This term has seen the rise of two issue-specific student committees in response to administrative action and inaction. Dartmouth Students for Dining Choice was founded to protest the newly announced changes to College meal plans and Access By Leadership in Equity members have expressed growing frustration with the lack of administrative progress toward enhancing accessibility resources ("Students protest against new DDS dining plan," May 10; "Students review accessibility issues," May 13). The current student-led initiatives supporting these movements are laudable. However, the Student Assembly, which is supposed to be the greatest advocate for Dartmouth undergraduates, has failed to take the lead in responding to either of these issues. The proliferation of ad hoc committees is a testament to the Assembly's inaction and inability to lobby meaningfully on behalf of the student body.
Students complain that the Assembly has become a largely irrelevant organization on campus. This criticism seems valid, as the Assembly has failed to implement measures in response to widespread student dissatisfaction with the newly announced Dartmouth Dining Services SmartChoice meal plans. Students have taken it upon themselves to make Facebook pages, circulate online petitions and declare a boycott albeit unsuccessful of the Class of 1953 Commons. These efforts have certainly raised awareness about the issue, yet their impact thus far has been questionable. The Assembly, as a group charged with advocating for the student body, should feel compelled to act in response to such evident student concern.
Similarly, ABLE has made significant strides in advocating for greater accessibility on campus. However, the administration has continuously lagged in fulfilling its promise to improve on-campus disability services by Spring term. Although ABLE's work has led College officials to create the Accessibility Steering Committee, the measures that the committee vowed to enact were put on hold until the fall.
The resources available to any ad hoc group are limited. The groups do not benefit from funding or College recognition, and typically have not created the meaningful bonds, or established the necessary social capital, to do anything more than draw fleeting attention to a particular issue. In contrast, the Assembly receives significant funds from the College $75,000 in 2010 to pursue its mission to act as a representative for the student body, and its leaders also have privileged access to administrators. These resources and connections should be leveraged into more effective advocating for student interests.
Instead, the Assembly has traditionally squandered its potential on unpopular and underutilized programming events and ineffective committees. In the past, Assembly members have failed to effectively aggregate and represent the diverse concerns of the student body to the administration in short, they have failed at their mission. The DDS protest and calls for accessibility reform are ideal causes for official student representatives to take up, as they are vital campus issues that deserve more representation and attention. The Assembly has so far dropped the ball on both issues, but with the recent changeover of Assembly leadership, the group has the opportunity to revitalize its purpose. Assembly representatives can no longer rely on other groups to call for change, they must lead the charge.
