Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Do We Have a Deal Yet: Not Our Deal

Published: Thursday, September 1, 2011

Updated: Friday, September 2, 2011 03:09

Do We Have a Deal Yet? — the coalition of more than 140 collegiate student body presidents started by GUSA President Mike Meaney (SFS '12) and representing more than two million college students — aimed to push national political leaders toward compromise on the federal debt limit. They overstepped their bounds.

Student body presidents are elected to represent their peers in campus-specific proposals that are designed to make college life easier. National political representation, however, should be left to the congressmen and senators that many of those two million-plus college students elect of their own free will.

The campaign, which kicked off August 2, claimed to represent "our generation," but what it became was a grandstanding gesture by student leaders who saw a publicity opening. They got what they wanted: endless web, newspaper and television press, including buzz over a conference call with President Obama. The coalition expanded quickly, not because the student body presidents were being urged by their respective constituents to mobilize, but because they found company in their equally ambitious counterparts at other universities.

But in the end, what was actually accomplished? Elected campus leaders may have written a letter and filled the Twitter feeds of Congressmen with the now famous hashtag, but students did not march en masse in the streets of Washington. Student body presidents did not compel their peers to action by coordinating a phone-a-thon to congressional leaders. Nor did they solicit the cooperation of the College Republicans or College Democrats, two political forces on campus who may have been better equipped to take on Capitol Hill during the debt crisis.

While we understand GUSA's good intentions, it is important they remember their place as representatives of Georgetown students to the administration, not to politicians. GUSA executive representatives did not advertise a political campaign when they were running back in February. While Healy Hall and Capitol Hill were designed to mirror each other across Washington, GUSA leaders should stick to leading who they were elected to lead — our student body.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

7 comments

Anonymous
Sat Sep 10 2011 21:35
Well put. Students elect the student body government for school issues, not national political issues. I doubt these kids ran with a platform plank of "affecting national politics."
Anonymous
Wed Sep 7 2011 12:21
Just gunna throw this out there for the record:

I know numerous people in GUSA who weren't involved in this project (myself included) who completely agree with this editorial....

Anonymous
Sun Sep 4 2011 12:45
joyce/lovejoy
Anonymous
Sun Sep 4 2011 11:26
If you think this initiative took the entire summer for the GUSA executive to organize then you clearly have no factual knowledge of the process it went through. It actually took about 2 weeks to conceptualize, coordinate, and execute. The coalition simply went above and beyond the typical and narrow idea of what student representatives' call of duty is in order to remind our national representatives that they have a responsibility to our generation in a unique time of unparalleled crisis. Mike and Greg aren't planning on hitting Capital Hill every month, it was a once-in-a-term opportunity that we should be grateful to them for seizing. They took time out of their summer vacation, not their allotted time for GUSA work to do this. If you knew them, you would know that they spent a hell of a lot of time this summer working on things that you would most likely consider "improving student life on the Hilltop". They thought of this idea on GUTS bus ride and executed it in lightning speed. You should be proud as a Georgetown student that these guys represented you nobly on the highest stage in our country, while still working their ass off to improve student life on campus. Maybe when Obama and other congressional leaders now think of Georgetown students they'll think of this initiative instead of meth labs. But why not gripe, its so easy to do.
Anonymous
Fri Sep 2 2011 10:41
The "tangible cost" to students was the missed opportunity for student leaders to spend the summer working to concretely improve student life here on the Hilltop. That is what those leaders were elected to do, and that is how those leaders should have spent their summers.
Anonymous
Fri Sep 2 2011 09:54
Why does the ED Board imply the initiative was a failure by not getting massive amounts of students protesting out on the mall, calling congressional leaders, nor involving political party organizations? That wasn't the goal of the initiative. Instead, they accomplished the goal they did set for themselves. They set out to represent their constituent's voices (which they were elected to do), in the highest forum for interest aggregation in our country - the Capitol. The ED board says that "GUSA leaders should stick to leading who they were elected to lead." Well, if by "lead" you mean directing constituent involvement (organize and coordinate protests and phone-a-thons) than they did fail to do this. But if you meant "lead" as in represent, than they did just that. Clearer language would have been appreciated. For most political scientists, there is a difference between leading and representing. Part of being an elected official is leading, and another part of it is representing. Balancing these two responsibilities is what differentiates populism from democracy. In the case of this initiative, these student leaders were representing. They were representing student interests (at no tangible cost to students), in a place and time where those interest were being ignored. So, long story short, I'll have to respectfully disagree.
Anonymous
Fri Sep 2 2011 09:47
So the fact that there were two major groups promoting the student interest during this debate (DWHADY? and Save Pell) didn't have anything to do with the fact that Pell Grants were actually increased as a result of this deal?

Ok.

Seriously though, what a dreadfully parochial attitude this editorial puts forward. Students aren't supposed to look beyond the hilltop and engage with issues that affect them directly? Pushing for a deal to avoid a national default was not a political position, it was a rational position.

In the future, we'll leave it up to the folks at The Hoya and just cross our fingers.







log out