SA should investigate disinterest in IVP position
Though uncontested elections are nothing new to the Student Association, it seems this year no one will be featured
We’re rather puzzled as to how no one from within student government, let alone the at-large members of the SA, have decided to run for the IVP position. This year, the SA has made a concerted effort to appeal to the student body through its social media outreach, and we applaud them for the effort and the changes they have made in this regard.
However, why hasn’t a single senator or New Student Representative decided to run for any of the currently vacant or uncontested positions? Why is it that, similar to last year, none of the positions other than SA president and external vice president are contested?
Perhaps the student body maintains a lack of understanding of the expectations of the roles (for instance, the difference in duties between EVP and IVP), thereby discouraging any potential runs. Perhaps roles within residential college government are seen as more attractive. Perhaps for those within the Senate, the fact that the IVP position is “incredibly demanding and relatively thankless” (in SA President Griffin Thomas’ own words), is a deterrent.
We aren’t sure what factors have contributed to this lack of engagement, and we certainly do not fault the SA on this point. However, this may necessitate a rethinking of how the SA’s positions are structured internally; perhaps the SA should conduct an internal focus group asking senators, who are the most familiar with the SA, as to what deterred them from running. This may help determine whether the lack of engagement is an external issue relating to outreach or education, or whether it merits a restructuring of these positions to decrease their load and/or render them more rewarding.
More from The Rice Thresher
Two years ago, a group of Thresher staffers went to Washington D.C. to attend the College Media Association’s annual convention, during which student journalists shared concerns that their communities didn’t take them seriously. Administrators would patronize them and ignore emails, and coverage often went unread.
For those of you who are seniors, you’ll remember a campus controversy that broke out in April 2019 when The Hoot announced its decision to stop serving Chick-fil-A amid criticism of its donations to three organizations — the Salvation Army, the Paul Anderson Youth Home and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes — that have taken anti-LGBTQ+ stances. When the policy took effect the following fall, I spoke out against the decision in this paper, arguing the secondary boycott was nothing more than token enforcement of an unworkable standard. I still believe that we shouldn’t take into account political considerations when we eat. But The Hoot didn’t budge, and the controversy quickly faded away. I have close friends on both sides of the issue, so I didn’t push the matter any further.
We’re nearing the end of another semester in the COVID-19 pandemic, filled with policy changes requiring flexibility from administration, faculty and students alike. We appreciate the administration’s responsiveness to the evolving pandemic, but the continuous changes are not without consequences. This semester has been hard on many students’ mental health due to insufficient academic accommodations on top of pandemic-related stress. While we understand the necessity in being flexible with COVID policies due to the ever-changing nature of the pandemic, administration and professors should recognize the impact this has on students and their mental health, and be proactive in accounting for this.