Opinion: Student government is supposed to be an extension of the student body – however, ASUO is incredibly inaccessible, corrupt, and ineffective at representing us.

————-

ASUO just held its annual elections. If you did not realize this happened, don’t worry, you aren’t alone as only 2788 people voted or roughly 13% of all students. This low engagement is unfortunate because there were a lot of exciting scandals this year; NDAs, bribery, and a campaign being forcibly dissolved. Ultimately the offending parties lost, resulting in the victory of Progress UO’s Luda Isakharov and Kavi Shrestha.

While I think there is cause to be optimistic for this new administration, it does not fix ASUO. In its current state, ASUO is a vacuous, hollowed-out institution plagued by arbitrary bureaucracy and ego masquerading as a representative student government. On all levels it is corrupt, ineffectual, and inaccessible. Byproducts of how the institution keeps itself and its power far removed from campus.

ASUO serves various roles on campus; the allocation of the Incidental Fee to student groups, support for clubs and as their website claims: “here to support all UO students.” ASUO controls about $17 million dollars collected under the I-Fee paid by all students and are elected by the student body.

Yet, despite ASUO’s continued operation being contingent on students, it refuses to listen to student voices. Instead it chooses to overload students with bureaucracy and toxic culture until they get fatigued enough to disengage.
Like the United States Federal Government, ASUO is divided into an executive, legislative, and judicial branch. Also like the federal government, ASUO is a bad government. For instance, the lack of checks and balances on the executive allowed former-president Isaiah Boyd to unilaterally give control of the EMU to UO administration.

This deal happened solely between Boyd and Vice President of Student Life Kevin Marbury behind closed doors with no minutes taken. The rest of ASUO was only notified after the fact via an email from Boyd.
Another instance of blatant corruption is ASUO’s stipend model, as last year it was raised considerably, at the highest end paying the president $1,522 monthly. This change was rushed through with a brand-new, inexperienced senate in 2021, pushing back similar changes to stipends requested by student groups.
Max Jensen, an organizer with the UO Student Workers group – whose labor survey I’ve covered prior – had the herculean task of trying to get a ballot initiative passed through ASUO’s Constitution Court. An objectively beneficial initiative that would’ve worked to give students more labor protection on campus was repeatedly shot down by the court.

“They’ve insulated themselves so much from the people so much that they’re judging.” Jensen said. “They defend the constitution from the student body like a holy document.”

After Con Court made Jensen conform to all their regulations, they ignored their own rule that stated verdicts must be returned in 7 days, instead taking a week and a half.

Jensen’s anger is justified; ASUO’s culture of bureaucracy and legalese is the root of the institution’s inefficiency and corruption. However, it remains to be revealed if ASUO is set up this way to make it inaccessible maliciously or because the dweebs who did government in high school want to cosplay the federal government.

Those senators stonewalling the ballot initiative needed only 50 signatures to run for office, the Student Workers collected 1,350. Boyd ran uncontested, and if you thought this year’s voter turnout was low, last election saw only 369 votes cast, according to previous Emerald reporting, which is 1% of the student body. Ruth in the Cottage Market is a better representative of the student body than this.

I critique ASUO so harshly not because I am opposed to governance, but because I want a good government. One that represents the student body and operates as a vanguard for our interests and goals.

It is not our fault as students that we’ve largely checked out from ASUO, by being so removed from campus we’re taught never to hope for change. We’re too busy worrying about our classes, rent, and work. Why should we care about ASUO if it seemingly can’t affect the things that concern students?

ASUO has the ability to create change on campus; to materially impact our lives positively. What they need to do is drop the legalese, the bureaucracy, the ego, and imbed themselves in the lives of students; not as an institution above us but aligned beside us.

I’ve so far examined ASUO in broad strokes, but this recent election was the perfect crystallization of everything wrong with the institution, which deserves its own article.

Editor’s note: This is part one in a two-part series. Read Porter’s follow-up dissecting scandals in the recent ASUO election here.