A feed could not be found at http://director.safeguardoldstate.org

The Sentinel

An Eye on the Penn State Administration


PSU Student Groups Lose Right To Appeal Violations To Peers

The Daily Collegian reports on two horrifying events that took place yesterday: USG lost its seat on Faculty Senate, sort of and students officially have lost the rights to appeal alleged violations to a group of their peers.

Faculty Senate, without allowing any student input, has decided to remove USG Academic Assembly (AA) President Ricardo Torres as the voting student member of the Faculty Senate, while retaining the 12 USG AA members as liaisons to each academic unit.

Does this make sense? Why stifle students’ voting rights while retaining only liaison students? Students will now be represented by someone appointed by the UPUA – an organization whose president received less than 2% of student approval.

Separately, the Center for Student Engagement has officially removed the ability for representative students to oversee the violations hearings and appeals processes, saying that not enough students knew about the old student-led process.

Now, a large body of administrators and an “undetermined” number (decidedly much smaller) of appointed students will monitor student group violations. If the old process was unknown, why not provide it more with more support and advertising? Is it perhaps that the old process gave students too much control?

It’s true what they say: in America, free speech and democracy are inalienable rights; at Penn State, it’s an entirely different story.

« | Home | »

Note: The Safeguard Old State Executive Staff does not moderate the comments posted by the public to blog entries. The comments of Safeguard Old State readers do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Safeguard Old State.

Comments

“Separately, the Center for Student Engagement has officially removed the ability for representative students to oversee the violations hearings and appeals processes”

Remember what i said before about USG lasting about 2 more months? Thats the first part of the setup, though its a huge move in and of itself.

JC –

That’s ludicrous. I attended the CSE’s meeting about the change – and it had nothing to do with USG. Sure, USG lost the ability to oversee student organizations years ago. This change was because the process that was switched to (from USG) wasn’t working.

The CSE representative at the meeting did say that the previous (years ago) USG process worked well, and she wasn’t sure why it was taken away.

But, the change has nothing to do with USG.

It wasnt taken away. It weas given up by the USG supreme court — partially because they didnt have the time and resources to do the job properly and partly as part of a deal to get some meaningless concessions from Student affairs.

Stated reason or not, making the proccess by which RPSO violations are addressed would make it easier to pull the plug on USG quietly. Now if someone wanted to charge USG with a violation of rules and policies, the charge and the hearing would be primarily closed door.

but then again, your line of reasoning makes much more sense:

PSU student affairs decides on one way to address violations of RPSO… when that turns out to be ineffective, they immediately and of their own accord admit their mistake and promptly address it. when they do so, they own up to it frankly and address it in a (presumably public) CSE meeting.

I dont know why this scenario didnt occur to me before… Its so typical of the way student affairs normally operates. HEre i was thinking the changes to the proccess came down from on high, and the meeting was just a lame puppet show to justify a decision that had already been made for entirely different reasons.

sigh.

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)