Taken aback part deux
Take Back the Campus was what it was. I’m a little embarrassed at my own ignorance of the situation; I thought it would be more of an open forum. Silly me. It was obvious that a lot of work went into this. But just because one works hard doesn’t mean the results will be good. There were numerous petitions made, cameras, Zane Kesey was there, many (so many!) student presenters and the rest of the works. Yet, not much was accomplished with all these resources.
There were about 100 students who attended. I figure at least half were ASUO insiders and about half of the rest left half-way through. Some of the speakers were good, some were not. Depending upon the audience, some ideas were good and some were not. All together the forum informed maybe 25 students about issues that have been in the newspapers for weeks and months.
When it was all said and done, there was one dissenting voice. When the presentations were over and it opened up to “an open forum,” Ryan McCarrel asked to use the podium. In the past few weeks, he has been creating discussion via e-mails with political science students about apathy. He had a prepared statement, which he was not allowed to finish, about the need for change. Now imagine the irony of it all. On the chalk board “MAKE CHANGE” was written huge and “APATHY” with a slash through it was there too. McCarrel spoke about the problem of widespread apathy within the student body, and the desperate need for a change to better the student body as a whole. Sen. Nate Gulley yelled out “bullshit”. Sen. Patrick Boye interrupted to call out the Oregon Commentator (not sure why; we hadn’t said anything). It was obvious that those in charge did not want to have a discussion about change or apathy. They wanted to finish their job and go home.
Here is the speech that McCarrel didn’t get to finish.
Power or Politics: The ASUO, and the Need for a Separate Student Association –
Forgive me for my ignorance of the inner workings of the ASUO and other groups on campus, as I’m sure you will soon become aware of and will no doubt use to discredit many of my claims after I’m done – However ill informed I may be – I speak a simple truth, one in which, through a mass email on apathy, I have found many people share – that is the ASUO is not adequately representing the student body.
I give credence to many of Emily’s successful trips to Salem and acknowledge the contributions members of the senate and student groups have given to the community. In no way is it my intent to make personal attacks, rather, I feel that I must explain how the institution itself has failed to speak for the majority of students on campus.
Power, Or Politics?
There are many members of the ASUO that are not present tonight, for fear that one of the organizers of the event is going to run for president, and that by coming to an event sponsored by him or her, they will inadvertently be supporting their ticket – This is an example of what I call, the Politicization of the ASUO.
The discussion students are having, particularly in the Daily Emerald and Senate, about protecting our right to control incidental fees, has convinced us of a false truth. That is- that financial control equals the actualization of power, and progress for students. Unfortunately, the debate over incidental fees takes a disproportionate amount of time, or political capital, if you will, as it focuses the attention of our elected representatives on lobbying for and representing student groups on campus, of which relatively few students participate in. Because these groups inherently compete for financial resources, and sometimes have ideological conflicts the ASUO becomes further politicized. The focus on the groups well-being detracts the required attention the greater student body deserves, and demands from our representatives.
Because the ASUO has financial control over incidental fees, and because it represents groups rather than students, our elected representatives become politicized. Instead of seeing progress, we find ourselves engaged in endless debates that alienate the student bodies interest in the institution itself, and seemingly fails to produce tangible results.
Therefore, I feel we must create a new institution that is freely accessible to the student body. By free, I mean no elected representatives, no specific titled interest groups – such an institution will only illicit inaction from the majority of students. Let me be clear, I do not advocate dismantling the ASUO – it serves a purpose – and student groups are obviously an important part of our community -however it has effectively distanced itself from the greater student body.
This student body feels apathetic, not because we do not care, but because we feel that we have lost, or never had, an ability to influence the UO, and it demands the right to be heard.
Thus, this new institution must have certain characteristics:
FIRST – It must serve as a medium between faculty and students. Here at the UO we have no adequate means of addressing our grievances to professors and administration. A collective effort is more able to demand change and results from the faculty – Evaluation reports, no longer suffice – we must have a means to articulate our interests, that will effectively cross the generational divide. The administration and faculty is not our enemy – there is no big brother – there is only an institution that fears change. We must act in a way that makes them respect us, not fear our creativity.
SECOND – It can never be given control over the financial welfare of other groups, nor can it become institutionalized by the UO- by doing so we would inherently be giving up our guarantee that our collective voice is not being mitigated by the interests of the university. Additionally, by removing this process, the student association will be able to focus on issues that matter to the vast majority of students, by not becoming a politicized institution.
THIRD – It must be freely accessible to students, and it must maintain a high level of transparency to retain a sense of legitimacy. To make this institution successful we must retrieve a disconnected student body from their sense of dis empowerment. We must make every student at the UO feel as if he or she has a place where they can voice their interests, that they will be heard, and more importantly, acted upon. Therefore, the institution cannot be founded on elections, or membership in an interest group – by freely accessible, I mean freedom from an institution that by its nature, requires formal involvement.
FOURTH- It must not become a national organization. National and statewide organizations alienate local students who feel as if their impact in such a large organization is mitigated, and as if their own individual comments are lost within a preexisting network.
FIFTH – Most important, we must realize, that this generation is different from our predecessors. We think, learn, and act in different ways than the student activists of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Leaders today must facilitate involvement of their generation, not ask for it – we must use our creative ambition to develop new unique ways to demonstrate our interests.
This is not a fully developed nor thought out plan, and any input is obviously appreciated.
A few things I feel need to be acted upon –
We should create a student forum – online perhaps- that holds the university accountable to our grievances. By leaving a paper trail we will be able to address certain issues that have gone unsolved, and appeal to the university to act on them.
This forum would also easily allow students to participate and voice their concerns. By acting on their contributions, we will retrieve the student body from the feeling of apathy, disinterest, and dis empowerment.
Lastly, it would provide a space in which students could freely talk to professors, without the traditional student professor, power relationship.
I, and others, also believe that tests and papers should never have a students name on it until after grading. Instead, it should be by ID number only.
There of course, are far more important issues that are being discussed now, that must be acted upon as well.
I believe that these, and more significant changes, can only occur if we have an unique institution that acts with students, not in the name of students – that is not politicized -that is not ideologically predisposed to any certain belief – and that will always remain open and transparent.
I would like to thank the organizers of this event for providing an open space to discuss the important issue of student involvement. I am now open for any questions or comments.
Ryan McCarrel
UO Undergraduate
… and interested student
Interesting. Seems like Ryan came to the event expected a more open forum too.
