2008 Woodie Awards
Democracy at AC: Views after Student Leader Day
Keith Sullivan
Issue date: 2/5/05 Section: Viewpoint
- Page 1 of 4 next >
Individuals might be dismayed when a student makes a legitimate commitment to protect certain civil liberties on his/her own campus. However, this is a fundamental pursuit, and comes in an effort to be most exact in our policies while specifically defining the need for a multi-tiered system of legislation. Quite specifically, there currently exists little protection (apart from the possibility of independent legal counsel) for the student body of Assumption College. Where then, are the concerns of all students most fully expressed?
Such a consideration was addressed, among other issues, at the recent Assumption College Student Leadership Training Day, where students belonging to various organizations (SGA, Res. Life, Provoc, Plourde, CAB, Campus Ministry, ALANA and ROC) met and discussed their similarities and differences. Students were confronted with the several "images" and biases their respective groups may maintain among fellow students, some good, some not-so-good. Evaluation of the event continued well after the scheduled activity itself, and my personal concern stems from the fact that some individuals may still walk away from such an experience holding animosity towards groups with differing opinions.
In an effort to maintain the validity of this article, certain sources, names and specific incidences need not be addressed. However, all those with sincere commitments to community at Assumption College should be appalled to learn that certain participants walked away, only to have later discussions aimed at declaring the "arrogance" of the SGA and the improper pursuits of policy issues, undertaken by that organization. Several members of SGA were almost immediately confronted with rumors of their alleged alcoholism, apparently assumed by certain students in an effort to explain the legislative endeavors of the group. Furthermore, hurtful claims circulated among the student body, declaring that SGA members were only interested in changing policy to get themselves out of trouble. Are these stigmas, particularly if expressed by those with the power of enforcement, healthy for a community environment?