Illustration by Jaime Hebel

On Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2024, Student Union (SU) Senate voted to approve an omnibus resolution which called to, among other things, disarm the WashU police department (WUPD), create an Indigenous Studies Department, lift suspensions that followed the April 27 protests, and remove Andrew Martin from his post as chancellor. The resolution, which was vetoed two days later by SU president Hussein Amuri, highlights the disconnect between the needs of the student body and the actions of their elected representatives.

Unlike SU Treasury, which wields tangible power through its control of student funds, the Senate is a largely symbolic entity that serves primarily to platform student concerns and bridge the gap between students and University administrators. An SU Senate resolution is only as powerful as its ability to communicate student concerns and influence actual change. The ideal resolution should be focused, respond to a present concern of the student body, and express an interest in and a plan for working with the relevant party to find a solution. Tuesday’s resolution failed to meet this standard.

When a resolution contains an overwhelming number of tenuously-connected demands, it dilutes the effectiveness of each line item and confuses what students should prioritize. By grouping ideas, each is presented as important but not important enough to be its own resolution. Combining disparate ideas in a single resolution creates an all-or-nothing situation in which senators have to vote at once on multiple issues. For example, the proposal to create an Indigenous Studies department, a plausible and well-supported plan, was undermined by its association with more controversial proposals, like demands to disarm WUPD and for the chancellor to resign. 

This does a disservice to the students who support the proposal, including Indigenous students, whom the University already fails to prioritize. Senators who agreed with adding the department but opposed other items may have felt compelled to vote against an initiative that aligned with their interests and the interests of the students they represent. 

SU Senate should prioritize issues that unite the student body, not marry the controversial with the popular; combining them makes it harder to achieve the popular initiatives and renders the entire resolution more difficult to pass.

The SU Senate is intended to represent all students. It has a responsibility to platform concerns that are felt widely and which directly affect many. We are concerned that the resolution  prioritizes proposals that appear disproportionately aimed at airing grievances rather than affecting tangible change.

Unlike the U.S. Senate, SU Senate’s power extends only so far as the University is willing to listen and engage with their ideas. When Chancellor Martin attended his first-ever Student Union joint session on Tuesday, he signaled a desire to work with student government. SU Senate’s call for his resignation, which came only a couple hours later, is counterproductive and communicates an unwillingness to collaborate. A resolution which actively antagonizes administrators is unlikely to be considered on its merits and content.

The SU Senate should prioritize specific, attainable goals that directly impact and resonate with the student body and embrace its role as a unifying force on campus. This does not preclude ambitious or radical ideas; SU should continue to aim high, but efforts to make change also demand strategic focus. Further, Student Union can and should be critical of University administration, but critique and collaboration are not mutually exclusive.

When deployed effectively, resolutions can shed light on critical issues and bridge the gap between students and administrators. But when complicated issues are bundled together and bridges are burned, the Senate’s efforts become diluted and ineffective.

Staff editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of our editorial board members. The editorial board operates independently of our newsroom and includes members of the senior staff.

Sylvie Richards, Managing Forum Editor

Jordan Spector, Senior Forum Editor

Amelia Raden, Senior Forum Editor

Jasmine Stone, Senior Forum Editor

Dion Hines, Junior Forum Editor

Zach Cohn, Senior Web Editor

Alice Gottesman, Managing Scene Editor 

Zara Shariff, Senior Scene Editor 

Lore Wang, Junior Scene Editor 

Bri Nitsberg, Managing Photo Editor 

Lewis Rand, Junior Sports Editor

Riley Herron, Managing Sports Editor 

Elias Kokinos, Senior Sports Editor 

Sydney Tran, Managing Design Editor