Students should vote no on the proposed constitution. It revives outmoded advocacy mechanisms, denies representation and advocacy for under-served and marginalized communities, and will be practically impossible to amend in the future.
Under the proposed constitution, senators must belong to the constituencies that they represent—any failure to meet constituency standards forces a senator to resign. So, a senator representing on-campus housing would be forced to resign if he/she stopped residing on campus—even if the senator in question left campus housing for financial or medical reasons.
Furthermore, the proposed constituencies do not encompass all students at PSU—an undeclared sophomore commuter student that does not compete in PSU Athletics nor participate in a SALP student group is ineligible to hold office as a Student Senator. The notion that there would be students structurally ineligible to hold office as a student representative for non-academic reasons is unfair, undemocratic, and antithetical to the purposes of student representation.
Notwithstanding the fact that ASPSU abandoned the constituency system because of its structural inefficiencies, the constituencies as set forth by the proposed constitution excludes crucial communities that most need student representation. Excluded from representation are: student veterans, student parents, transfer students, and international students, among others. In their stead, the constitution heavily prioritizes representation of students from specific schools/colleges.
We value a more concerted effort to solve student problems at the school/college level. However, the proposed constitution fails to create structures that facilitate solutions to problems of institutional access specific to communities that have been marginalized by class, gender, gender identity, sexual preference and race. In this sense, this constitution is a step backward not only from the current constitution, but from the constitution that was replaced last year.
It is possible (however unlikely, given our experience) that we are wrong, and the proposed constitution may be the deus ex machina that its proponents advertise it as. Nevertheless, this is a gamble students should not make. The proposed constitution is nearly impossible to amend. It requires signatures from literally thousands of students (10% of Fall FTE Enrollment) just to allow a proposed change on the ballot to be voted on by the student body. Average student turnout in college elections averages between 2-4 percent of total enrollment. In other words: if this constitution passes, we’re stuck with it, for good or for ill.
The current constitution was borne out of a movement to reform student government so that it might better respond to student needs. While it’s too early to decide whether it has succeeded, early returns are promising. In the inaugural year of the current constitution, ASPSU has been able to make inroads on: receiving a redress of grievances with regard to the University’s contract with Higher One; the creation of a Shared Governance agreement with the University that actually guarantees student input in University decision-making; and the reformation and expansion of childcare access grants at the University.
Having said that, ASPSU still has a long way to go. While we recognize that student government has not yet reached the level of responsiveness to student needs that it must, the proposed constitution threatens what basic progress we have made. We urge you to vote no on the proposed constitution.
Respectfully,
Nick Rowe
Student Fee Committee Chair
Sean Green
Student Senate Chair
Student Fee Committee Member