A minority of students on this campus have been marginalized, inconvenienced and even downright not considered in important organizational decisions at the University. This year, they numbered some 497, some 2.6 percent of the 19,450 students enrolled in the University as of winter term.
These students — those enrolled in the University’s School of Law — pay some of the highest tuition at the school ($15,202 for residents annually, $19,122 for nonresidents). But in many important ways, they’re treated more poorly than their undergraduate colleagues.
Witness, most recently, Senate President Ben Strawn’s motion to censure Sen. Colin Andries, a law student, for non-fulfillment of duties, including missing a Senate meeting during the law school’s Finals Week to study.
No decision was made on the censure; however, that missing a meeting to study was among the factors motivating the censure motion points to another conflict unfairly imposed on law students: Should a law student, who also serves the campus as a legislative representative, risk damage to their grades, or instead risk condemnation for negligence of job duties?
Another example was this year’s embattled ASUO elections: The ASUO Constitution Court rejected the original elections packet because the scheduled election dates overlapped with the law school’s Dead Week.
The unfair and poorly planned timetable forced law students “to choose between preparation for a final examination and their campaign,” Constitution Court Chief Justice Michael Harris said, calling the dilemma “untenable.”
Indeed, the Constitution’s Section 12, Article 1, vaguely maintains that, “The ASUO Elections shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the best interests of the student body. The elections shall be conducted in a fair, orderly and impartial manner, and the educational atmosphere of the University shall not be compromised, by any member of the ASUO involved in the electoral process.”
Were this a result of ignorance alone on the part of the Elections Board, this marginalization might be more tolerable. But the same issue arose during last year’s elections when the Court ruled that the Elections Board should avoid overlapping elections with the law school schedule again. Evidently, the Board paid little heed, and the Emerald Editorial Board urges the incoming ASUO government to avoid this frustrating conflict.
Many of the problems associated with equal access to opportunities for law students seem to stem from the discrepancy between the academic law student schedule and the schedule most other students use.
Recently retired ASUO President Maddy Melton admitted the law schedule poses a special challenge: “When you get down to working with law students, they have different schedules, and that kind of throws things off.”
But as it’s unlikely that either schedule will change, the University and ASUO should both strive this upcoming year to accommodate the needs of this special segment of our campus community in accordance with “the best interests of the student body.”