The Indiana University’s student body recently passed a constitutional amendment guaranteeing Student Government Congressional seats to campus multicultural centers and allegedly marginalized groups deemed to be ‘historically unrepresented.’ Following the amendment’s passage in Congress, the vote went to the student body in a special referendum.
Students support for the amendment was overwhelming. The amendment passed with 1009 students (78.82%) voting yes, 260 (20.31%) voting no, and 11 (0.85%) abstaining. Criticized by opponents as undemocratic, the amendment mandates the appointment of no less than 31 seats to Congress and allows for upwards of 100 seats to be appointed, removing the possibility of continuing what has traditionally been a fully democratic electoral process. For reference, Congress is currently comprised of 62 seats divided evenly between the various academic institutions on campus and the different housing options available to students.
The bill itself defines several key terms, including ‘historically unrepresented groups’ and ‘campus multicultural centers.’ Despite the definitions offered often being unnecessarily long-winded, they are used as much of the basis for why these particular groups will now be appointed seats to Congress. Similar ‘woke’ language is used throughout the bill, following the trend of American public universities rapidly moving further to the left in recent years in regards to cultural and diversity concerns.
The motif of ambiguous language extended far beyond mere definitions, leading some members of Congress to express concern about particular facets of the amendment, particularly in regards to the process by which the members of these groups would be appointed. By simply stating that “willing, nonpartisan student organizations” would be tasked with these appointments, the changes outlined in the amendment are in direct contradiction to the democratic tradition of the university’s student government.
The debates within IUSG over the amendment took place several months ago. During discussion of the amendment, opponents of the bill were routinely berated as “racist,” “white supremacist,” and accused of invoking their “racial bias” throughout the largely uncivil proceedings. One of the bill’s proponents even described civility itself as a “racist construct.” Members being accused of promoting “white supremacy” and “racism” were granted little to no time to defend themselves relative to the time spent attacking them on a personal level.
Opponents of the amendment’s primary concerns involved the inherently undemocratic basis of the amendment. Congress members specifically cited the lack of fairness expected to enter the system, seeing as they were duly elected to Congress, whereas future members would simply be appointed on the basis of immutable characteristics such as the color of their skin or their sexuality. Nevertheless, the accusations of “racism” and “white fragility” continued, with one of the meeting attendees going as far as to say that democracy itself, and specifically “American democracy,” is a product of nothing but “white supremacy” and “racism.”
The hostility present in these proceedings sets what some deem to be a dangerous precedent for the future of policymaking at Indiana University and other universities following down a similar path. Congressman Kyle Reynolds, who voted against the bill, described his experience at the meeting by saying “the manner in which it was debated and passed is utterly frightening. Members of Congress and other student leaders attacked, defamed, and openly threatened any student who dared oppose this legislation.” Describing the technical issues of the bill itself, Congressman Ky Zimmerman voted nay on the amendment “for the sake of democracy.” These and similar anecdotes of members in opposition to the bill show the twofold danger that those in opposition see at hand: the problems present in the bill itself, and the logistical nightmare that occurred at the proceedings along with the precedent it may set.
