At yesterday’s University Senate meeting, David resoundingly triumphed over Goliath and university history was made, proving that students, if willing to invest dedication and hard work, can make substantial change happen at this university, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable opposition.
Although it was nearly impossible to tell — 78 senate members voted to approve a policy that shields students from university sanctions if they risk calling for emergency help in situations where they or their friends are dangerously intoxicated, while only one opposed — the nearly four-year fight to implement what is known as a Good Samaritan policy was not one that students were expected to win.
When then-undergraduate university senator Stacia Cosner introduced a proposal to establish such a policy in 2007, it was quickly rebuked. Resident Life Associate Director Steve Petkas, for instance, said such a policy was unnecessary and would further encourage students to use drugs and alcohol. And John Zacker, Student Conduct Office director, argued against its adoption because, he said, the policy’s breadth would hinder his office’s ability to tailor punishments for students who had violated university underage-drinking policies. Moreover, after debating the merits of the Good Samaritan proposal during the 2007-2008 academic year, the senate’s Student Conduct Committee unanimously voted to kill Cosner’s proposal.
In spite of the initial widespread opposition among administrators, faculty and staff to the idea of a Good Samaritan policy, Cosner did not give up. She kept fighting. But instead of waging a war by herself or strictly enlisting the help of a single student organization, Cosner built an army, recruiting students from all walks of life to join the battle. Indeed, in the three and a half years that it took for the senate to approve a firm policy, one that includes changes to the Student Conduct Code, countless numbers of students have advocated for the policy. From the Student Government Association to this university’s chapter of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy to unaffiliated students from every corner of this university, all united to speak at forums, lobby their university senators, meet with administrators, vote in referendums and make their voices heard. And though Cosner, along with many of the other original proponents, has since graduated, the issue they began outlived them, carried on by a new generation.
This university owes a debt of gratitude to those countless students who fought tooth and nail to ensure the dream of a Good Samaritan policy became a reality. Yet the real story is not that the policy passed — although that is certainly monumental — but that yesterday’s success proved the true power students can wield if they exercise passion, patience and perseverance.
Far too often, students at this institution try to create change in isolation.
The SGA, for example, may pass a resolution demanding action but does not work with student activists to lobby administrators or senators and make that change happen. Concurrently, student activists too often demand change without bothering to engage student leaders in the university’s governing bodies, including the senate, SGA and Residence Hall Association. While it may only take a few weeks for the SGA to pass a resolution or for a student group to organize a protest, the process to enact long-standing, university-wide change is long and arduous. Studies must be done. Opinions must be gathered. Constituencies must be allowed to debate. Committee meetings must be convened. And, perhaps most importantly, compromise must be deemed acceptable.
If real change is to be made, student leaders must be in it for the long haul and prepared for the possibility that they may not see their work materialize, as tangible results may not be achieved during their tenure at this university. This is also why, for progress to be achieved, students must learn to reach out to one another and pass down the work they have done to others willing and able to carry it on.
As the university celebrates the approval of a policy that will undoubtedly save students from injury and possibly death, this editorial board encourages students to remember the process that allowed this to happen. If they forget the past, overlooking the lessons which the nearly four-year fight for a Good Samaritan policy can teach them, they will surely be unable to impact the future.
