GUSA strategy plays to University’s hands

The passage of yet another round of Student Activity Fund Endowment reforms this week begs a question about how the Georgetown University Student Association manages its relationship with University administration. A vote for SAFE reform this time around is surely a good one, but it is also a stinging reminder of what could have been.

The SAFE endowment, established in 2001, was to be comprised of student money combined with $3 million from the University. Not surprisingly, the administration never came through. Additionally, subsequent generations of GUSA senators have forgotten not only about the University’s commitment, but about the fund itself. By 2010 the ignored fund had only grown to $3.4 million instead of the projected $10 million. Sadly, GUSA mismanaged what could have left a great legacy for Georgetown students, and its failure is a testament to its ineffectiveness in securing student interests and dealing with the administration.

Apart from GUSA’s four-year turnover rate, the root cause of the failure of their initiatives is that the University has little incentive to honor agreements with student government. For years, GUSA’s strategy has been to get chummy with the administration, making back-room, handshake deals instead of exerting pressure and mobilizing student, alumni, and faculty support for student initiatives.

By contrast, the biggest and most radical changes on our campus have occurred through public, direct action. Both Georgetown Solidarity Committee, with its 2005 Living Wage campaign, and GU Pride, with “Out for Change” in 2007, proved that cooperation with the administration is not the best avenue for change on the Hilltop. Both organizations engaged for years in futile working groups and committees with administration officials. When cooperation with the system failed, both GSC and GU Pride turned to the student population as their coercive mechanism. This included mobilizing students for sit-ins, protests, and a hunger strike, which garnered intense support from the wider community. The result was quick success for each group, and the only legitimate and lasting student-initiated change we’ve seen in recent years.

Student frustration with the University administration is no novelty, especially concerning their recurring decisions to favor the preservation and promotion of Georgetown’s reputation rather than addressing student concerns. Taking up issues with the administration can be a long, arduous process, but representatives have faced these challenges long enough to realize working within the system simply isn’t working. If GUSA wants real results, it should follow the lead of GSC and GU Pride in becoming active and direct in its strategy. It is commendable that representatives have persuaded the administration to acknowledge it will not receive any SAFE funds without a plan for a pub in the New South Student Center, but actually making the them follow through on this proposal calls for a new approach to the relationship. It is time for GUSA to embrace direct action to promote campus interests so it can begin to truly act as a meaningful representative of the student body.

Editorial Board Chair’s Note: The penultimate sentence has been changed to say the University has agreed to provide a plan for a pub in the New South Student Center. Previously, it stated the proposed pub would be in the basement of Healy Hall, which is incorrect. I apologize for this error in editing.