Clubs Deserve a Place to Work
In April of this year, the Student Activities Commission notified student clubs with offices in the Leavey Center that their offices were under-utilized and, as a result, they were going to be converted into storage space and shared meeting rooms. Sophia Behnia (COL ’09), chair of SAC, blindsided the leaders of these clubs with an e-mail on April 12. Behnia wrote, “These offices have been more utilized in the past, but with today’s technology (e.g. cell phones, e-mail, laptops, etc.) the use of offices has become more outdated and not as necessary as it once was.” She and her comrades at SAC and Center for Student Programs understand that the necessity of a private office is seemingly passé in an era of iPhones and Internet.
The student clubs that held offices on the fourth floor of the Leavey Center were not consulted prior to receiving the e-mail, although the e-mail did invite them to respond with “any concerns about this change.” Among the clubs that lost office space are the College Republicans, the College Democrats, GU Pride, Eco-Action, the Georgetown Solidarity Commission, International Relations Club and Alpha Phi Omega. Leaders of some of these clubs tell us that they used to rely on their office spaces for day-to-day club administration and that they would have raised their concerns with SAC had there been a period of consultation.
When these students returned to the Hilltop last month, they were surprised to learn that SAC had used the summer months to empty all of the student offices and to seize property that belonged to the student clubs. Some of these items had been accumulated over the years (invaluable autographed memorabilia, for example), while other equipment was essential to a club’s day-to-day operations (a printer and scanner in one case, which SAC says were thrown away because they were broken). Many of these items went “missing,” and the student clubs have a limited mechanism for seeking compensation, which is the cause of rising disputes.
Almost six months after Behnia initially warned student clubs of these changes, there is still not a procedure in place to rent or to utilize the remaining student offices but a system for using the shared storage space has been created.
As veteran students, we have learned to temper our expectations of university administrators and campus facilities. But in a landscape where many of our peer institutions have entire buildings dedicated to student clubs, we are outraged that Georgetown cannot even provide a few active student clubs with suitable office space in Leavey. Moreover, Georgetown is running out of excuses for denying students a suitable home for their extracurricular activities. With the new business school slated to open next year, square-footage of office space at the university is about to increase by hundreds of thousands of feet. While plans are under way to expand faculty office space in Old North after the McDonough School of Business vacates, we still have not seen a plan for the old Jesuit Residence in Dahlgren Quad. Behnia says that “the idea of this wasn’t to take away, it was to give to all groups,” but with so much room for expansion, can’t we give to some without taking away from others?
On this issue, we encourage SAC to stop crushing student endeavors and to go the way of the Russians: glasnost and perestroika.
HOYA On-the-Go Podcast
NEW! Basketball Preview
Latest Issue
Where's Erika Cohen-Derr in this? I don't think that the student SAC Commissioner has the unilateral authority to rearrange the Leavey Center. Maybe she does, but I doubt it. Seems to me that there's someone else pulling strings here.
Thank you! SAC needs to stop making decisions without consent of student clubs.
This just shows how absolutely out-of-touch with student realities SAC is. As students, we ought to demand a complete re-organization of SAC so that it is both democratic and accountable to the people who fund it and who are its supposed beneficiaries (that's right: students). While I think this is undoubtedly a structural problem, we should not assume that individual actors, such as Sophia Behnia and Bill McCoy, have zero culpability in taking or allowing these particular actions. For example, Sophia Behnia is the one responsible for the prevailing attitude that says (or, being generous to her, strongly implies) starting student groups should be difficult (see: http://www.thehoya.com/node/16240) and that it should be able to allocate funds as it sees fit with minimal student input (see: http://www.thehoya.com/node/15853). This sort of autocratic, we-know-what's-best-for-everyone-else-so-just-shut-up attitude needs to stop. They chafe at the notion that some might see them as "administrators" rather than plain ol' "students," but the fact of the matter is that SAC is so out of touch with this campus and so delighted with their own bureaucratic power, it's hard not to wonder if they are even aware of what "Hoya Saxa" means.
This is the same SAC who was caught last year hoarding about $200,000? That resolved to spend $100,000 on improving club space?
Nice job, guys. Bravo.
Say what you want about GUSA, but at least we can elect them. You'd think there'd be a few more checks and balances for a group that controls the purse-strings of just about every group on campus.
Do you guys really think that SAC makes these decisions completely on their own? Maybe they do, I admit that. But I can't help but think (and to some extent hope) that there is some kind of leadership higher than that. I really think that a lot of the vitriol here should be targeted at whoever REALLY controls the purse strings. If it's 100% Sophia and SAC, then fine. But if there's anyone in CSP involved, I'd also be questioning them.
Disgruntled Hoya , the amount was MORE than $800,000 of unused funds. And folks like Bill McCoy (who is undoubtedly on a power trip) decide to adopt this crusader attitude of "use it or lose it," further allowing SAC to horde funds accumulated by clubs at the end of every academic year. Then, SAC proceeds to tell clubs they are illiquid and have outstanding dues, which has gone on for years.
And now this?! Last time I checked, the purpose of SAC is to serve the students, not create an oligarchy that hordes student fees.
“These offices have been more utilized in the past, but with today’s technology (e.g. cell phones, e-mail, laptops, etc.) the use of offices has become more outdated and not as necessary as it once was.”
Then can CSP explain why the discrepancy in size between any of the student organization offices and the CSP office? The sight of everyone at a club meeting attempting to fit into a closet sized office in Leavey, while the CSP office has multiple couches, waiting areas, and liberally sized offices for its administrators.
I thought a university's primary purpose was to serve its students?
Question: if an office is so unnecessary in an age of technology, why do CSP and SAC need offices? Why can't they just e-mail each other and shuffle books and papers back and forth to their homes?
This line of reasoning is just plain silly. Other universities have whole buildings devoted to student space and Georgetown can't give us a measly two floors of what is supposed to be a "student center?"
personal attacks only go so far. would someone please get some courage and ASK sophia or bill or all these people who are apparently trying to "destroy" the lives of students what happened in regards to these complaints? random editorials that do not take into account all the facts are of little use to students on this campus. if u have questions about sac, or csp, please just go and ask where your money is going. i can guarantee that there are no sac commissioners going to bed on piles of money. bill, sophia, and plenty of others work hard for this campus. that doesnt mean certain things couldnt be planned better. but please, to all you commentators out there, go to a meeting and put in your two cents instead of spitting vitriolic comments from the comfort of the internet.
thanks.
Post new comment