In the past few weeks The Journal has received some not-so-pleasant responses on our article…
Editorial: The Journal commends SGA
This past year, The Journal was very critical of the Student Government Association (SGA). The Journal had implored SGA to be a better student advocate and to focus on issues facing students, rather than solely funding the exploits of clubs. But in giving criticism, The Journal must also be fair and recognize when improvements have been made.
Near the end of the last school year and throughout the summer, The Journal has seen significant projects being undertaken by SGA. For example, SGA has mobilized students to get out and support the expansion of the parking garage. And SGA isn’t just quibbling about construction holdups at their own meetings. They are taking their complaints to the source, the Webster Groves City Council.
And last spring, SGA brought attention to students who were having classes canceled at the last minute. For some students, these classes were required to complete their degree and graduate. Because this was such a significant problem last year, SGA brought it to the attention of the administration at the Delegates’ Agenda Response, despite the issue not being on the agenda.
We applaud the current steps SGA is taking towards student activism. We hope to see many more projects focused on the students this year.
Difficulties with the Financial Aid office is one topic we consistently see brought up by students. While steps have been taken, the issue needs to be tackled again by SGA in the coming year.
During last year’s SGA election campaign period, candidates submitted platforms to The Journal. Many candidates desired to move SGA away from the perception of a “student bank”. In a few short months, SGA has made great strides to become an advocate for students that its members had promised it to be.
Going forward, The Journal will continue to watch the activities of SGA. Just as we criticized the failures we saw last year, we hope we can bring attention to the successes this SGA has in front of them.
This editorial is the view of the editorial board, which is comprised of 11 editors.