The Student Government Association’s (SGA) Nov. 5 vote to reject a student-led referendum concerning rights for free speech and student protection on our campus raises an important question: Who does the SGA work for? Students, or the Middlebury College administration? We are concerned about the SGA’s decision not to allow these students to host their proposed referendum. The decision raises broader questions about SGA’s role and effectiveness.
SGA is comprised of passionate students who commit a significant portion of their time as college students to developing meaningful changes to improve the Middlebury experience. We commend initiatives such as sponsoring break buses, which increase the accessibility of the college to students without cars, and reintroducing 10 o’clock Ross, which provides students with late-night food options without overburdening dining services, who are often understaffed.
However, we cannot help but notice that the SGA’s decision to refuse the student-led initiative is concerning. The proposed referendum called for an official rejection of the Trump administration’s funding compact, prohibiting the college from sharing information about students and faculty with federal law enforcement, providing the college community with legal assistance with immigration-related matters, requiring Middlebury staff to provide proof of identity before asking students for identification, and clarifying that pamphleting and posting on social media are expressions of free speech.
The Editorial Board did not discuss the merits of this proposal in itself, nor do we endorse either side. Instead, we agreed that the SGA should have allowed students the opportunity to vote on this referendum. The referendum might have reached students who were not aware of its proposals. Students might have voted for or against it. We would like to know whether SGA members read this proposal in its entirety, and if they chose to side with the administration's views out of a sense of obligation.
We believe the SGA’s open forum with members of the college administration, including general counsel and student affairs staff members, should have taken place before they refused the referendum, rather than after. This would have provided student senators with more voices and perspectives on the referendum, and opened public conversation with the administration earlier. Informed by this conversation, SGA could have made a vote to better represent the student body they are supposed to serve. More broadly, we call on the SGA to provide students with more regular, detailed and honest information about the discussions being held behind closed doors with the administration.
The SGA must not side with the administration without first consulting with students on proposals and ideas. They should have hosted an open forum for the writers of this proposal to share their reasons for advocating a referendum before inviting members of the administration to consult on a student-led policy. The decision to hold a referendum should be made by students, who should have been allowed to hear all sides and make an informed decision before casting their vote. After their referendum proposal was rejected, the organisers created a petition, which, at the time of writing, has 167 signatures. We see this as clear evidence that students are engaged with the referendum material and that a referendum is warranted.
Creating more open-forum town halls as a form of student governance would enable students passionate about a specific topic to engage and share their perspectives and experiences. This would help reduce student and administrative bureaucracy and complement the small-school environment we are proud of. With the refusal to allow this referendum, the SGA feels like a spokesperson of the administration, when it should be the other way around.
We call on more students to participate in the SGA and run for more positions. While we hope that the SGA’s refusal to host this referendum starts a broader conversation about its efficacy, we encourage students to participate in its current form. We wonder whether more candidates would be interested in campaigning if the SGA clearly advocated on our behalf and not the administration. More often than not, SGA senators run unopposed, creating a low-quality campaign and a poor environment for conversation and competition. As a result, the SGA has forgotten that it is not a spokesperson for Old Chapel, but instead for Middlebury College students. After all, the clue is in the name. They are the Student Government Association.
