Daily Campus

As Student Body President, I do not support this bill. The fact that the taking away of minority seats was even a question is, in my opinion, a poor representation of what Student Senate strives to do. There are communities at SMU who warrant representation outside of academic classification. Take a half hour out of your day and go to a CHAS meeting, an ABS meeting, an AC meeting etc . . . and you will understand this fact to be true. We are making strides toward complete equality but we are not there yet. Even proposing to take away these seats takes us back many years of progress.

I apologize to those of you who were offended by this debate and applaud those of you who spoke out against the bill in question. The silver lining in all of this is that your issues are now at the forefront. I encourage all of you to take advantage of this.

As a member of the Student Senate in my 4th year, I understand the Student Body. People need to be educated and that education begins with Student Senate so continue to organize and make sure those elected to represent you are themselves educated. The argument that giving communities which are deserving of extra representation would cause over representation is without a foundation and saying "where does this stop" is without reason. All of us in Senate are capable of common sense. Each of us is able to determine which communities need representation.

I will continue to support the existence of minority seats and continue to push for seats to represent Students with Special Needs and Transfer Students. If any of you ever have a concern or need, please stop by my office or send me an email. It is an honor to serve all of you and I will do my very best to ensure every student has a voice!

Quit the politicking, Kobler, it's not very subtle. Either get rid of the seats and let every student be represented through their school, or enfranchise every single minority on campus, be it ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, nationality, etc. Either way, the status quo is unsustainable; by granting minority representation to some groups but not others, you're giving them a real advantage over other minority groups and, more worryingly, implying that they have a status superior to other minorities on campus.

As an alumna of SMU and of Student Senate, I was sad to read this article. Since leaving Dallas, I have worked or attended three top tier universities (Berkeley, Stanford, and NYU). These institutions are not without their own problems, but each of these schools is heads above SMU in terms of its genuine integration of diversity into the classroom and social settings. It took me being on these campuses to better understand the lines that divide at SMU.

SMU students are joking themselves if they think that minority students feel 100% comfortable on our campus. Jose's drippingly insincere comment above says that unless every minority has a representative, then none of them should have their own representative. In my opinion, the minority representatives only add value with their unique perspectives on campus. They don't take away or hurt anyone. I don't see any issues with growing the number of minority senators (LGBT, commuter, mature-age, part-time, etc), but I am opposed to modifying the SMU student senate by eliminating seats.

Cristin, very well said.

I agree with Cristin that the SMU community, as small as a campus as it is, has a very divided community. However, you are mistaken that diversity is so difficult to find. Our current Senate is over 30% made up of minorities – a percentage well above the percentages of the population as a whole. You are also mistaken in your perception that these seats do anything to create a more unified campus. By dividing the Senate in any way, be it by race or by special interest or by school, is to likewise divide the SMU population. It starts with the Senate. If we cannot have one unified Senate that is there for the entire student body as a whole, how can we expect our students to treat each other as equals? Currently, we are sending students the message that if they are a minority, they should approach their minority senator and are not encouraged to approach Senate as a whole. We are also sending a message by dividing ourselves by school that issues should only surface when they are specific to one school. I believe that by changing Senate to an at-large structure, where Senators are not labeled by what school they represent or what racial background they have, will transfer Senate's focus from how our special interest groups and schools of study are different to what our students have in common, and it will encourage students to approach Senate about any issue necessary. It will effectively eliminate the current feeling that a special interest group needs a seat before they can have their voices heard and their concerns represented. The Senate will strive to solve the problems of the Student Body as a whole; because we are not an African-American SMU Student Body, we are not a Hispanic-American SMU Student Body, we are not a greek-affiliated student body - WE ARE ONE STUDENT BODY. We are all students of this university, and we have similar interests and concerns when it comes to matters addressed by the Student Senate. The Senate will give a more accurate impression as it would instill a feeling of unity and be open to hearing the interests of any and all groups on campus.

With that said, the intention behind this bill was to spark debate. It is an obvious problem that has come to the attention of the Senate and anyone who has been following the issues this year that students are not happy with the current distribution of representation. Groups such as disabled students, transfer students, LGBT students, and mentally ill students have all come to Senate feeling underrepresented. This sparked debate in the chamber, and it has been by far the majority consensus that inviting special interest seats such as these into the chamber would be a gateway to massive overrepresentation. Instead of adding more and more specific representation, we have come up with an alternative solution. By broadening the scope of representation of each Senator, all students are represented by all Senators; no one would feel as though they were the minority group in the shadows. In order to achieve this, we wrote legislation to remove all labels on Senators completely. Senators would each represent 250 students - regardless of school, race, gender, sexual orientation, or special interest. Each student can feel as though they can approach any Senator in regards to any subject.

Secretary Goldschmidt and I never expected to pass this resolution as it reads now. The bill is simply a starting point from which we sought input and suggestions, and hoped that it would give other Senators ideas in how to best solve these problems. The resolution has done just that. We are working with many Senators now, doing much research, and meeting with administration to create the best solution possible. A solution that will unify our student body, make sure everyone feels included (not just some interest groups, but ALL interest groups), and that gives every student 100% equal representation. The Senate should be set up in such a way that every student feels it is his or her Senate - not a Senate special for certain groups only. The new piece will ensure the voices of each minority are heard and have delegates to keep them connected and informed, without undermining the needs of other minority groups and without dividing our Student Body on the basis of minority status or school of study. The new resolution will ensure that every student feel a sense of ownership and inclusion in the Senate and will promote more participation from students of all backgrounds. It will take a lot of research and meetings with many parties, but we hope to launch this piece in late January.

To further clarify, the intentions behind this bill have been misinterpreted by many, both inside and outside of Senate. At the time of the last meeting, Provost Tillman was not fully informed of the goals and intentions I just explained. We have since met with him and he agrees that we must develop a solution. We will be working closely with him as well as others in administration in the re-drafting of this resolution.

It should also be noted that I am a minority and an immigrant to this country. I am Cuban, I was born there, and I was raised in a Hispanic household. I have never had any intention of eliminating the voice of my minority community, nor the voice of other minority communities. That is far from the truth. The truth is that I believe Hispanics as well as any other minority on campus are fully capable of competing with the majority in any election. I am offended for anyone to think anything less of our minorities. Senators should not be elected based on racial status, but for their abilities and skills that would make them good Senators. I reject the advantage we are given through this seat because it undermines our abilities, not because I believe our voice is not important. I believe that the changes an at-large election process would bring to minorities would empower them, not diminish them. I believe there is a better way to ensure we are heard, without being given special privileges in an election we are fully capable of participating in as equals. Welcoming our communities to run as equals does not "take us back many years of progress" as President Koblar argues - it is the next step forward. Segregation in the Senate is not what our end goal has been. We strive for equality, and that is what I aim to create.

I ensure the SMU community that no resolution will ever pass under my watch that would effectively remove our diversity from the chamber. The solution will be one that effectively unifies our campus while certifying that current as well as other minorities to be heard, connected, and involved.

If anyone has any thoughts, comments, or questions please contact me or Secretary Goldschmidt at: ckearney@smu.edu or pgoldschmi@smu.edu. In order to create legislation that serves the interests of the student body, it takes communication. We look forward to meeting with everyone who may have concerns on this matter.

I agree with Cristin that the SMU community, as small as a campus as it is, has a very divided community. However, you are mistaken that diversity is so difficult to find. Our current Senate is over 30% made up of minorities – a percentage well above the percentages of the population as a whole. You are also mistaken in your perception that these seats do anything to create a more unified campus. By dividing the Senate in any way, be it by race or by special interest or by school, is to likewise divide the SMU population. It starts with the Senate. If we cannot have one unified Senate that is there for the entire student body as a whole, how can we expect our students to treat each other as equals? Currently, we are sending students the message that if they are a minority, they should approach their minority senator and are not encouraged to approach Senate as a whole. We are also sending a message by dividing ourselves by school that issues should only surface when they are specific to one school. I believe that by changing Senate to an at-large structure, where Senators are not labeled by what school they represent or what racial background they have, will transfer Senate's focus from how our special interest groups and schools of study are different to what our students have in common, and it will encourage students to approach Senate about any issue necessary. It will effectively eliminate the current feeling that a special interest group needs a seat before they can have their voices heard and their concerns represented. The Senate will strive to solve the problems of the Student Body as a whole; because we are not an African-American SMU Student Body, we are not a Hispanic-American SMU Student Body, we are not a greek-affiliated student body - WE ARE ONE STUDENT BODY. We are all students of this university, and we have similar interests and concerns when it comes to matters addressed by the Student Senate. The Senate will give a more accurate impression as it would instill a feeling of unity and be open to hearing the interests of any and all groups on campus.

With that said, the intention behind this bill was to spark debate. It is an obvious problem that has come to the attention of the Senate and anyone who has been following the issues this year that students are not happy with the current distribution of representation. Groups such as disabled students, transfer students, LGBT students, and mentally ill students have all come to Senate feeling underrepresented. This sparked debate in the chamber, and it has been by far the majority consensus that inviting special interest seats such as these into the chamber would be a gateway to massive overrepresentation. Instead of adding more and more specific representation, we have come up with an alternative solution. By broadening the scope of representation of each Senator, all students are represented by all Senators; no one would feel as though they were the minority group in the shadows. In order to achieve this, we wrote legislation to remove all labels on Senators completely. Senators would each represent 250 students - regardless of school, race, gender, sexual orientation, or special interest. Each student can feel as though they can approach any Senator in regards to any subject.

Secretary Goldschmidt and I never expected to pass this resolution as it reads now. The bill is simply a starting point from which we sought input and suggestions, and hoped that it would give other Senators ideas in how to best solve these problems. The resolution has done just that. We are working with many Senators now, doing much research, and meeting with administration to create the best solution possible. A solution that will unify our student body, make sure everyone feels included (not just some interest groups, but ALL interest groups), and that gives every student 100% equal representation. The Senate should be set up in such a way that every student feels it is his or her Senate - not a Senate special for certain groups only. The new piece will ensure the voices of each minority are heard and have delegates to keep them connected and informed, without undermining the needs of other minority groups and without dividing our Student Body on the basis of minority status or school of study. The new resolution will ensure that every student feel a sense of ownership and inclusion in the Senate and will promote more participation from students of all backgrounds. It will take a lot of research and meetings with many parties, but we hope to launch this piece in late January.

To further clarify, the intentions behind this bill have been misinterpreted by many, both inside and outside of Senate. At the time of the last meeting, Provost Tillman was not fully informed of the goals and intentions I just explained. We have since met with him and he agrees that we must develop a solution. We will be working closely with him as well as others in administration in the re-drafting of this resolution.

It should also be noted that I am a minority and an immigrant to this country. I am Cuban, I was born there, and I was raised in a Hispanic household. I have never had any intention of eliminating the voice of my minority community, nor the voice of other minority communities. That is far from the truth. The truth is that I believe Hispanics as well as any other minority on campus are fully capable of competing with the majority in any election. I am offended for anyone to think anything less of our minorities. Senators should not be elected based on racial status, but for their abilities and skills that would make them good Senators. I reject the advantage we are given through this seat because it undermines our abilities, not because I believe our voice is not important. I believe that the changes an at-large election process would bring to minorities would empower them, not diminish them. I believe there is a better way to ensure we are heard, without being given special privileges in an election we are fully capable of participating in as equals. Welcoming our communities to run as equals does not "take us back many years of progress" as President Koblar argues - it is the next step forward. Segregation in the Senate is not what our end goal has been. We strive for equality, and that is what I aim to create.

I ensure the SMU community that no resolution will ever pass under my watch that would effectively remove our diversity from the chamber. The solution will be one that effectively unifies our campus while certifying that current as well as other minorities to be heard, connected, and involved.

If anyone has any thoughts, comments, or questions please contact me or Secretary Goldschmidt at: ckearney@smu.edu or pgoldschmi@smu.edu. In order to create legislation that serves the interests of the student body, it takes communication. We look forward to meeting with everyone who may have concerns on this matter.