As if anyone needs another reason to lose faith in the SGA this election season, we learned in The Diamondback yesterday about a recently passed resolution urging the New Student Orientation Office to include more sexual assault education during orientation.
Where should I begin?
I’ve had the honor of working with orientation for a long time now, and I’ve seen the dedication and extensive decision-making process that goes into every minute detail of the program. I know what it’s like to work hard and represent students at this university. The Student Government Association could learn a lot from us.
But I don’t need to defend orientation to anyone. What I do need to do is ask the SGA just what it thinks it’s doing. How arrogant and self-important can a body of college students be? The orientation office is a professional office with full-time university employees who have studied new student development and possess masters degrees and doctorates. These people dedicate their careers to the needs and wants of a massive and diverse group of incoming freshman and transfer students. The orientation office is full of passionate students who have been trained by the best of the best. The SGA is clearly confused if it thinks it’s entitled to make changes to a program it knows nothing about. I doubt anyone has ever wanted a 30-minute sexual assault presentation during his or her first day on a new campus.
The SGA accomplishes nothing and isn’t fooling anybody. Members of the group took an issue that everyone already agrees is important (sexual assault) and publicly adopted the position everyone already has. (It’s bad.) After that, zero concrete steps are taken to create any positive change. What’s worse, no one has identified where this need for change comes from; if SGA members attended any of our orientations over the summer, then they didn’t come up with any brilliant ideas. Simply deciding students need to know more about an issue doesn’t make orientation an appropriate forum for discussion.
But alas, now we have an SGA resolution, and the body has gained what they want: The appearance that it’s doing work. So members propose vague, general next steps. Speaker Pro Tempore Andrea Marcin wants to see increased communication between orientation and the University Health Center’s Sexual Assault Response and Prevention Program. What does that even mean, and what will it do for students? What Marcin called “increased communication” is a goal far too broad to be accomplished, but I bet it looks good on a resume! In the abstract, the SGA has ideas people can agree with. However, abstract ideas aren’t helping students.
There are serious problems with an organization trying to accomplish anything this way. The sense of superiority that leads members to believe they are authorized to say how other offices in this university should operate is appalling. Where is the research? Where is the hard work? Where is the communication with students and other offices? Obviously, it’s not there, or a resolution like this would never have existed. Passing a resolution is not equal to taking a stand; passing a resolution like this is a lot closer to trying to tell people how important you are.
SGA, I appreciate that you want to help students. Unfortunately, you’re bad enough at the job you’re doing now. Don’t start telling other people how to do theirs. You look like a bunch of children.
Jake DeVirgiliis is a junior government and politics major. He can be reached at devirgiliis@umdbk.com.
