big debate rolls around the campus, the burden is on the administration to get the student councils more involved as representatives of the students as a whole. Some might argue that the students have to make the effort first and that the administration is fine as it is. The administration, though, has the control, the longevity, and, frankly, the power to make real changes. One hard-charging council cannot make a long-term difference on its own. There must be a commitment from the administration to more student council representation and power in large incidents like the ones surrounding the hunger strike. A good place to start, even though some might think it “too little too late,” would be more public student council involvement in the planning of Manhattanville. At least both sides will have progressed through dialogue fully before more divisive measures appear. The chance for more input by the student councils will ensure that the representatives of the whole undergraduate body have the impact on change that their position merits and will go a long way towards reducing the discord that frequently tears our campus apart.

The author is a Columbia College sophomore. He is a representative-at-large on the SGB. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not express those of SGB.