Students voice lack of a representation, demand for better communication efforts

Student Government Association representation of the students scores a zero for failing to represent the student body’s voice on the issue of an increase in student tuition.

After comparing propositions for a raise in student tuition from all nine of The University of Texas System campuses to the presentation given by our own SGA president, it is obvious the University’s SGA practically made no efforts to hear the student’s opinions regarding the proposition of a tuition increase.

It is disheartening when elected student officials claim to represent the voice of the student body, only to turn and disregard the needs of the students.
On Feb. 22, Talon staffers sat down with members of the SGA and discussed why they had not communicated more adequately with students regarding a raise in tuition.

The fact SGA members had not polled current students or arranged meetings where students could express their opinions about a tuition raise was even more confusing. If these efforts did take place, they were not apparent.

SGA members explained to us the decision to raise student tuition had been made after utilizing surveys conducted two years ago which revealed student support for the tuition increase.

When we asked if a two-year-old survey could really be considered relevant to the current student body, SGA members explained such major decisions took a long time to consider.

SGA presidents from other UT campuses discussed forums, meetings, polls and surveys conducted on their campuses during the fall and spring semesters of 2009 and 2010 to gather opinions regarding the raise in tuition.

Amy Whitehouse, president of the University’s SGA, claimed during her presentation she talked to “a lot of students on campus” who were in favor of a raise in student tuition, although there is no evidence to support she did, in fact, communicate with students directly.

This leads us to believe all of the other UT student governments have higher regard for the opinions of their students. Perhaps the University’s SGA members need two years to evaluate the opinions of students, many of whom have already graduated.

We would like to reiterate our disappointment in how SGA members handled the decision-making process when the question of a tuition raise was brought up.

We only hope that greater efforts to communicate with the student body will be made in the future by the officials elected to represent us.