"Alternatives to Traditional Student Government"

I was recently forwarded this article. It was written in '75 by a Dean of Students, but I think it deserves a hard look. As we craft what our future universities will look like, we should be open to the lessons and advice of the past. I also got a kick out of him mentioning student syndicalism -- to think that a Dean would even mention such a concept, even in the '70s! -- Patrick

Alternatives to Traditional Student Government
DON CREAMER

(DON CREAMER is dean of students, El Centro College, Dallas, Texas.)


What is the future of student government? One does not need to be a mystic nor a soothsayer to predict with frightening accuracy the essential work of most student government organizations. Likely, sporadic tinkering with local issues of some inane nature will occur, but three things almost universally will come to pass. These things happen almost everywhere, and they happen with tiring regularity.

First, students will attempt to re-write the constitution. Unfortunately, this venture likely will succeed, thus giving next year's junta all the more reason to re-write it again. Second, students will quarrel about quorums. Are enough of us here (according to the current constitution, of course) to decide on whatever issue has bubbled to the surface? Third, students will argue about "territorial rights" and exclusive domain prerogatives. This argument usually boils down to the question, "When are we ever going to get our own sandbox to play in around here?" When these symptoms become apparent to the leadership of an institution concerned with education, then it is time for a change.

 

What is the problem?

When one argues against government by the people, particularly those forms of it involving elections and representation, one is likely to be labeled heretic, or at least undemocratic. Yet, it seems timely and important to look honestly at some of these forms of democracy as they function in a college.

There are many problems associated with student governments as they have been structured traditionally in most colleges. Perhaps in no other form of higher education is this problem more apparent than in the urban community college. The type of students in the community college, the type of educational programs offered there, the honest concern for human development in some genuine form usually visible there, the commitment to changing inane forms of education apparently plaguing many colleges, but most of all the genuine attitude of caring for all students render the community college particularly unsuitable for impotent, de-humanizing structures such as traditional student government.

Let's be more specific about the problems. (1) Frequently, students primarily seeking prestige and status dominate student government and create typical, unproductive bureaucracies. Status-based bureaucracy by its nature de-humanizes. Why create more of the thing currently strangling us? At least, we could consider a competency-based organization to counterbalance the I-am-obviously-better-than-you-because-of-my-title syndrome. (2) Most student government forms have been copied from some other student government forms with scant concern about the uniqueness of the college doing the copying. Frankly, most student governments, no matter what other virtues they may possess, are archaic. They bog down in their own quagmires. Why should we emulate inertia? (3) Perhaps common in most colleges but certainly in urban community colleges, almost half the student body enrolls in evening courses. What have traditional student governments done for these students? No longer adolescent (neither are day students), why should they remain interested in adolescent games? (4) Now this problem hurts: simple student government has practically nothing to do with actual governance issues of a college. Though we will return to this problem, at this juncture we should understand that whatever else student governments do, they do not govern the college in any meaningful way. (5) What we call elections in most student governments mocks democracy. Slight participation, mismanaged election rules, pressure groups urging election based on popularity instead of competency, and a general who-cares attitude defaces what remains of a beautiful heritage of government by the people. (6) A serious discrepancy exists between the actual practices of student government and the stated purposes of student government. Even a casual observer's cursory analysis would necessarily conclude that student government representatives play games-not teach, or in any other way relate to the actual purpose of an educational institution. Stated another way, the actual indictment of traditional student government in this argument maintains that whatever they do has nothing to do with the serious business of developing human beings. (7) Saddest of all, since student government accomplishes practically nothing of significance, it tends to attract people needing an ego trip. An organization attractive to the maladjusted and repellent to the talented or competent we should not allow to survive.

What are the issues?

The problems just described reduce to three basic issues. The most important issue at stake here is what do we mean by government. By inference, the term suggests a structure which governs or leads. A more careful definition of the word "governance" includes exercise of authority, direction, control. Governance is essentially a legal term. It traces a chain of responsibility through specific agencies charged with the trust of handling public funds and with responsibility for appropriate exercise of authority. In public colleges and universities, these functions are the sole prerogative of a lay Board of Trustees who gain their authority directly from state legislatures. Boards usually exercise these responsibilities by delegating specific authority to certain administrators, and occasionally to faculty or students in precise circumstances. Most student governments are not really interested in governance as described above. They prefer to be "where the action is," which in most colleges means institutional management. And that is another kettle of fish. Specifically, management means skillful use of means to accomplish ends. Here, student government can provide meaningful service to a college. Any system of management ought to involve all its constituents in important decisions of the college. Unfortunately, most traditional student governments involve only an elite few representing a few.

The second issue concerns competencies to govern of persons elected to office. How much faith should a responsible administrator place in the judgment of an elitist few whose popularity placed them in a position to "represent" the views of the masses? Usually students elected to office have not demonstrated appropriate competencies, have attended no leadership schools, generally possess no special training for student governance. Why should administrators look to the results of a popularity contest for advice on decisions frequently critical to thousands of people?

The third issue focuses on bureaucracy. Since we know (at least some of us are convinced) that bureaucracy is counterproductive to human development, why do we continue to build more bureaucratic forms? Students perennially bitch that the bureaucracy of the "system" gets in their way. How do they respond to this problem? Invariably they create another bureaucratic structure to fight the existing bureaucracy.

The final issue raises the question of responsibility. If student governments should provide opportunity for all to participate in their own education and if it does not live up to its responsibilities, who do we fault? Clearly the fault lies at the feet of that person or group charged with responsibility to facilitate involvement by all students in their own learning. Failure to assume the responsibility means abdication of the job by allowing any system, no matter how well-intentioned, to block opportunity to learn. No doubt, student governments have failed to fulfill their commitment to facilitate involvement by students on campus. The evidence overwhelms.

What can we do about the problem?

Do we believe the mythical democracy we all read about in elementary school will work in a college? What evidence of success do we find in city governments, state governments, federal government, church governments, or country club governments? Yes, these governments work; but they work imperfectly, and they must adapt to the particular demands of the system in which they function.
Adaptation is important. To enlarge a participatory process in college governance, we may challenge certain sacred components of democracy like representative assemblies and elections. If we can challenge successfully, we can work to improve student governments. If not, we may have to adapt our thinking, our individual and corporate responses to a rapidly deteriorating form of government in many institutions.

What alternatives do we have?

As many forms of governments exist as the numbers of people exist to conceive them. Some more common forms adapted in one way or another to college settings follow:

1. The representative assembly model
Typical forms of the representative assembly include bicameral or unicameral models consisting of faculty and student senates or some form of campus council.

2. The communitarian model
The most familiar form of this model embodies the town hall meeting idea or similar concept. This model may constitute a decision-making body or simply an open-hearing
body.

3. The urban community model
This system operates by including participants from the entire community not just the college. Some systems even include representatives from local high schools.

4. The ad hoc, or kleenex model
This form operates by creating units needed to conduct a specific piece of business, and then disbands. The term kleenex derives from the idea that one depends on it as long as needed, then simply throws it away. A throw-away government.

5. The student syndicalist model
This form operates much like a labor union. Students form a national, or regional, power base and then bring pressure on decision makers to act.

Which form do we select?

How does one select the right form for a college? Too many times this question is irrelevant when we discover some form already operative in some manner, and the question then becomes how do we examine our present system with any reasonable hope of meaningful change?

It is imperative to keep before us the questions needing answers rather than answers seeking implementation. Any system will work in one form or another. The issue is which system will help us achieve our objectives. What does involvement mean? Sitting on committees? Inquiring more deeply into educational issues which concern us? If the former, then perhaps some variation on the representative assembly model is appropriate. If the latter, then perhaps the communitarian model more likely would help us achieve our objectives. By what authority does one human being "represent" another? Representative government produces many problems even when it appears as the best of options (for example, our problem-plagued federal government seems the best available in light of alternatives). But in a college where the overriding concern is learning and human growth, why should anyone represent the developmental needs of another human being? For each of us, learning is a highly individualized matter. I must do it! No one can represent me in my own growth.

Is election more democratic than selection when the issue involves competency to perform the job? This is a sensitive issue. We have learned since childhood that if we know all the facts, we the people will elect the best person to lead us. Yet, usually we do not know all the facts and all too frequently the leadership issue covers actual issues requiring decisions. When an elected
official is totally committed to "representing" his constituents, he may not think at all and would not dare lead for fear of offending those who voted for him. A college is not a playpen nor a sandbox-no place for game-playing with developmental needs of human beings. Furthermore, in a college-at least a reasonably homogeneous learning community-we ought to concern ourselves with rewarding competency rather than gamemanship! What does it mean when so few students turn out to vote in campus elections? The answer probably varies from college to college, but it may mean in one way or another that the students remain totally apathetic about issues being voted upon. Is there anything wrong with people being apathetic about unimportant issues? In this sense, apathy may be a healthy and legitimate response to a silly situation.

What is happening at El Centro College?

Many student governments busily do something. Others look for something to do. But most of all, student leaders-those responsible for facilitating student involvement in their own learning-ask questions and feverishly search for ways to revitalize student government. The prevailing attitude of students toward their colleges suggests cooperation. This probably stems from a survival need in both students and administrators. Both their positions appear to be, "we don't have time to fight right now. We are going broke!" Ironically, even in the face of such basic needs as survival, the dominant organizational form chosen by students to present their views remains essentially bureaucratic in nature and remains student government in its traditional form by name.

Some institutions, however, have begun experimenting to discover fresh, more effective ways to enable students to share directly in educational and institutional decisions affecting their lives. One college-El Centro College in Dallas-recently took a bold step by simply abolishing student government altogether. An eclectic system replaced it. The new form, called The Community Association (not government), involves in its structure all components of the college-students, administrators, faculty, secretaries, maintenance personnel, and occasionally persons who simply walk in off the street. The essential components of the El Centro model consist of a town hall meeting held each month (involving 100-400 persons each time) chaired by the president of the college; a Community Council composed of persons from all employment categories of the college (and, of course, students), which possesses no explicit authority to do anything except to facilitate or to persuade; and semi-permanent and permanent groups of many kinds.

Students at El Centro quickly labeled this form of involvement the Adhocracy. The name fits. It is a throw-away government at its best. Furthermore, it works whether nobody participates or whether 6,000 participate at once. It is flexible; it is honest; it is competency based. No elections occur. Everyone represents himself. When persons become concerned, they involve themselves with persons or groups best able to help them with their concern. The Association focuses here on learning, not on Easter-egg-hunting for problems. Certain features of the El Centro plan deserve elaboration. The notable features include: no elections, no representation, legitimization of apathy, the question of how one gets selected for roles, and the sheer honesty of it all.

First, no elections means no college-wide popularity contests for anything. No beauty queen, no Christmas queen, no super-stud, nor ugly-man-on-campus. In fact, no college-wide type positions to which one might be elected even exist. The town hall is completely open (decision-making variety, by the way) and anyone can attend. The Community Council serves a facilitating role and gains its membership from persons already serving in other official roles and from persons selected (by a presidentially appointed committee) to serve for one year based upon experience and competency.

Next, no representation is a slight fudge. Representative positions do exist on campus, but do not participate in the decision-making bodies of campus management.

Apathy is an emotion-ladened term. In attitudinal expression, "I don't care about a given issue" differs from, "I don't care." The El Centro plan simply recognizes that not everyone becomes excited about all items of college management. El Centro says, "That's OK. Just don't let your learning opportunities slide."

To determine selection of persons for certain official groups-for example, the Community Council-the president appoints a committee at the beginning of each year to appoint members. This procedure means a different nomination committee each year; probably different agenda each year; no hocus-pocus; simply honest selection based on competency to do a job.

Finally, El Centro recognized that ultimate responsibility for most management decisions rests with the management of the college. For example, the president (not a dean, nor an appointed representative) chairs town meetings and thereby receives direct input from all his constituents. This particular feature may explain why the El Centro plan works (and quite honestly why it may not work on other campuses).

The El Centro plan has been in operation for more than three years. Students, faculty, staff, and administration seem pleased with it-both as evidenced by the prevailing attitude and by some completed surveys designed to evaluate the plan. Though nationally the old student government forms continue and probably will for some time to come, colleges such as El Centro have begun searching for alternatives to a system no longer working well.

Questions . .. questions . . . what can student government do?

We have argued that traditional student governments do not meet the needs of most individual students, and it has been shown that there are many ways to examine the issues in student government. We have looked at typical student government models, and we described briefly a new, apparently successful on-going program in Dallas.

By way of summary, most colleges need a sense of community, not just that sociological characterization of people in general physical proximity with one another brought together for a reasonably common purpose; and not the fading concept of academic tradition which barely holds us together; but rather colleges need to develop by whatever means and at whatever costs necessary to create an environment in which people genuinely care for one another and find ways to express that care. This sense of community we can feel better perhaps than we can describe it; we know such caring counters the ill effects of a de-humanizing bureaucracy. And here college student government can fulfill a valuable role.

Student government ought to design experiences-much like designing learning experiences for the classroom-which bring people together so they can look at themselves and at their environment in order to learn to take charge of their education. We need student curriculum specialists competent to understand a learning problem, to create an environment conducive to learning, to design teaching/learning experiences which produce growth, and to evaluate the results. Regarding college governance, student government ought to seek some viable way to share management-for example, at institutional, divisional, or departmental
levels.

That human beings learn from their mistakes ranks as a great strength of our race. Let's hope that this axiom holds true for those of us willing to look seriously at student governments. Heaven knows, already we have committed many, many mistakes from which to learn.

Originally published in Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 52, No. 2, Issues and Trends in American Education. (Jan., 1975), pp. 110-115.