Op-Ed
History Repeats Itself
Email: 
Share: 
Walking Backwards
March 14, 2007 - 1:00am“It is a great potential power for students. However, I don’t think it’s used to its full potential. I guess perhaps the biggest fault is apathy on campus.”
“I would think any body which represents various factions of the University needs to have things like a lot of people interested in being members, clear lines of what the authority and responsibilities are, clear debate on the issues and specific progress reports at the end of the year, and I haven’t seen too much of that.”
“I don’t expect an awful lot out of it.”
Sound familiar? The preceding quotations all refer to Cornell University’s student government. However, they aren’t speaking of the Student Assembly. Instead, these comments were said of the University Senate, the S.A.’s predecessor from the 1970s.
Sun Podcast: A podcast is available for this column. Click here to listen to or to download it.
Over the years, Cornell students have had a variety of self-governing bodies. The Senate was formed in 1970 largely as a response to the turmoil of the late 1960s. Originally numbering at 140 members, it was reduced to 95 in its first few years. The membership consisted of more than just students, also including faculty, employees, alumni and administration. Considered extremely powerful for a governing body of its type, the Senate had jurisdiction over policy and appointments in the judicial system and policy and budgets for campus life, among other things.
Sadly, the Senate’s value began to be questioned around 1976. In that year’s election, 22 of the 95 seats were vacant after the elections. Studies of voter turnout showed that student participation had dropped from a high of 32 percent down to 26 percent in 1975. A letter by respected professor Frederick Marcham, published in the Cornell Chronicle, pointed to a “lack of community interest in the Senate, as expressed in widespread student and faculty apathy towards it, and as registered in the alarming lack of candidates for seats.” He went on to state that, “the best course, in my judgment, would be to abolish the Senate.”
In April 1977, just over a year after that letter was published, the University Senate held its last meeting before vanishing. It was replaced by a Campus Council of only 16 members. This system lasted until 1981, when the Student Assembly was created.
Fast forward 30 years to 2007 and we find many of the same problems plaguing our student government. The recent Student Assembly election had only 22 students competing for 19 seats. With only two seats actually in question, the election was nearly meaningless. There are over 13,500 undergraduate students at Cornell University, and it’s a travesty that so few have expressed interest in their student government. A lack of interest appeared in the voting results as well. Based on the numbers available through the Assembly website, it appears that approximately 16 percent of undergraduates voted. Alarmingly, only 38 people voted in the race for the College of Art, Architecture, and Planning position — just over 7 percent of the undergraduates in that college. Of course, why should students vote if there’s only one person running? When only 26 percent of students voted in 1975, it was considered serious enough to reevaluate and revise the entire student government system. Why does no one care now?
Also disturbing is how unrepresentative the Student Assembly is of the actual student body of the University. Only two women were on the recent ballot, and the seat for a Human Ecology representative remains empty. An election of this nature only justifies the overwhelmingly negative image of the S.A. that pervades the campus community.
Many have been quick to justify the low number of candidates in the election. Some students blame the recent resolution to abolish tickets, preventing candidates from banding together for support. However, I feel that any candidate who is unable or unwilling to stand on his or her own is unworthy of election. Tickets at times forced uninterested or undedicated candidates into elections.
Some have blamed the low number of candidates on the productivity and lack of controversy surrounding last year’s Student Assembly, mistakenly considering this election a sign of success. Conversely, some have pointed to the continued ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the S.A. as the culprit. Another answer is that there was inadequate publicity to encourage candidates to run for election.
But whatever the reason, apathy towards the Student Assembly is the chief problem and must be addressed. Although its powers are limited, the S.A. is currently the primary conduit to the administration for the student body. Its members control issues of byline funding, dining, campus life, sustainability and more. They have the potential to make decisions that significantly impact the University, and not just themselves. Sadly, a look at the actions taken during the current academic year shows little progress in discarding the S.A.’s negative stereotype. Many of the resolutions currently listed on the S.A. website only directly affect members of the S.A. or are merely laudatory and without impact. They even passed a resolution on what types of resolutions should be passed.
I encourage Cornell University’s undergraduate leaders to take a more active interest in their governance. With elections finished, students still have the opportunity to be involved on one of the Student Assembly’s many committees. Contact your representatives and make sure that they are addressing issues of importance. Attend an S.A. meeting to become more knowledgeable. The S.A. has the potential to act as a strong advocate for students on a variety of issues, and students should demand nothing more than the best representation from the Assembly. In the next election, I hope that more student leaders will work through the bureaucracy and take on the challenge of running for S.A. The best way to improve this institution is to change it from the inside.
Maybe the apathy is just a sign of the times and not a problem with the fundamental nature of the Student Assembly. On the other hand, perhaps the S.A. has outlived its usefulness. Its 26-year reign dwarfs the short lifespans of its governing predecessors. Is it time we reevaluated the organization that speaks on behalf of nearly 14,000 students when less than 2,500 are actually involved in the process? I think so.
Corey Earle is a senior in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He can be reached at cre8@cornell.edu. Walking Backwards appears alternate Wednesdays.