I'm one of the many executive board members in one of the Student Association's 130+ clubs. Yes, each club - and SA itself - has its flaws, but I'd like to think we're doing a pretty good job.
Caribbean Student Association (CSA) - the club I'm a member of - is one of the only organizations in Buffalo that brings Caribbean artists to perform. Asian American Student Union's Danny Chen Project brought attention to military hazing - a rarely discussed problem - and the African Student Association prides itself on exposing UB students to African culture.
At the same time, the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship incident is still a relevant issue and last year's $300,000 scandal is still in the back of our heads. In 1994, then-SA President Karen Hilary was accused of embezzling SA funds and forgery; in 2010, UB's chapter of the NAACP was derecognized after it was being investigated for illegal activities.
Clearly, SA and its clubs aren't perfect but here's my retort: What government is?
SA and its clubs are unique in that it gives students a large amount of power over their student activities and events. The University is showing it does believe in its students by allowing SA to produce events like Fall Fest, manage an over $1 million budget and remain self-sufficient.
A student government will naturally have its flaws, but part of being a student is learning from mistakes. Learning from those mistakes is also a part of life. Student Life's mistake in the new legislation is that it mistakes this learning process as only a coming-of-age deal. It's clear these "adults" who run the school have some learning to do of their own.
Requiring each SA club to have a faculty adviser implies there's a childlike incompetence within the clubs. It's as if we're well-meaning children just waiting for some adult to hold our hand for unnecessary guidance. We doubt these suggested guardians would want anything to do with any of the organizations; this is a research school, and I doubt student activities is one of the faculty's top priorities.
Student Life is casting the faculty as deus ex machina - these perfect adults with the power to change SA organizations for the better. We, the students, are hypothetically obliged to find a faculty adviser in addition to the already difficult job of maintaining a club and staying on top of our academics.
Frankly, I don't trust that sort of ideology. The legislation feels like less of an attempt to aid students and more of an attempt to maintain power. This conclusion makes sense after looking at some of the university's recent controversies.
UB's main concern seems to be UB 2020, despite the ongoing problems - especially the strife in the University Heights. Blocks away from UB we have crime, students getting evicted because of poor living conditions and lack of landlord supervision.
However, bettering the Heights wouldn't further UB's agenda - whatever that might be. Improving the neighborhood would encourage students to live in the area and that could potentially lose money for UB. It's as the saying goes: more money, more power.
But UB2020 can only mean big things for the university. It's the plan to make UB one of the nation's top research schools. Never mind the increased tuition students must pay for the private institution (even though affordability is one of UB's main selling points). Never mind the large costs of building these state-of-the-art buildings or the fracking controversies. As long as UB's in control, we're supposed to believe everything's all right.
Student Life's new legislation is another example of the university's quest for control. It's especially unfortunate for an institution that gave its students a sense of empowerment.
In his farewell column, former Senior Managing Editor/Senior News Editor Luke Hammill praised UB for making him feel like more than just his person number. But if UB is only looking to gain control over the students who help fund this institution, what are we really?
Email: brian.josephs@ubspectrum.com
Photo: Breadchastick / Wikimedia Commons
