Members of Tufts' student government are submitting changes to the Tufts Community Union (TCU) constitution to address questions of voting rights, the nondiscrimination policy, and the general language of the supreme governing document.
Government leaders are proposing an updated, streamlined version of the constitution, as well as two specific amendments involving the nondiscrimination policy and voting rights for culture group representatives. The amendments that would give Senate culture group representatives full voting rights and prohibit student groups from discriminating on the basis of one's self-acceptance of a belief were kept separate from the general constitution revision for fear that their controversial nature would endanger the passage of the larger proposal.
"We had people for each of them, and we had people against each of them; that's why they're coming out as separate amendments. We couldn't come to an agreement on either," said Senate Parliamentarian Ben Lee, who has been leading constitutional reform efforts all year.
Each of the three proposals must be submitted to the TCU Judiciary, along with a 250-signature student petition, before they can be placed on the April presidential election ballot. A number of senators are working to secure those signatures, and say that they will be ready to submit the amendment to the TCUJ at its meeting next Monday.
The general constitution proposal would clarify the document's language, and includes two significant policy changes: the amendment gives the TCUJ expanded power to interpret University policy - previously the body's interpretive power was limited to the TCU Constitution - and enhances the Judiciary's, as well as the Senate's, interpretive power by adding the University's nondiscrimination policy to its mission statement.
The three proposals are a product of almost two years of discussion among student government members. They were officially submitted to the Senate a week before Spring Break by Lee, TCUJ chair Michael Ferenczy, and Committee on Student Life (CSL) member Sam Dangremond.
Ferenczy said the modification of constitutional wording will have a significant effect on the Judiciary's recognition and re-recognition procedures. While there is agreement that that the general constitution proposal is important, many are divided on the degree to which the two proposed amendments will affect the everyday function of the student government.
The first proposed amendment, concerning the voting right of culture group representatives, is seen as the more liberal solution to an issue that has been debated within the TCU government for a number of years. Culture representatives say they attend meetings and take on the same work load as senators, and therefore should enjoy the same voting rights. Currently, however, these senators are denied suffrage. A watered-down version of the amendment, which states that these representatives be allowed to vote on procedural matters only - including the elections of the Senate's general board - has already been included in the comprehensive constitution overhaul proposal.
The individual culture reps, who represent the four recognized culture areas on campus - the Asian Community at Tufts, the Association of Latin American Students, the Pan-African Alliance, and the Tufts, Transgendered, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Collective - are elected by their fellow group members. While the issue of culture reps' voting rights has been a longstanding point of contention, there is some doubt about whether it will create substantive change.
"To a degree, the voting rights amendment is symbolic," Lee said. "The things we vote on so many times in the Senate don't usually involve controversial matters that a few votes down the middle wouldn't affect it."
Others, however, argue that the amendment would have a clear impact. "I would say that it is not symbolic," Dangremond said. "If that first amendment is passed, culture reps would have the ability to control senate money and buffer funding and do anything senators can do, and I see that as very functional."
Students proposed a similar amendment five years ago, but it did not come close to passing when it was put to students in the April ballot.
TCU government members say that the debate over the voting privileges of culture reps will not stop at this April's vote. Members of the CSL, the faculty/student committee that oversees student government functions, say they may oppose the proposal if it is approved by the student body. The students who elect culture representatives also choose TCU senators for their classes, which means that their opinions would be counted twice in elections if the first amendment passes.
"I believe that both the amendment that would give the culture reps full voting rights and the constitution, which gives them the right to vote on in-house matters, essentially violate the underlying principles of any democracy, which is that every individual has the same voting power," Dangremond said.
The second amendment would add a clause concerning the self-acceptance of one's ideas and personal characteristics to the TCU constitution. It would most likely not supercede or violate the University's nondiscrimination policy, which will be included in the mission statement of the constitution, and its intent is to go farther to protect the rights of students.
The proposal was put forth by the same group of students who staged a sit-in at the admissions office to call for the strengthening of the University's nondiscrimination policy, and is an attempt to give student groups a clarified definition of what is included in the University policy. But, it is unclear whether the amendment, had it been included in this year's TCU Constitution, would have had any impact on the Judiciary's decision in the Tufts Christian Fellowship case.
Yesterday, the significance of adding this clause to the TCUJ's powers remained unclear.
"In the proposed constitution is now the nondiscrimination policy. I think that would have been enough to give the J more interpretative power. I don't think the J receives any more interpretive power with the second amendment," Ferenczy said.
In order for the revised constitution or any of the amendments to be adapted, at least 20 percent of Tufts students must vote on the question. If between 20 and 25 percent of students vote, each proposal will need a two-thirds affirmative vote to pass. If more than 25 percent of student participate however, only a majority vote would be necessary to adapt the changes.
