The Student Commission for Unity announced a decision to break away from GUSA Sunday night, following a Feb. 8 vote on the issue by the SCU’s executive board.
While SCU was originally created as a commission of the student association Senate and obtained funding from GUSA, conflict between the groups arose on Feb. 4 when the GUSA Senate altered and rejected some recommendations made in the SCU’s final report.
Brian Kesten (COL ’10), principal investigator and commission chairman, said that independence from GUSA will provide greater stability for SCU and will allow the organization to more easily connect with the campus community and fulfill its mission.
“The board believes that the students who invested thousands of hours conducting the research are the most qualified students to determine the direction of the organization, its research, and its recommendations,” he said in an e-mail.
The commission was first organized last April in response to what was widely considered to be the Hoya’s minimal coverage of a rally and vigil for the Jena Six, six black students from Jena, La. who were initially charged with attempted murder after attacking a white classmate, as well as two alleged hate crimes against Georgetown students.
Over the last 10 months, it conducted a survey of 1,339 Georgetown students about their perceptions of bias on campus. The SCU released its findings, as well as a series of recommendations to the university in a ceremony Jan. 27. SCU’s charter requires that the GUSA Senate approve its recommendations before they are officially presented to the university, and the senate voted to amend and eliminate certain recommendations – while approving many others.
GUSA President Pat Dowd (SFS ’09) said in a viewpoint (“Kesten Taking SCU Down Wrong Path,” thehoya.com, Feb. 17, 2009) that he was disappointed by SCU’s decision to cut ties with GUSA and is not sure what success that will bring the commission in the future.
“Affirming my worst suspicions, the SCU has decided to cut ties with GUSA in order to unilaterally petition administrators for a number of controversial diversity-related policy changes,” Dowd said. “This development raises serious concerns about what is being advocated on the behalf of students without their informed consent.”
According to university spokesperson Julie Bataille, the administration does not plan to get involved in the conflict between SCU and GUSA.
“This issue is really one for SCU and GUSA to work out. What is most important is that university administrators be able to take the thoughtful research and work related to SCU’s recent study on diversity and tolerance and incorporate it appropriately into existing mechanisms so that our ongoing efforts can be enhanced,” she said in an e-mail.
Dowd said he gave SCU the opportunity to become an independent organization last September. Dowd and Kesten reached the mutual decision that SCU should operate within GUSA, maintaining GUSA funding and advertisement.
According to Dowd, GUSA appropriated “thousands of dollars” for the SCU. Kesten said that GUSA contributed about 30 percent of the SCU’s total funding, with the rest coming from a variety of other sources, including private donors.
While Kesten was addressing the GUSA Senate on Wednesday night, Senator Tim Swenson (COL ’10) asked Kesten when he was going to submit a payment plan for returning the 30 percent of the SCU’s funding, which was supplied by GUSA. GUSA Senator and Finance and Appropriations Committee Chair Matt Wagner (SFS ’11), said that he is not sure whether the SCU will have to pay back GUSA.
“The research was not done by SCU at the request of GUSA. The research was done by GUSA. It just so happens that the way that GUSA did the research was to create a commission to do that. The SCU is and was GUSA,” Wagner said. “The SCU was a mechanism through with GUSA was collecting research . never intended to do advocacy. Are they going to have to pay the senate back? I don’t know.”
Kesten is also unsure whether or not repayment will be required, as there are conditions that complicate the situation.
“This senate and this president didn’t allocate those funds to us, it was the senate under Eden Schiffmann (COL ’08) and the executive under Ben Shaw (COL ’08),” he said. “I don’t know if there’s any precedent for asking a club to pay back funds used for events or anything . I don’t know.”
Senate Speaker Reggie Greer (COL ’09) said that he was not surprised by the move and expressed his support for both the SCU and its decision to become independent. He added that official decisions still have to be made in order for the SCU to become an independent club, which includes changing the name of the organization. In order to become a new club, the SCU must submit an official application, according to the Georgetown University Web site.
“I hope people realize it’s never been about slighting one group of people. . I’m very proud of what [the SCU] has done,” Greer said.
According to an SCU press release, the relationship with GUSA has not been a positive one.
“The Student Commission for Unity Executive Board has seen a once productive relationship with the student association turn into an inhibiting one,” the press release stated. “As we move forward, we are confident that our move away from GUSA will in no way inhibit our ability to advocate on behalf of the student body for positive change.”
Andrea Bischoff (SFS ’11), a board member for the Academic Initiatives of the SCU, was disappointed that the two groups could no longer work together.
“The bylaws of the student senate state the purpose of improving the quality of life at Georgetown for its students. It is unfortunate that, since SCU strives toward the same mission, the two seem to not be able to work in-tandem toward accomplishing this goal,” she said in an e-mail.
Wagner stated that the main problem with the commission’s becoming an independent club is that they will not be able to legitimately speak on behalf of student body.
“Although they can cite the research as fact, they can’t claim to be speaking on behalf [of] the student body [as an independent organization]. They can only legitimately claim to speak on behalf of themselves,” he said.
Katie Noble (MSB ’09), an SCU executive board member, however, said in e-mail that the SCU’s goals have changed and therefore the commission itself needs to alter its identity.
“As we move forward with the advocacy mission of Student Commission for Unity, there has been a fundamental shift in the type of work we are doing . the shift in the type of work also resulted in a shift from demographic-based research teams to action teams based on the part of life at Georgetown that the recommendations seek to change,” Noble said.
“
