SGA's intentions good, virtually unknown

House Editorial

At the Student Government Association meeting Tuesday night, senators discussed the passage of bill C4: Student Government Association Student Bill of Rights and Responsibility. Student Body President Levar Stoney lobbied for the bill, which drew much debate.

The necessity of an SGA Bill of Rights and Responsibilities is questionable because most of the same guarantees already exist in the University Code of Conduct.

Much of the debate centered around Article II of the bill, which extends rights against discrimination to include sexual orientation. It states:

"Students shall not be denied University opportunities based upon race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, national origin or citizenship status, age, disability or veteran status."

Such a provision regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation neither is included in the University Code of Conduct nor in Virginia state law. This leaves the SGA with no authority to make such a guarantee and unable to completely enforce it.

A vote on the bill finally was postponed until March 16 after over an hour of debate. Senators said they wanted additional time to consider the proposal and speak with their respective constituents. In the case of this bill, it had been proposed for consideration four weeks ago and on the docket for two weeks. This appears to be adequate time to discuss the issue with constituents. Yet, so few senators were in attendance that SGA barely met quorum — two-thirds of the Senate.

To some members of the Senate, the bill sets a "precedence" and creates a "grass-roots campaign" to evoke change. If the bill truly has the gravity those senators claim it does, there is no fault in asking for additional time on a tough decision. But, if not, the fact that they had such an extended period and failed to do so beforehand is inexcusable.

The senators need to do a better job of being the voice for students on campus. Many of them swore they were unsure of how the campus would react. This research needed to be done before the bill came to a vote in Senate.

The Senate needs to look beyond the small scope of the SGA and, instead, work to make change on the university level, hence the slogan, "Your SGA." This would be a way to truly make a lasting difference — like supporters of this bill propose.

Much like junior Krissy Schnebel, who helped motivate the campus during the emergency contraception pill debate, senators need to gather opinions and compile signatures urging the university to revise its discrimination policy.

The SGA seems too complacent with the passage of the bill. In fact, the anonymity of the bill itself, which few students knew about, shows the lack of power it wields. The SGA needed to better publicize the bill.

If it is unwilling to do this, at the very least, a revision is necessary in order to avoid confusion.

The bill is misleading to students because the SGA has no means of ensuring that students will not be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.

If the SGA passes a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities with an article including sexual orientation, it needs to reword the article to say something the SGA can promise such as, "The SGA will support and offer services for any student who is discriminated against on the basis of …"

This is a promise that can be kept.

The SGA has become distant from students. Some senators mentioned people cheering and dancing in the streets if the bill were to be passed. This is wishful thinking, and a more likely result is just a pat on the back from a fellow senator. If no one knows about the bill, the purpose of the bill cannot be realized.