StuCo should shift to greater advocacy

By: Zachary Moor

Posted: 5/1/08

I have been a part of the Student Council for four years and write this as a final effort to advance a body I respect so much. My four years have convinced me that the Council is composed of some of the most ambitious, dynamic and compassionate individuals at Hopkins. I have also come to believe that the Council must change. Here I will list the current dilemmas and advance a course of action.

The issues the Student Council faces are both internal and external. The first is an emphasis on the administrative. Committees like COLA and Authorization get bogged down in paperwork and endless interviews. While leadership appointments and student group approval are important tasks, they do not advance student interests. They are the acts of a bureaucrat, not of an advocate. The new constitution will hopefully spread the workload a bit, though the same redundant tasks remain.

There is a lack of cooperation from the administration. This stems not from disrespect but from a conflict of interests. The deans at Hopkins are caring individuals, but they are also employees of Hopkins. Often the larger interests of the University conflict with those of its students. This leads to students being closed out of critical decisions regarding health care, tuition and the presidential search committee of late. Without being included in such decisions, the Council remains hamstrung.

As a result of this imposed ignorance, the Council appears reactionary and inept. Such a perception is common among students and while undeserved, it is understandable. Students then check out, leaving the Council impotent. Without the political capital an engaged student body provides, the Council can never have legitimacy.

In an effort to stem this, Hopkins has made a commendable effort to incorporate the students into the decision-making process through liaisons. This has backfired. Student Council has become so entrenched in the lower echelon of this mechanism that it deludes itself into a false sense of inclusion.

The most fundamental problem plaguing the Council is intrinsic. For too long the body has drifted towards programming rather than advocacy. It cannot be this way. The Council must become the voice of the students, not their social coordinator.

To remedy this situation, technical, institutional and social changes must be realized. From a technical point the administrative work must be minimized or outsourced. The creation of satellite groups to perform these functions is an option as is devolving these responsibilities to other student groups.

Further, all programming must be stopped. Council should always be on the side of fun, but its purpose is larger. Finally, elections should not be done based on class or committee. Officers should not be preoccupied with serving these narrow interests. Instead they must seek out the larger issues.

On an institutional level there must also be change. The Council must become fiscally independent. There is no way to negotiate when in a position of dependency. Such a bold move would force the Council to economize their resources and to assess their priorities. More broadly, the Council must secure political autonomy. It must move from the system of a paternalistic oversight to a more egalitarian one.

From a social place the Council must reach out to students. The way to do this is to re-calibrate the way the agenda is set. Instead of having officers work as political entrepreneurs, students must decide the issues. The job of an officer is to solicit the opinions of the students on the salient issues of the day. By salient issues I mean security, healthcare, housing and dining, tuition, travel abroad and internship credits.

There are promising signs that change is coming. Over the course of the year the Council and the executive board in particular have become increasingly vocal about the need to secure more cooperation from the administration. This is part of a broader feeling that the function of the body needs to shift from programming to advocacy.

It remains to be seen if this positive spirit will be translated into action. If the past is any indication, the Council will disappoint. Yet this change depends on intelligent and courageous students, and Hopkins certainly has no shortage of those.