Cobbers recently received news of Concordia College’s Student Government Association (SGA) stating their opposition to the MN Marriage Amendment. If passed, the MN Marriage Amendment would define marriage as between one man and one woman. Regardless of which side SGA decided to come out on, this passed resolution reflects poorly upon Student Government’s respect for student body’s wishes due to lacking clear proof of students’ opinions on the matter (for example, a survey with high response rate).

SGA’s Mission (as stated in the SGA Constitution) includes their responsibility to “act as the official representatives of the student body subject to the will of the students at large.” Certainly, SGA class representatives were not elected according to their thoughts on political issues, like marriage rights; all ran unopposed in the 2012 SGA elections. Unelected SGA commissioners voted as well.

While the intention behind the announcement may be admirable, SGA entirely disregards student body opinion on the resolution by not seeking student body input. Readers and alumni from outside Concordia view such statements as reflecting the sentiment of the student body. The passed resolution even specifically positions itself as in regard to the “student sentiment regarding the upcoming marriage amendment vote.”

Supporting and opposing the resolution were not the only options in the late-night SGA Meeting – suggestions to poll students’ opinions were offered. Ultimately, SGA decided to speak for the students on said issue without actually knowing where the student body stands. Since when can a student government voice its opinion on a very emotional and politicized issue? Further, how can the members disregard the students’ opinions while simultaneously claiming to represent the students? In the future, consideration for the represented student body must be held as high priority.

 

Tags: , , , ,