The Student Government Association (SGA) voted down a bill on Monday that would have added a “no confidence” vote to Thursday’s student leadership elections ballot. While the bill initially proposed that the question ask, “Do you have confidence in President James Wagner?” it was amended to read, “Do you have confidence in the direction of the University?” The bill, proposed by fourth-year graduate student Andy Ratto, had been tabled at two previous SGA legislative sessions.
We at the Wheel are glad that SGA decided to change the focus of the bill from Wagner himself to the University as a whole and are disheartened that the bill did not pass. However, we feel that the organization should have found a different middle ground, perhaps by adding more questions to the ballot to ensure that the vote would indeed get to the heart of the issue at hand, rather than pinpointing Wagner, a very specific subject, or the University, one that is very broad.
At the same time, we are disappointed in SGA for not seizing this opportunity – that is, by passing the bill – to speak for the student body. Doing so would allow students to express their views on this subject in the rough climate that Emory has found itself in. SGA aims to act as the voice of the students. Thus, a vote for students, similar to the one that faculty will complete in the near future, would allow SGA to fulfill its duties.
Much of the opposition to the bill was rendered by undergraduate members of SGA, who claimed that the student body is not well informed enough to make a responsible decision. However, a confidence vote – especially on a question as broad as “the direction of the University” – is not only a matter of being well-informed but also of voicing one’s opinion in a democratic society. So, if including this question on the general election ballot would have been too much of a risk, we suggest that SGA take it upon itself to circulate another ballot amongst the student body.
However, instead of simply asking, “Do you have confidence in the direction of the University?” we would suggest that a ballot include several questions aimed at understanding the sentiment of the student body. Furthermore, we believe these questions should include the options “I don’t know” and “no comment.” By including these choices, students would have the opportunity to speak their minds without feeling pressured to select an option with which they do not entirely agree.
In tumultuous times such as these, it is essential to fully understand the sentiment of the student body so that effective change can be enacted. Although SGA missed its first opportunity to do so, it is not too late. We encourage the next SGA leadership to take action in a way that will include the entire student body and can potentially bring about positive change. Open discussion is crucial in a time during which tensions between administrators, faculty and students have increased so drastically.
The above staff editorial represents the majority opinion of the Wheel‘s editorial board.
This article was updated at March 29 at 12:25 a.m.
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
“While we at the Wheel are glad that SGA decided to change the focus of the bill from Wagner himself to the University as a whole and are disheartened that the bill did not pass.”
the while clause is never completed.
but i couldn’t agree more with the article itself
Thank you for your comment. We have changed this online as well as in tomorrow’s print issue.
Doesn’t that sentence contradict the article’s title “Our Opinion: SGA Should Circulate New Wagner Ballot”?
“Much of the opposition to the bill was rendered by undergraduate members of SGA, who claimed that the student body is not well informed enough to make a responsible decision.”
It was weird hearing elected officials saying that the students who vote for them are so uninformed that we shouldn’t consider asking them their opinion.
Agreed. What an odd thing to say. Either a) they have vested interests that they want to obscure from the students they represent; or b) they are so shocked to find themselves elected that they doubt the competency of their electorate.
“the students? we can’t trust those idiots. they elected us how informed could they be”
Maybe the SGA just channels the students they supposedly represent in ways that we can’t understand. For example, SGA President Ashish Gandhi knows how “all” the “African Americans” feel about James Wagner, and that’s clearly a sound assessment. So it may be that they just use astral projection or have access to the collective unconscious or something.
I agree that giving students a voice on administrative matters that shape the future of our university is important, and I think that polling them during a general election was the best way to ensure that a broad section of the student body would respond to SGA’s inquiry about their opinions. Some representatives rightly wondered whether a special poll — separate from elections — might only draw responses from students with extreme opinions, rather than accurately representing the student body as a whole. Nevertheless, it seems to be our only option now, unless SGA has enough of a change of heart to put a referendum on next week’s runoff ballot.
It is a shame that the SGA not only voted down this bill at our last meeting, but refused to discuss it at two previous meetings (when it would have been possible to debate the exact language of the referendum and suggest changes before election day). It truly seemed like the exact method of polling doesn’t matter; most members are so against the thought of a referendum that gives students the option to make critical statements about the administration that they don’t even want to talk about it.
I am saddened and troubled to see student leaders so robustly defending the status quo that they will not even entertain the option of asking whether their constituents are satisfied. As an SGA representative of the Laney Graduate School, I supported this bill. (For the record: I did propose to include an “abstain” option on the vote of confidence, for students who did not consider themselves able to render a judgment one way or the other; this was not enough to convince any additional legislators to support the bill.)
I vote NO CONFIDENCE!!!!