MUSG Write University Administration a Blank Check

Tomorrow morning Marquette University Student Government (MUSG) may trumpet the passing of Resolution 1 “On Behalf of Student Expression” as a solid and decisive victory against the ever-increasing encroachment of the Marquette University Administration into the individual private lives of the student body but some of us, I among them, are less then optimistic.

Let me start by saying how disappointed I am in the student body of Marquette University. Student comments on the resolution and the issue at hand, which specifically involved the College of Dentistry student who was suspended for comments he made on his personal blog, were recognized by the student government (this was merely general comments and opinions, nothing specifically involving the exact language of the resolution or individual perspectives or retorts to comments made by senators of the student government in regards to the language of the resolution), which meant that this was the best opportunity in which the student body could express their frustration and anger toward the decision by the Associate Dean of the College of Dentistry and work cooperatively with their senators to open the field of dialogue with the campus administration to make sure this does not happen again. However, the attendance was sparse at best; appalling at worst. Few showed up outside of the individuals who had a particularly stake in the passing or failing of the resolution or the issue of free speech on campus in general (GOP3.com, 1832, and Office of Homeland Security respectively). This can only mean that the student body of Marquette University is lazy or they simply do not care either way what happens in regards to free speech rights on campus which I think (and I hope I am not alone on this) reflects poorly on the senators of the student government and, more importantly, the university administration. I do not believe the lack of participation in this meeting had any direct correlation to final exams. I, as well as the others in attendance, certainly had work yet to be accomplished as well and yet we were able to find the time to come down to the Alumni Union and attend this important meeting.

And now my thoughts on the resolution itself.

While I will agree with Senator Brock Banks who penned the resolution and with whom I had had a lengthy conversation with following the passage of the resolution (this involved my concerns toward the specific language of the resolution and the guarantee that the university administration would listen to our concerns and take them into consideration) that this was a commendable first step for MUSG, one specific paragraph stuck out in my mind and was an area of concern for every student in attendance.

The following is a paragraph taken from Resolution 1 “On Behalf of Student Expression” which was presented and passed by MUSG this evening …

Whereas: It is recognized that Marquette University, in accordance with its Jesuit values and ideals and in compliance with its Policies and Procedures, reserves the right to monitor and censor expression both on and off Marquette’s campus;

The concern raised by Ryan Alexander of 1832 in regards to this particular paragraph, one which I agree with mind you (Yes, Hell did freeze over and pigs did fly for a short period of time there), is that the language used directly contradicts the position MUSG sought to take in regards to the issue of free speech rights for students and by passing the resolution with this specific paragraph intact was in effect writing a blank check to the university administration.

This is blatant hypocrisy and not a single senator at that meeting, not even the ones I felt were conservatives (I will not name names but they know who they are if they are reading this), spoke out against this.

As GOP3.com points out, Senator Brock Banks, again the author of this resolution, stated that he spoke with Dean McCarthy who said that “their [the university administration] view is that when you commit yourself to MU student [sic], you sign onto a contract with a policy and student conduct code” and you must therefore project a ‘Marquette image’ regardless of whether you are on or off campus. Neither Banks nor McCarthy it seems (nothing more was said by Banks regarding McCarthy’s exact definition – if one exists in the first place – of this image) clarified as to what exactly encompasses this so-called ‘Marquette image’ the administration desires its student body to project. McCarthy, however, went on to say to Banks that this (signing onto a contract) in effect gives them “the right to censor student expression whenever they want”.

Seems fair enough, right? I don’t think so!

I just do not see the point of passing a toothless resolution like this. This ‘Let’s take action, albeit insignificant action, and show that we are at least doing something, even if it in the end turns out to be nothing, and we’ll resolve the real issue when we come back from a month-long break if any one of us remembers it when we get back’ approach does not fly with me one bit.

Even the senators from MUSG themselves are quick to admit that passage of the resolution is essentially for show and that a Student Bill of Rights, whatever that may entail, though I would assume that from what they were saying that the issue of free speech, in one form or another, would be included, would be discussed next semester.

I, however, am not willing to hold my breath that this will be done. I mean, how long did it actually take MUSG to come up with the funding needed to build those notice boards they have wanted to build for two years now? And is there any sign that these notice boards will be built any time in the near future? Not as far as I can tell.

And even if it is discussed as MUSG claims they will, how are we sure that this Student Bill of Rights will not be as hollow or toothless as this resolution was?

Once more MUSG has shown to the student body of Marquette University and, more importantly, to the university administration itself that they have no backbone when it comes to issues that directly effect the constituents they insist they represent. Once more they have allowed this administration to walk right over them in pushing students around without fear of reprisal. As it was with the ‘Gold’ issue in May 2005, so it seems as though this issue must be carried on the shoulders of the individual students (Brandon Henak, Daniel Suhr, Brian Collar, Ryan Alexander, and myself) and professors (Dr. McAdams) in order for something to be done in regards to this issue.

Regardless of whether the university administration has the right to do something does not mean for a second that they have that right to do so, especially when the punishment is disproportionate to the crime as it was in this case (although many would argue that no crime was committed in the first place).