Yesterday's Student Senate meeting was marked by one of the strangest acts of inaction I've ever come across. According to Senior Class Representative Megan Dooley '10: despite the direct requests of several senators, Senate Chair Brian Orser refused to create an ad hoc committee on the Senate Constitution.
(For those readers who are rusty on their Latin: ad hoc committees are created to address a specific problem or issue. It's like a special task force. In the context of Student Senate, officially recognized ad hoc committees have a specific purpose, regular and public meetings, and make regular reports to the Senate body on Sunday nights.)
Back to Sunday night: I wasn't at the meeting personally, but according to several senators present, during New and Old Business, Megan requested that Brian approve an ad hoc committee to discuss Constitutional issues. (Earlier that meeting, various aspects of the Constitution had been discussed.) Brian refused, and apparently some of the other Executive Board members appeared visibly uncomfortable at the suggestion. Brian explained that he wanted to wait until next meeting, when there would be more students present. Megan asked him to approve it anyway, so they could get started in their discussion and have something to present in future meetings. Again, Brian refused.
In my 3 years at Pitzer and 3 semesters of Senate experience, I have never before never encountered a refusal to create an ad hoc. Why would anybody refuse to recognize one? As written in the current Constitution, it is the Chair's duty to create ad hocs:
Section 2. Powers and Duties.
The members of Executive Board shall have the following duties:
a. Chair
i. To act as the official representative of the Pitzer Student Body....
vii. To create ad hoc committees.
The Student Senate Constitution has a long proud history of student amendment: As early as March 2008, I worked with, among others, Matt Kane '08, and Sean Sullivan '10, and Charles Butler '10 as part of the Constitutional Ad Hoc committee (remember that, guys? Good times.) We announced got together on Sundays at 5:30 in McConnell, we had some good discussions, proposed some amendments to the Senate body, and actually got them approved and implemented.
That is how lasting change is made. You state your ideas upfront, you open it up to the community for adaptation and improvement, and if it's a good idea, it sticks.
Why is this Executive Board attempting to suppress community discussion?
I don't get it.
Yesterday's Student Senate meeting was marked by one of the strangest acts of inaction I've ever come across. According to Senior Class Representative Megan Dooley '10: despite the direct requests of several senators, Senate Chair Brian Orser refused to create an ad hoc committee on the Senate Constitution.
(For those readers who are rusty on their Latin: ad hoc committees are created to address a specific problem or issue. It's like a special task force. In the context of Student Senate, officially recognized ad hoc committees have a specific purpose, regular and public meetings, and make regular reports to the Senate body on Sunday nights.)
Back to Sunday night: I wasn't at the meeting personally, but according to several senators present, during New and Old Business, Megan requested that Brian approve an ad hoc committee to discuss Constitutional issues. (Earlier that meeting, various aspects of the Constitution had been discussed.) Brian refused, and apparently some of the other Executive Board members appeared visibly uncomfortable at the suggestion. Brian explained that he wanted to wait until next meeting, when there would be more students present. Megan asked him to approve it anyway, so they could get started in their discussion and have something to present in future meetings. Again, Brian refused.
In my 3 years at Pitzer and 3 semesters of Senate experience, I have never before never encountered a refusal to create an ad hoc. Why would anybody refuse to recognize one? As written in the current Constitution, it is the Chair's duty to create ad hocs:
Section 2. Powers and Duties.
The members of Executive Board shall have the following duties:
a. Chair
i. To act as the official representative of the Pitzer Student Body....
vii. To create ad hoc committees.
The Student Senate Constitution has a long proud history of student amendment: As early as March 2008, I worked with, among others, Matt Kane '08, and Sean Sullivan '10, and Charles Butler '10 as part of the Constitutional Ad Hoc committee (remember that, guys? Good times.) We announced got together on Sundays at 5:30 in McConnell, we had some good discussions, proposed some amendments to the Senate body, and actually got them approved and implemented.
That is how lasting change is made. You state your ideas upfront, you open it up to the community for adaptation and improvement, and if it's a good idea, it sticks.
Why is this Executive Board attempting to suppress community discussion?
I don't get it.
Yesterday during Opening Day's festivities, Student Senate Chair Brian Orser '11 and Vice Chair Paul Waters- Smith '10 made their traditional welcome address to the new class of 2013. It's safe to say that the content of their speeches was anything but traditional.
What do YOU think? What was your response to Paul and Brian's speeches?
[polldaddy poll=1927376]
(I also encourage you to express your views in the comments at the end of the page. Feel free to disagree with me or post anonymously.)
You can read the full text below, but here are the phrases that stood out to me.
Paul's Speech:
Like any of our peer institutions, Pitzer is directly tied to structures of power and exploitation. The Endowment of a College – the mass of money all elite institutions jealously grow– is most certainly invested in the very industries many of us so vigorously oppose - though none of us are privy to in exactly which. Driven by the brutal demands of the market, these transnational corporations are raping the earth, devastating its forests and oceans, and exploiting its people in sweatshops and mines all around the world from Southeast Asia to Africa to right here in the Inland Valley.
Brian's Speech:
The university has become a society for the propagation of ignorance; "high culture" has taken on the rhythm of the production line.
...
In time, if critical thinking is repressed with enough conscientiousness, the student will come to partake of the wafer of knowledge, the professor will tell him the final truths of the world. Till then--a menopause of the spirit.
...
The world is not to be hacked at, boiled down, cut open, and disintegrated until the seed of its virgin Truth is laid bare and bloody. The truth of the matter is in our communal experience of it.
My own impression was mostly confusion and disenchantment. And as a senior and first-year mentor, I felt disappointment that the incoming class was denied any sort of welcome from the only Pitzer students that would address them on their big day.
New students are excited about taking cues from older Pitzer students. I vividly remember the welcome speeches of past Chairs Matt Berry and Ben Kramer and thinking to myself, "YES. This is a school that I want to be a part of."
Download the full text of Senate Chair Brian Orser's speech and Vice Chair Paul Waters- Smith's speech.
Related posts:
- The Vanguard– An Introduction “The Vanguard” is the self-given moniker for the Executive Board coalition that was voted into office for the 2009-2010 school year. Among the five of them...
- Opening Gambit: The Vanguard Takes the Stage ...
- Vanguard Manifesto [SENT BY CHRISTOPHER WOHLERS ON APRIL 15, 2009] AS THE CONCLUSION OF THE ELECTIONS NEARS The SELF-GOVERNANCE VANGUARD DRAFTS A DIRECTIVE TO THE PEOPLE The Self-Governance...
- Vanguard Candidate Statements Below is what appeared at the ballot table and in emails sent to study-abroad students casting their votes electronically. In some cases, the spacing has been...
- Vanguard Victory Message Upon the student-talk email announcing the election results, Treasurer-Elect Christopher Wohlers sent the following email as a reply: "I think Wikipedia has something to say about...
In my 6 semesters on Student Senate I do not recall a chair refusing to create an ad-hoc. Although I don’t think it’s necessarily unconstitutional, it is indeed bizarre, and cause for concern.