Ripon College Days

The Council of Student Organizations, better known as CSO, has become another way for Senate and other individuals with power to further exercise control over groups that are designed to be self-sufficient. Though these officials may not be aware of the fact, these intrusions into student organizations' autonomy compromise the validity of our constitution and the legitimacy of their own authority.

The name Council of Student Organizations implies cooperation. However, cooperation among student organizations does not occur in this sphere. The only tool CSO uses to foster cooperation is the mandate. Granted, organizations have been involved with CSO-sponsored events, but because of the inherent hostility of a mandate, as is seen in the overall perception of CSO, students comply, but the spirit of cooperation is absent and therefore makes any CSO gestures hollow.

Student organizations can and do cooperate effectively, independent of CSO. It is, in fact, part of the understanding of student leaders at a small college. To force organizations to cooperate and develop united goals for diverse organizations compromises the very essence of what develops naturally at Ripon.

The current method CSO leadership uses to dictate cooperation is by packaging their decrees as well-intentioned idealism. Anyone who disagrees is counter to the council and deserves less attention, and ultimately less funding. CSO authorities have harassed student organization representatives for their lack of cooperation, and in response to feeling stifled, berated and ignored, several organization leaders have either threatened to, or simply stopped attending CSO meetings. And although the authorities act as though they have power and control to punish these individuals, they are acting outside of any stated guidelines of the Student Senate Constitution.

CSO is mentioned in all of two sentences in the constitution. There is little in the constitution to define it, and no one really knows how or why it exists. It merely states it should be "composed of a representative from each of the... organizations and shall meet three times a semester." Yet currently, CSO is forced to meet more than three times a semester. It is also claimed that CSO attendance has a legitimate impact on financial considerations, but there is no language in the constitution to support this. CSO is operating outside of any established statutes and has no real power, yet it continues to claim to.

College Days has recently learned the Student Senate Constitutional Revisions Committee is considering an amendment that would give the very powers it already claims. It not only mandates attendance, but establishes methods for punitive financial action. Such an amendment would circumvent the independence student organizations have had the freedom to exercise in the past. The original intent of the constitution was not to exert control over cooperation, but to provide an environment that fosters it. For CSO to be considered legitimate, it cannot be headed by an official. It must be led by one of its own members, and the rules under which it operates must be a united prerogative. In absence of this, we are left with mandated cooperation.

Article Tools