Editor’s Note: This Amendment has reached it’s 15% approval rate and will be voted on by the campus on December 16th.
On November 19, a new constitutional amendment went into effect. It amended the following rule:
Each candidate for a Senate position will be a full-time student when petitioning for office, and will remain a full-time student throughout his or her term of office.
It now reads:
Each candidate for a Senate position will be a full-time student when petitioning for office, and will remain a full-time student throughout his or her term of office.
Exceptions can be made, by a ⅔ majority vote of Senate, if a Senator is under twelve hours during their last semester at Covenant.
Student Senate’s job is to fully represent the students, and to provide leadership and guidance to the student body on issues on campus, by nature of it being a democratic institution divided by hall and class. How is allowing a part-time student to serve on Student Senate fully representing you? How is that providing leadership and guidance? Here are a few reasons why the amendment is contradictory to Student Senate, and why it’s bad for the student body:
The language is vague
As a former Senator, I can affirm that changing the constitution is an arduous process, and that Senate most likely put a lot of time into this, which is unfortunate considering the vagueness of the language. “Under twelve hours” means someone could take one credit, just a single one credit class, and be considered eligible for still serving on Student Senate in their last semester. How is this considered representation?
Part-time representation?
If a student is taking six or fewer hours, they do not pay the Student Fee, which is the money that Student Senate is responsible for. It’s the money they hand out to every club and use for every single event you see hosted around campus, including official CAB events. How is someone who is not paying into this supposed to be considered a representative of the student body?
Contradictory ethos
When Student Senate takes seriously their status as representing the student body, which is clearly exemplified by the original unamended version of this constitution, why would they contradict the whole original point of the constitution? Student Development, which is a part of the approval process, looks at every candidate and checks GPA, course load, behavior, and if they were on deadline with their application. With all these checkpoints in place, which clearly show that the job is one to be taken seriously, why would we allow a student who is under 12 hours to serve on Senate?
Furthermore, the NCAA requires that all student-athletes maintain a minimum of 12 hours to be eligible to play a sport collegiately. The NCAA is by no means an academic institution, and yet still believes in an academic standard. With the current amendment passed, a Senator could potentially be ineligible to play a sport, yet eligible to serve on Senate. To me, this sounds just a bit odd. As anyone in Student Development will tell you, senators are held to a higher standard as campus leaders. So why, then, would we pass an amendment that stands in conflict with this standard?
Context: Changing the Constitution for Two Cases?
This isn’t the first time such an amendment was discussed. Two years ago Michael Taft ’17 was the sitting Communications Director. A month into the school year, he realized that he was going to graduate in December, and proposed this same amendment to be discussed amongst Senate. Katie Smith ’20, the current Communications Director, would be dropping below 12 hours next semester.
Many Senators I have spoken with have said that this is something that has happened before and warrants discussion. Since the Constitution’s creation in 1969, there have been only two times that a Senator has had to resign for graduation or dropping below the 12 hour threshold. This amendment is a change for an almost non-existent minority, and doesn’t have any historical precedent.
What does this mean going forward?
A senior could take 13 hours in the fall and then one credit in the spring. They could have a full-time job in the spring, take a one credit practicum, and be considered eligible if it’s something that Student Senate approves. And while I hear the argument that it still requires a two-thirds vote of approval from Senate, it’s an organization that experiences a lot of turnover every year. Because there is so much turnover every year, Senators quickly forget why certain rules were implemented, or certain discussions in relation to new rule changes.