Legislate Slow, Homie

I talked a lot of student-council “game” last week, and this week I’m going to back it up. I’ll admit some faults with the current system so that underclassmen can learn for the future, but I’m going to defend some things too. When contentious initiatives start at Columbia, they tend to move fast at first, then hit roadblocks and stall. Occasionally, they start out slowly from day one.

Usually small groups of students present the campus with polarizing issues. This occurs for a couple of reasons—it’s easier to plan logistics with fewer people, and working with like-minded individuals doesn’t require one to educate others. The problem with this method is that aside from the organizers, no one on campus actually understands the history or the current context of a given situation. For example, no one understood why the Core Curriculum should require more seminar-format course choices, just as no one really understands the upcoming survey seeking student opinion about the possibility of installing a Navy ROTC program on our campus. This is essentially what happened with the Navy ROTC conversation earlier this fall until I stopped it from going to the University Senate until it could be fully surveyed by the student body. As soon as news leaked about a closed planning meeting, students began to ask many questions and express frustrations about student government transparency and fears of groups being left out of the process.

These concerns were and are completely warranted. This is a great example of why it is important to keep everything on the record. As members of student government, we’re forced to make progress and address concerns. The student councils’ goal right now is to gauge student opinion by engaging student groups. Currently, all progress on the Navy ROTC issue has been stopped until the survey is distributed, which will happen after the two forums for interested student groups are held. If the survey shows that most students do not support the Navy ROTC, the senate will not even consider it. If there is overwhelming support, then it will surely take precedence on the senate’s agenda. None of us can make the call as to what happens—you will. Although we did not discuss politics in last Wednesday’s closed meeting, I know there was a diverse array of opinions in the room. Despite that, we all worked tremendously well together. If you are worried about logistical hassle on Friday due to political disagreements, don’t be.

Last Sunday, we released a protocol for how the four undergraduate student councils will obtain student opinion. We did this to outline how we hope to be fair to every student. Campus politicos try to understand how to obtain a broad range of student opinions during campaigns, but rarely succeed and often give up after they’re elected. Columbia College Student Council politics definitely places more emphasis on student group support—perhaps this is because we rely on endorsements and door-to-door canvassing during the campaign. Council’s job is to provide students with as much information as possible and include you in discussions. Thus, this protocol was also aimed at ensuring that groups put less energy into intensifying stigma around contentious issues and more toward multi-lateral efforts for students to work together to express different views.

There is still much work to do. We can not reach out, educate, and unite the campus unless we have student group support.

Unfortunately, several student groups were left out of Wednesday’s closed meeting, which was aimed toward addressing concerns about an ROTC forum and creating a timeline for the process. I did have to ask Everyone Allied Against Homophobia to leave. This is because it would have been unfair to allow them to come to the meeting without allowing clubs including Lucha, Club Zamana, or the College Libertarians, who were also not initially invited. I asked them and others not to send a representative, because in a previous meeting our group of members agreed to make Wednesday’s meeting closed for the sake of productive planning without creating a reactionary situation—unfortunately, it seems like that can no longer happen. I unilaterally opened up Wednesday’s meeting to a few larger cultural organizations so that we could have a good group of people experienced with practical logistics in the room. In this meeting we decided that only the student councils will be responsible for organizing and writing up a non-partisan information handout on the history of Naval ROTC at Columbia, organizing two forums the week before our vote, writing up questions for the survey, and actually administering the survey to our student populations. No group will have any advantage or special say in this process.

At this point, groups have the most important role. It is their job to show up to an open meeting on Friday, let us know that they want a spot in one of the council-planned forums, meet other groups who are also aiming to organize, and work hard to educate the student body about their perspective on ROTC. There is currently no planned outlet for individuals to organize, but that can be changed. Friday’s meeting is open. The councils are not taking a stance on ROTC—our role is to educate and facilitate. This should be an exciting collaborative process. We’ll be completely transparent from here on out. See you on Friday.

Adil Ahmed is a Columbia College senior majoring in history.
Additional Minutes runs alternate Wednesdays.
Opinion@columbiaspectator.com">Opinion@columbiaspectator.com