What’s the point of the Student Association?

At the end of last semester, the Student Association Senate denied recognition to the NIU Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP). Over winter break, however, John Jones, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs and Enrollment Management reversed the decision and granted the SSDP recognition.

We understand that the administration felt it had good reason to override the SA. And it may have; after all, the SSDP was threatening NIU with legal action and claiming that SA policies and bylaws are unconstitutional.

What kind of precedent does this set? What message does this send to the student representatives of the SA and the student body as a whole? “We want your input until we disagree with you”?

The SA prides itself on being the voice of the student body, but if the administration can just simply say “no” to any SA policy, then what’s the point?

Because the Student Affairs and Enrollment Management is the oversees the actions of the SA, it has the power to override decisions made by the SA. And it makes sense as to why Student Affairs would step in; who would want to get sued because of something your subordinate did?

But can we always assume the administration will be the SA’s guardian angel? We’re just uneasy about the fact that the administration can overturn policy and elected candidates. It has happened before. In the spring of 2008, the student body elected Lonnie Pollard to be president of the Campus Activity Board. About a month later, he was dismissed from his position. Because SA and CAB officials are technically viewed as employees of the university, the reason for the dismissal was never publicly given.

It really becomes a matter of precedent. So while we’re sure that this is not the first time the administration has reversed an SA decision, it might be the first time it has done so as a result of legal action.

This poses another tough question. If the SSDP can threaten legal action to force NIU to abide to its wishes, why can’t other groups do the same?

Current SA policy prohibits religious and political organizations from getting SA funding, but if that policy is unconstitutional, then groups like Campus Crusade for Christ or the College Democrats could get funding.

But suppose the SA allocates more money to the College Democrats than the College Republicans; wouldn’t that be discrimination, and couldn’t the College Republicans threaten to sue on the grounds of discrimination in an attempt to pressure the administration to equalize the funding?

There’s also another troubling precedent to consider. The SSDP’s dispute with the SA originated in the fact that the SA Senate requested that the group consider reclassifying itself as a political organization; it originally applied for recognition as a social justice group, which is how the BOT recognized it.

Under the SA Finance Policy, political groups are ineligible to receive SA funding; as classified, the SSDP will be eligible to be funded by the SA budget in two years, which is why debate arose in the first place.

What precedent does this set for other groups whose classification may be considered similarly blurry? Does this mean that any group, if persistent and vocal enough, can override the SA and their decisions?

Doesn’t this, whether symbolically or in actuality, negate the purpose of the NIU Student Association?

The current situation with the SSDP may be resolved, but ramifications will be felt. At the end of the day, the SA’s mission to represent the student body has been harmed by it’s guardian angel, the all-powerful, well-intentioned administration.

When the student government can be overridden by university administration, we have to ask: what’s the point?