During my tenure as Senate speaker of the City University of New York’s Undergraduate Student Government, I often dealt with a much smaller graduate student council’s contradictory policies. Postgraduate students have different interests and different wants, claimed the Graduate Student Society chair, and I should learn how to respect them.
Rubbish, I thought—we’re all students. How could we possibly want different things?
I’m having a hard time justifying those thoughts now, though, serving as Vice President (Finance and Services) for 4,100 graduate and professional students and striving to meet the needs of a growing constituency.
A case in point is the hip’s desire for an SGPS-exclusive café to avoid awkward confrontations with potential students and mingle with colleagues. Another is the need for high-quality affordable housing close to campus, which doesn’t exist in the student village or the rising concern about maternity and child care benefits for our parent . Yes, our hip has parents and they aren’t few.
It’s only natural the SGPS has different interests than the AMS—interests they may never have come across before. Although we have different goals, there are mutual ones too. The AMS and SGPS both contribute to Walkhome, the Journal, CFRC, Bus-It and Accessibility Queen’s. SGPS appreciate the AMS’s pub services and the Student Constables that keep them operational. Our equity and sustainability co-ordinators have worked on the same issues in the past and, at least as far as my tenure goes, both istrations have tried to help each other in good faith.
So why the society wars?
Some people may see this term as inflammatory. The word ‘wars’ certainly implies a much harsher and more determined reality than it really is—but I’m incapable of finding alternative words to represent the senseless squabbles, plots, and counterplots that the SGPS and AMS engulf themselves. The Graduate Student Society’s secession in 1981 wasn’t exactly a picnic. The departure of Law Students, Theology Students and, more recently, Education Students, from the AMS did nothing to help the cause. Former AMS Vice-President (University Affairs) B. Shiva Mayer’s Apr. 5, 2007 opinion piece in the Journal used more than 500 words to mount an offensive against the SGPS due to a disagreement on how to move ahead on the Queen’s Centre. Another example can be seen in former AMS Board of Directors Chair Kaitlyn Young’s claims in the Journal on Mar. 27, 2009 against the SGPS.
The SGPS hasn’t been any better. For one, there has been a lack of appreciation for the benefits their society receives from services offered by the AMS. A few years ago, the SGPS benefitted from an after-hours childcare program that was essentially run by the AMS, but offered no gratitude for it. The AMS abolished the program—a move that warranted credit but lacked a spirit of cooperation with the SGPS. Even in a less official capacity, a former SGPS executive member claims in the SGPS Facebook group that his best SGPS moment was “making an AMS President cry in a ‘negotiation’ over the service agreement.”
So history plays a large part in these society wars. Personalities and entrenched opinionated cultures in both camps may also play a large part.
The conflicts cast a huge shadow over mutual gains. For more than six years, the SGPS and AMS have failed to sign a shared services agreement outlining protocols. As a result, the AMS couldn’t get the SGPS to coordinate Walkhome fees last year at their expense and the SGPS has discovered horrible mismanagement of the Accessibility Queen’s fund. Measures are being taken to address the situation and there may be further room to share more services if an agreement does get signed. Now that our societies are engaged in the latest round of skirmishes concerning Queen’s Centre fees, people are again forgetting the benefit of a symbiotic relationship. As the director of SGPS services, I’m usually on the frontline of seeing the lost benefits. Both societies are too big and too close to simply ignore each other.
I have three proposals for both societies. First, they should strive to establish as many institutional relationships in writing as there are mutual interests. Civic engagement can work towards changing antagonistic cultures and will encourage collaboration.
Second, they should actively embark on high-level confidence- building measures to establish trust between the two parties. This can be accomplished through regular meetings between the two executive teams. The SGPS meets regularly with the School of Graduate Studies, the Principal and the Faculty of Law. It only makes sense to do the same with the AMS. Third and most importantly, both societies should respect each other’s professional interests when they differ and learn how to work with each other rather than against each other to reach settlements.
ittedly, I’m not sure how my colleagues and counterparts would feel about these proposals, as they bear no official credo. But then again, maybe they should be made official mandates.
Let pragmatism prevail. Let the society wars end.
Amir Nosrat, MA ’10, is the Vice-President (Finance and Services) of the Society of Graduate and Professional Students.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].