A tale of two governing boards

There are just under 300 student groups at Columbia. They range from cultural groups to performance troupes, political committees to publications. Of this total, there are quite a few whose missions seem to be, if not exact copies, then largely overlapping. This is something that should be closely examined. The money used to support multiple groups that are essentially working toward the same mission is our money. Furthermore, it is money that could be used to support new and distinct organizations in the future. That being said, we are not calling for the elimination of any of these student organizations. Rather, we believe that the problem is symptomatic of a larger inefficiency in student group governance.

The Student Governing Board and the Activities Board at Columbia are essentially identical in terms of structure—the fundamental distinction between them is the category of clubs that they are meant to govern. Merging the two governing boards would save money and resources, help resolve the issue of club overlap, and eliminate some of the most senseless bureaucracy at Columbia. It would also standardize policies for areas such as first-year funding and new group recognition, which differ unnecessarily between the two boards. For all that we complain about red tape and administrative inefficiency (and we do complain quite a bit), this particular opaque and confusing process is one we students have made for ourselves.

Let’s say that a group of students wanted to set up a new organization that was both mildly cultural and political in nature. The students would first decide which of the two governing boards they needed to address. They could first go to ABC, which reports to Student Development and Activities, or SDA. SDA then reports to Terry Martinez, who is dean of community development and multicultural affairs. If ABC decided that, although the group is cultural, it is also political and should thus report to SGB, the group would then have to try its luck with SGB, which reports to the Office of Civic Action and Engagement, or OCAE, which used to be called the Office of Student Group Advising, or OSGA. It is worth noting that OCAE (formerly OSGA), like SDA, reports to Martinez, who in turn reports to Dean Kevin Shollenberger. If SGB decides that this group is better suited to being governed by SDA than OCAE, it will send it back to ABC, by which point the alphabet soup will have grown lukewarm. In addition to the problem of club duplication, students and groups alike are getting caught between two governing boards that exist solely so that there can be two governing boards.

This was, of course, not always the case. Administrators and student leaders alike point to history as the reason for the division of responsibilities. It goes back to the 1960s, they say, when SGB was founded to give groups focused on advocacy some sense of autonomy in turbulent times. Under the aegis of the Office of the University Chaplain, SGB and its groups enjoyed a protective remove from the rough-and-tumble of student administration. And until 1998, ABC did not exist, and the groups it now governs were overseen by the student councils—it only became a unique governing board for administrative convenience, and it was supervised by Student Affairs. But the problem does not go back 50 years or even 12 years, as three years ago, SGB was moved from the Chaplain’s Office to Student Affairs. The history is an artificial narrative. For the past three years, there have been two governing boards doing essentially the same thing and reporting (ultimately) to the same office.

We recognize and appreciate that there would be logistical concerns in merging the two. But so, too, are there logistical concerns that arise from the inefficiency of the current system. The options are to work through the logistics and merge the boards, or to shrug and continue replying for however many more years, “Well, it all goes back to the ’60s.”

But how could the two boards be merged? Barring the boards’ leadership deciding to cede power and become one, or the Office of Student Affairs becoming directly involved in student affairs without any support from the students, this change would need to come from the students. Given the extreme unlikelihood of all students mobilizing for an issue that does not seem to affect most of them on a day-to-day basis, that means there needs to be an intermediary party to gauge how students feel, bring concerns to the administration, and put pressure on the governing boards. For all that we complain about the powerlessness of students (which, again, is a fair amount), this is one area in which the student councils actually have a very real capability to do something productive and tangible for their constituents. This is an issue that concerns students and can be solved by students. We hope the councils will serve us. We are hungry for that, not for another bowl of alphabet soup.

Josefina Aguila recused herself from the writing of this editorial because she is a member of a group currently in the process of applying for recognition from SGB.