Nate Brown’s resignation from the vice presidency of the Undergraduate Student Government opens the latest chapter in a dramatic struggle for the hearts and minds of undergraduate students. In order to focus on gaining support for his proposed Association of Undergraduate Students – a student constituency group that would replace the USG if it secures the support of the chancellor and student voters – Brown decided to step down.

This move should meet with the approval of Brown’s core supporters, who are engaged in an effort to collect the 5,000 signatures that will enable his proposal to appear on the ballots in April’s election. It should meet with the approval of students disillusioned by the frequently farcical proceedings at USG meetings, who would support exploring any available alternative. It should even meet with the approval of his detractors, who petulantly called for Brown to resign for suggesting the USG might not be the last word in representation of undergraduate students.

Brown seems to be moving away from his original bold proposal to have 18 senators, all appointed by college deans. The current proposal calls for 24 senators chosen in college elections, which bears a striking resemblance to the USG – just with fewer seats. Discussions are continuing, however, and we hope Brown and his supporters will not lose sight of what is important:exploring alternatives that will allow business to be conducted efficiently and fairly while holding senators accountable to the students.

Advertisement

Where does this leave the USG? Under the logic offered by senators who hijacked Brown’s meeting in the Missouri Room last week, the USG will be able to spread its leathery wings and flap to new heights now that Brown is no longer failing in his attempts to discipline them. Some of these senators hold Brown personally responsible for the USG’s inability to conduct business. They don’t accuse Brown himself of misbehaving at the meetings – eating, chatting or doing homework, like many senators do – they just assert that as part of the executive branch, he should put a stop to such behavior.

To some extent, that is true. Ultimately, someone must be responsible for the actions of the USG and the behavior of its senators, and since the senators themselves will clearly not accept such responsibility, it is up to the executive branch to do so. Brown’s resignation serves as an acknowledgement of that responsibility, as well as a sign of his commitment to his ideas for the future of a student constituency body.

Commitment often comes with sacrifice. Despite the many demonstrated flaws of USG, Brown shows a great fondness for the organization. Part of his commitment includes coaching his replacement on USG procedures and ensuring a smooth transition.

Some senators have charged that Brown is putting his political aspirations before the interests of the USG. But can anyone seriously argue that Brown is not putting the students first?