At the end of the General Assembly last Sunday, April 28, President Leah Reynolds called for an informal discussion about student self-governance. Students tackled the difficulty of defining student self-governance and considered including a relevant amendment in the Student Government Constitution.

Student Government members moved from behind their panel to sit with other students while administrative members Vic Lindsay and Dave Tinagero left the room.

Reynolds introduced the topic before opening it up for discussion as an opportunity to clarify notions of student self-governance.

"Student self-governance is a phrase that's been used a lot and tossed around in different contexts," she said. "It is a value that underlies the very existence of student governance. But it is not a term that appears explicitly in the [Student Government] Constitution or officially defined anywhere."

Students demonstrated differing understandings of how self-governance is, or should be, defined.

In the past two weeks, as the Community Code was released to the student body and controversy arose regarding the NYUAD policy on posters, student self-governance became a concept under debate. Last week, junior Brett Bolton expressed concerns that the proposed Community Code and Council would impinge upon student self-governance.

"This system [proposed by the Community Code] might actually limit the strides the students and administration have already taken toward student self-governance," Bolton said.

Reynolds recognized the demand for student self-governance and emphasized that the student body must take active participation in student politics.

"I would like to see far more involvement in GAs from a student body that places such value on self-governance," she said.

The GA last Sunday was the second-most attended GA of this term, as 15 students sat for the informal discussion about student self-governance. Reynolds put forward two questions to the group.

"What do you value about student self-governance, and how do you think it should play out at NYUAD?" she asked the room.

Bolton offered a definition of self-governance made up of multiple components, exploring the interplay between school administration, the student body and Student Government.

"We uphold shared government," said Bolton. "That is, for all things appropriate — not illegal — students should be involved in the conversation and in developing policy to build the institution itself."

According to Bolton, the Student Government must have a strong alignment with the student body in order to uphold student self-governance.

"The Student Government must always be able to represent the views of the student body without concern that there is conflict of interest," he said. "There should never be a relationship where the Student Government feels that it cannot represent the student body's voice."

2016 Class Representative Lingliang Zhang suggested that the Student Government take three steps in approaching issues, in order of importance.

"First ask what the student body wants, then ask what the interests of administration are and finally, ask how to reconcile these interests," said Zhang. "It should be approached in this order, so that the student body's interest is prioritized."

Reynolds indicated that there are already many instances of student self-governance in operation at NYUAD.

"At NYUAD, this [student self-governance] takes a variety of forms from SIGs and intramural teams directly led by students, to the recognition and funding processes for Student Interest Groups, to the committees — from Academic Advisory to Dining — that lend student voices to the crafting of policies," said Reynolds.

Reynolds further explained her understanding of student self-governance.

"In terms of student self-governance, I'd summarize it broadly as students taking an active role in shaping their experience at university," Reynolds said.

Freshman Clara Correia, the alternate senator, raised the concern that student self-governance might be explained too vaguely in the Constitution, making the proposed amendment ineffectual.

"Things such as autonomy are really hard to define once you're looking at the implications or the applications," Correia said.

Junior Stephen Underwood argued that a vague but formalized recognition of student self-governance is better than none.

"Though it is difficult, it is important to formalize this concept," said Underwood. "Even if it's broad and vague in language, we should have something that says in writing the purpose of the student government. An amendment will be the best route from here on out. It's better than implications."

A different example of student self-governance recognized in writing is found in the former Student Government's Governing Philosophy, which pledged the Student Government to “[ensure] efficient student self-governance.”

The Governing Philosophy detailed: “This Student Government will work to transparently and efficiently establish, support, and utilize wholly autonomous lines of decision-making and action wherever appropriate, necessary to uphold the interests and support the initiatives of the students, and entrusted by the Student Body.”

This philosophy was in effect under Bolton's Student Government.

“Governing philosophies generally have great overlap from one administration to the next, but are not passed on word for word,” Reynolds said.

As NYUAD is a fairly new university, the community is still navigating how to reconcile student body and administrative differences when they arise. Reynolds acknowledged that the difficulty in settling these questions lies in the Student Government's short-term structure, a sentiment that was agreed upon by others at the discussion. Each Student Government is only in place for one academic year, whereas administration is a long-term structure. In these early years of the university, we must keep in mind that our decisions can set precedent for years to follow.

"As the university grows we want to continue developing these channels of communication so students continue to be able to discuss and give input on issues that are important to us," Reynolds said.

However, there are still obstacles in developing these channels.

"We're constantly testing the waters," said Bolton.

"There's a lot of things we [the student body] want to do, and administration wants to let us do," Zhang said. "But they often fall on the safe side, so we need to know when it's appropriate to try to make a little room or when it's reasonable."

Junior Alex Wang brought up the issue of information flow in the discussion.

"I remember in the first year with The Fishbowl [Tribune publication], I was locked behind the Student Portal because we're actually dealing with three environments: the student body, on top of that, the student government and on top of that, the legal environment that we're dealing in," Wang said.

This year, the student body continues to navigate the limitations of publication. Wang suggested that the student body has proceeded with informal self-governance.

"We are starting to do things that don't quite fit into the neat administrative framework that exists, and that's the sort of informal self-governance that we have," Wang said.

The instinct toward informal self-governance might resist institutionalization, Wang suggested.

Reynolds indicated that discussions about student self-governance will continue.

“I hope these discussions will keep coming up and be incorporated more explicitly into mission or vision statements for SIGs, for student government,” Reynolds said. “We also want to continue improving ways to reach out to the rest of the student body for feedback when specific instances for input arise.”