Why do universities have student councils? What should be the mission and goals of a student council? Why are so many student councils, including Hopkins' council, often criticized as ineffective and powerless? What is both good and bad about Hopkins' current student government structure, and how can it be improved?
These are just a few of the questions that a group of undergraduates, including this editorial's authors, began discussing in February. The outcome of asking students these questions is a proposal for a new Student Council Constitution that is up for a student-wide vote this Mon, Apr. 22. The proposal will be called "Amendment A" on the ballot. We would like to clarify the key components of the reforms and why we are proposing these changes now. This editorial will also address major misconceptions that have been circulating regarding our constitutional reforms. Please take a moment to consider our ideas.
The Hopkins Student Council has always been charged with two main responsibilities: 1) to conduct and implement policy issues that affect campus life and 2) to provide social programming for each class by organizing events and providing funding to campus groups. Student Council members are often pulled in various directions and obligated to fulfill requirements to both policy and programming. We believe this weakens Council's ability to efficiently deal with either of their two main responsibilities on a continual basis. Some students who run for Council because of an interest in social programming are forced to work on policy issues, and vice versa. To amend this critical incongruity, we propose to remove social programming responsibilities from Council's control. Instead, the campus' main current programming group, the HOP (Hopkins Organization for Programming), will organize all school-wide and class social programming events. In order to increase accountability and provide a large committed staff, the HOP will now have elected positions. There will be one elected HOP chair to oversee the entire organization, and five elected programmers per class. Students would be encouraged to volunteer in the HOP and work alongside their elected social programmers.
Because the HOP will now be in charge of social programming, student council itself will focus only on policy issues. We propose changing the name of all Student Council members to "senators" and decreasing the size of Council to 19 total members: Four senators per class and three school-wide members - the Student Council Chair, the HOP Chair, and the SAC Chair. Senators will spend the majority of their time serving on committees. These committees will develop, debate and oversee the policies and procedures pertinent to their roles. The committees will be: Academic Affairs, Communications and Selection (which will serve as the class e-mail proctor and oversee selections for programs like the MSE Symposium), Community Relations, Diversity and Homewood Student Affairs.
The main reason we are proposing these reforms right now, rather than waiting until next year, is because we believe changes need to be made and do not want to lose another year under the current structure. Change is difficult at any time and cannot occur without friction and resistance. But using the excuse to delay reform simply because of a fear of unknown future results of a new structure does not make sense. That excuse can be used whenever these reforms are proposed, and it does not deny the important fact that while change may be challenging, it is necessary now! No government system anywhere, at any level, is perfect. Our proposals do not suggest that this new system will be free of glitches. Instead, we leave most of our reforms open to the input of future elected leaders in order for them to best iron out whatever kinds remain and develop a healthier, more effective (and powerful) Student Council. What our constitution implements is a distinct philosophical shift in the role and goals of Student Council. Council should not be about getting a leadership title, building one's resume, or any other personal perks. Council should be about implementing real policy and taking action to improve the lives of all students and everyone in the broader Hopkins community.
Lastly, we must clarify what our proposed Constitution does not do and lay to rest damaging misconceptions. First, our reforms do not in any way alter the Student Activities Commission (SAC) or its leadership structure. Second, if this amendment passes on Monday, it will not leave Council inactive for the summer and weaken its ability to plan for next year. Every May, the new Council leadership must always approve, and alter if necessary, their by-laws that define their operational structure. This year will be no different if the amendment passes. All of the school-wide leadership positions are already filled, and more representatives for next year will be determined in Monday's elections. Thus, there will be plenty of elected students to begin the work during the summer and into the fall. This editorial can only provide a brief sketch of our reforms and motivations, because of space limitations. For more information and a copy of our proposed Constitution, please visit http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/sag13. We hope you will carefully consider our reforms, weighing the current system and its faults against the potential of a new exciting structure with increased accountability and power. Please vote for "Amendment A" on Mon,Apr. 22.
-Jenny Chiang, Stephen Goutman, April Land, Eric Leslie and Morgan Mcdonald contributed to this editorial.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.