At an institution of higher education, it would seem logical that students and faculty, who are responsible for keeping such a place in operation, would be consulted when changes are being made. According to a Graduate and Professional Student Council resolution passed Wednesday, the SIUC administration does not listen to the University’s students enough.

GPSC wants more shared governance in the future, which makes perfect sense. If the University is not willing to listen to those chosen to represent the students as a whole, what is the point of having such bodies exist?

Students have openly opposed such issues as the implementation of Select 2000 and the athletic-fee increase. They have attended meetings, passed resolutions and even boycotted meetings, attempting to make their concerns heard. Their concerns and complaints have not led to any considerations or change, leaving students with the feeling that the administration rarely, if ever, listens to student concerns.

Advertisement

Some students say Select 2000 was implemented without giving the greek system an opportunity to ask questions or voice concerns. Perhaps if the administration had allowed members of the greek system to vote and express their concerns on the alcohol restrictions, the resistance to the implementation would not be so great. The University of Northern Colorado allowed its greek system to vote on Select 2000, and it was approved, which demonstrates that students are capable of mature, rational decisions. Students will not automatically reject changes or increases, if they are informed and considered by the administration.

Steve Etcheson, GPSC vice president for Graduate School Affairs, said shared governance would not necessarily bring change but would give students and faculty the opportunity to be heard.

Etcheson makes a valid point. At least those concerns would be in the open, and the administration would be able to see what those concerns or questions are.

The problem may be that the administration does not think student government accurately represents the entire student body. A referendum or survey of the student body would give student government the information it needs to show the administration it does represent the students accurately or, at the very least, provide information that could help student government change to do so. The referendum could show the desirability of issues such as Select 2000 and athletic-fee increases.

They’re not going to let the inmates run the asylum is the analogy Etcheson used to describe the possibility of the SIUC administration heeding student and faculty concerns.

This may be true, but listening to the ranting of the inmates may provide more positive relations and increased peace between the different groups.