2008 Woodie Awards
Our View: Proposed changes to Co-Op unwarranted
Issue date: 11/2/07 Section: Opinion
If anything, passing the amendment would actually have had more negative consequences than positive outcomes. It's not a stretch to believe that, as health and safety professor Wilma Cavill pointed out at Tuesday's open forum, such a measure by SGA could potentially drive faculty from wanting to participate in the organization at all.
Such a situation could arise, Cavill said, because faculty would be unlikely to subject themselves to a system in which they must first gain the approval of their peers and also from a group of students.
Though SGA members have said that they value the opinions of the faculty members on the Co-Op board, a more accurate statement seems to be that the current SGA Executive Board members value the opinions of the faculty on the Co-Op Board, so long as students have a say in who sits on that board. It's tough to put too much stake in their claim, however, if only because the idea of completely eliminating faculty from the Co-Op board had also been discussed when conversations about the proposed amendment began.
Just as doing something because that's the way it's always been done isn't a good justification for an action, we think that making a change fraught with potential negative consequences simply for the sake of doing so is just as illogical.
It seems that SGA is only trying to make the world an unnecessarily complicated place, one amendment, one vote, one highly irritated faculty union at a time.
Such a situation could arise, Cavill said, because faculty would be unlikely to subject themselves to a system in which they must first gain the approval of their peers and also from a group of students.
Though SGA members have said that they value the opinions of the faculty members on the Co-Op board, a more accurate statement seems to be that the current SGA Executive Board members value the opinions of the faculty on the Co-Op Board, so long as students have a say in who sits on that board. It's tough to put too much stake in their claim, however, if only because the idea of completely eliminating faculty from the Co-Op board had also been discussed when conversations about the proposed amendment began.
Just as doing something because that's the way it's always been done isn't a good justification for an action, we think that making a change fraught with potential negative consequences simply for the sake of doing so is just as illogical.
It seems that SGA is only trying to make the world an unnecessarily complicated place, one amendment, one vote, one highly irritated faculty union at a time.
Be the first to comment on this story