Student engagement
It's always fun to look at simplistic characterizations of discussions, as Erick does here with regard to the voter challenges in Statesboro.
Of course, I don't necessarily disagree with his central point - that the civic engagement of these students is a good thing and if they've legally become voters they should have the right do so - nor do I disagree with his dislike of the legislation that prompted their engagement (the alcohol rules they passed appear to be rather silly).
The problem is that he takes these legitimate concerns and oversimplifies them to assume that the long-term residents of Statesboro hate the students at Georgia Southern. It's the same kind of shallow rationale that leads so many to say that Athens-Clarke County residents hate students at the University of Georgia.
In both cases, nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, I take it to be that the two sides suffer from a lack of understanding of the other which results in a profound distrust. If anything, I'd like to see more engagement and more communication between the two in an attempt to balance the desires and wishes of those permanent residents of a community and those who merely passing through (and, truth be told, many of those who pass through decide to stick around ... case in point, yours truly).
I've long advocated for a student advisory committee that would feature, say, the Student Government Association president and vice president, the leaders of a few organizations, some appointed students and some elected students. This committee could meet regularly and have its officers meet with a designated subcommittee from the Athens-Clarke County Commission or perhaps just a single commissioner and designated staff member on a monthly basis to share ideas.
Not only would it be an excellent learning experience for students, but it would also give them a direct channel to our elected officials and a way to formally express their concerns.
Of course, I don't necessarily disagree with his central point - that the civic engagement of these students is a good thing and if they've legally become voters they should have the right do so - nor do I disagree with his dislike of the legislation that prompted their engagement (the alcohol rules they passed appear to be rather silly).
The problem is that he takes these legitimate concerns and oversimplifies them to assume that the long-term residents of Statesboro hate the students at Georgia Southern. It's the same kind of shallow rationale that leads so many to say that Athens-Clarke County residents hate students at the University of Georgia.
In both cases, nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, I take it to be that the two sides suffer from a lack of understanding of the other which results in a profound distrust. If anything, I'd like to see more engagement and more communication between the two in an attempt to balance the desires and wishes of those permanent residents of a community and those who merely passing through (and, truth be told, many of those who pass through decide to stick around ... case in point, yours truly).
I've long advocated for a student advisory committee that would feature, say, the Student Government Association president and vice president, the leaders of a few organizations, some appointed students and some elected students. This committee could meet regularly and have its officers meet with a designated subcommittee from the Athens-Clarke County Commission or perhaps just a single commissioner and designated staff member on a monthly basis to share ideas.
Not only would it be an excellent learning experience for students, but it would also give them a direct channel to our elected officials and a way to formally express their concerns.
posted by Jmac at 1:55 PM
19 Comments:
[quote]If anything, I'd like to see more engagement and more communication between the two in an attempt to balance the desires and wishes of those permanent residents of a community and those who merely passing through [/quote]
Fine. And since you made the suggestion, maybe you can also suggest some of the anti-student things that the "permanent residents" should relax on or forgo entirely in the "attempt to balance the desires and wishes"?
Like what, radio?
I think I disagree with you on this one. And not in a Statesboro resident kinda way, but in a more practical way.
I think the problem is with definitions. Someone like you (and me, BTW) who comes here from somewhere else for school, falls in love with the town and decides to make it home, is not a "student" by my definition, even if they're still in school.
No matter what brings you here, if your intention is to be/remain a citizen of this community, then you can engage the government like the rest of us do.
I would submit that "the students" you refer to are not now citizens of this community, by their own choice. I would suspect that the vast majority of UGA students have no intention of remaining in Athens after graduation. In fact many may have relatively concrete plans for their after-college lives in their respective hometowns, and to that end remain engaged/registered to vote at "home" during their college years.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they don't contribute to the community via sales taxes, service projects, etc. But I do think it's potentially a waste of time to reach out to a group whose vision/concern of, and for, this community is simply as a nice/fun/cool place to go to college.
I think we ought to welcome new citizens to this community with open arms, no matter what brings them here. But I question the utility of reaching out to a group of individuals who consider themselves, for the most part, "visitors" to our community.
-wmo
Nicki: Exactly. Like what? That's exactly the question I'm asking to Jmac.
Well, that's really the point.
Just as a logic experiment, let's identify our group with whom we are going to negotiate, or engage, or compromise with or whatever. (Which begs the question of why we as the permanent residents of this community should the need to compromise with any non-resident about anything. But that's a whole other can of worms)
What possible "desire and wishes" of this transient (albeit long-term transient) population should we place in priority over the desires and wishes of the bona fide residents of this community?
Let's take a hypothetical proposed local ordinance that:
a) the entirety of the residents of ACC are unanimously in favor of, regardless of neighborhood and ethnic differences, etc;
b) the entirety of the student population feels is unfair or wrong. And by "student population" I mean as you suggest, JMAC, those who are "merely passing through;" and
c) there are no other obstacles to -- no constitutional issues, issues of infringing on property rights, due process issues, etc. (Yes, I know all of those are ultimately constitutional issues)
In such an impossible, pie-in-the-sky scenerio... why should the government, or the residents of this community, give any deference to a community who is admittedly "just passing through"-- whose only interest in this community is as a place to hang their hat for four(or five!) years while they earn their degree. (I think a question mark goes here somewhere)
-wmo
Because without those people "just passing through," the town would be a little hole in the wall, a tiny dot on the map that says "Eat here and get gas." (And there wouldn't be any gas stations.)
What's on second.
Radio ...
I'm not entirely sure of your question. I'm not taking sides or anything, I'm merely suggesting that dialogue isn't a bad thing.
WMO ...
I think you might be misreading some of my comments and jumping to far down the line. Again, I'm merely saying engagement with a population that resides here for four years - under the jurisdiction of our laws, pays taxes here and is around for the duration of one complete term of a commissioner - isn't necessarily a bad thing.
This isn't to suggest that if the community (aka permanent residents) overwhelmingly wish to take some form of action, that we should bow to the demands of a population that both you and I note is more transient.
Should they be involved in the discussion? Well, yes ... I don't see how that's a bad thing. But discussion does sometimes lead to disagreement, which is also not a bad thing.
Seriously, though, I find it highly amusing that Erick is criticizing what makes red states red.
Regarding Statesboro vs. Athens: UGA was playing football before the teachers' college know known as GSU was founded, IIRC. There's at least a timeshift difference between the two towns.
Jmac,
Well, I was jumping WAY down the the line on purpose -- to illustrate my point. I'm just not sure it's constructive or a good use of time to reach out to a population group that by definition doesn't really care about the long term "whatever" of our community. They may complain, but...
I'm not talking about prohibitive actions -- no bans on getting involved or anything. If "students" (my previous definition of "students") want to get engaged, speak at commission meetings, etc., then great. Although I'm pretty sure that in practice, any "student" who gets involved to that extent may actually cross the line from student to resident by default. At least if what they have to say is more substantive that "you guys suck"
Radio,
you're not the first person to use the "valuable tourist dollars" argument about the town vs gown conflict. I submit that it doesn't hold water because the town/gown dynamic has existed for 200 years here. Your comment implies that the "tourist dollars" could dry up if we're not "careful." Which is ridiculous. We're not a rural midwestern town that pursued indian reservation gambling to increase revenues only to regret it ten years later when our crime rate went up. UGA and Athens are intertwined on a much more fundamental level. Sure, without UGA, Athens would not have developed into the community that it now is, but without Athens, UGA wouldn't be the university it is.
-wmo
Wmo:
I respectfully, but completely, disagree that UGA would not be what it is today without Athens.
Take away UGA, and Athens itself is nothing but a podunk little nothing-village. Besides UGA and the things that have grown up because of UGA, what does Athens have? A double barreled cannon and a tree that owns itself. Whoop Dee Doo.
As long as these people - students - are living here, paying sales taxes here, paying property taxes here, and living under the preposterous nonsesnse that the local government dreams up, they should have just as much say here as you - who lives here, pays sales taxes here, pays property taxes here, and lives under the preposterous nonsense that the local government dreams up.
Jmac:
You said you want balancing of the desires. Fine. Balancing means giving and taking. What should the student residents "give" and what should the permanent residents "give" in order to achieve a balance in your view?
It's been my impression that students do have the should have, they just don't want to exercise it. Motivating students, whether leftists, liberals, conservatives, or fraternals, seems to be across the board difficult.
Does the reasoning about the status of transient students also apply to, say, migrant workers, homeless itinerants, and the workhorses of the meat processing facilities?
Also, balancing as a metaphor need not be always giving-plus-taking. It could also be about vectors, precession, parity, complementing, &tc. It's an open metaphor that shouldn't always be read as indicating something about sacrificing one's wants or desires. Sometimes, it's about marriage. A marriage where everyone is satisfied, I'd call balanced, and it needn't be based on sacrifice at all.
Anonymous, your hypothetical scenario proves too much. To wit:
Let's take a hypothetical proposed local ordinance that:
a) the entirety of the residents of ACC are unanimously in favor of, regardless of neighborhood and ethnic differences, etc;
b) the entirety of the student population feels is unfair or wrong. And by "student population" I mean as you suggest, JMAC, those who are "merely passing through;" and
c) there are no other obstacles to -- no constitutional issues, issues of infringing on property rights, due process issues, etc. (Yes, I know all of those are ultimately constitutional issues)
Well, if all that happened, then any political minority, whether voting residents of ACC or just passers-through, would obviously have to cede to the popular and non-constitutionally-complicated ordinance. If all of Athens Clarke-County residents, more or less, support an ordinance, and there are no constitutional problems with said ordinance, then the ordinance is the way its going to be and nobody is going to care about 'compromising' with those few who don't like the ordinance. But this is so whether the few who don't like it are students, or just a random 20% of people from throughout the community.
Perhaps if you gave a more specific example of an ordinance which meets all 3 of those criteria but which people are still saying should be 'compromised' on, it would help out the conversation? As it stands now I can't imagine what you have in mind.
polus...
Does the reasoning about the status of transient students also apply to, say, migrant workers, homeless itinerants, and the workhorses of the meat processing facilities?
migrant workers- Well, do we have a population of migrant workers the way that certain florida counties do? I'm not aware of one.
workhorses of meat processing facilities- I would contend they aren't necessarily transient. My argument lumped them in with citizenry as opposed to "those passing through"
as for homeless itinerants... well, i mean, come on...
xon-
There isn't a real example of such an ordinance, which was sorta my point. I think what I was driving at was whether a group of people who are "just passing through" are even a "political minority" at all in the sense of being given a seat at the table of public policy discussion.
Maybe this analogy doesn't quite work, but let's view it as a hotel. customer feedback as to rates and services is all fine and good, but is also ultimately up to market forces. But should hotel management get the input of their regular customers as to what health plan to provide it's employees? what trash removal service to use? What profit sharing plan to put in place, if any?
I just can't envision any ordinance where "student" input is relevant or appropriate, in and of itself.
The two glaring examples of "anti-student" local legislation I can think of right off the bat are the roommate ordinance/rental registration and the fraternity house issue of last year. I would submit that there is not a "student" (i.e. itinerant) position on either of these issues. There's a renter vs. homeowner aspect to the rental registration/roommate issue. And I think that renters are a political minority who should be recognized in the discussion. And engaged as Jmac suggests. Whether they are students or not is immaterial to the issue.
As for the fraternity house situation. I view that as a property rights vs. zoning rights issue. The balance there being between an unpopular use of a particular piece of property (or pieces) and protecting the property rights of others. Again, the fact that the property owners are students or a student group is also immaterial to the issue.
Again, I not talking about denying anybody any rights here... I all for engaging all sides of a particular issue concerning this community. I just can't think of a single issue where one of those sides are "students," without any other stake in the particular question (potential evictee, homeowner, etc.). Therefore I'm not sure why we would need to reach out to them in advance. Especially when, as Polus suggests, they may not be particularly interested in participating anyway.
-wmo
p.s. And really, it's a logic exercise, as opposed to a policy discussion, anyway.
Polusplagchnos:
Does the reasoning about the status of transient students also apply to, say, migrant workers, homeless itinerants, and the workhorses of the meat processing facilities?
"The reasoning" wouldn't apply equally, due to whatever differences that allow you to list each category of migrant separately.
I do classify all of the above categories as subtypes of migrant, as viewed from the point of view of the established "host" society.
And with that, I have a netiquette question: I have a long post for this, scaling up from Statesboro instead of Athens. Should I post text or a link?
wmo, thanks for the responses to my questions. My thought, even in including the homeless, is that it seems to me that there are plenty of initiatives designed to help even those whose position in Athens is more transient than students'. If, as you said, the problem is with definitions, transiency or passingthroughness is one of those things with all kinds of nuances that get beyond specifically the social habits of the students. I like the move towards recognizing this as a struggle between two kinds of landed interests: renters v homeowners. That also poises something of a struggle between those with access to the land, or to property, and those without, too.
Still, it seems to me irrelevant, at times, whether someone wants to stay or not for the government to engage the people or for that person to engage the government. I dunno. Maybe I'm being way too obtuse and need some decent sleep, here.
mike, I'm not one to talk given my tendency to write a lot, but it seems Johnathan is okay with people posting long comments on his blog. For style concerns, you can link to something that reads better with tables and charts and stuff. It seems to me to go either way with linking to something as a rebuttal or response: sometimes it's snarky and rude, othertimes it's sensible and kind.
Still, it seems to me irrelevant, at times, whether someone wants to stay or not for the government to engage the people or for that person to engage the government.
Well, I see those two things as distinctly different things. My original question to Jmac was why should the government expend time resources proactively engaging a transient population in policy discussions.
Which is in my mind, a completely different animal than purposefully ignoring an attempt to engage the government by that same transient group. Or intentionally thwarting it, which is what's going on in Statesboro. There has not really been such a movement here, other than in case by case situations -- where rhetoric seems to be more prevalent than reason.
Don't get me wrong. What's going on in Statesboro is plain stupid -- actually trying to block voter registration -- but I also find it interesting that, minus the alcohol issue, the "student" platform seems to be in direct contradiction to what most permanent residents here, there or elsewhere would find reasonable. (I'm specifically referring to the "allow parking in yards" portion of their "platform.")
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what happens down there come election time.
-wmo
You said you want balancing of the desires. Fine. Balancing means giving and taking. What should the student residents "give" and what should the permanent residents "give" in order to achieve a balance in your view?
I suppose it would depend on a case-by-case scenario, wouldn't it? I mean, let's say we use an ordinance to have last calls at a particular time. Arguably this overwhelmingly impacts the student population who frequent those establishments, but it also impacts others who go there as well as the businesses affected by such legislation.
So there's more than just the students' wishes to consider, but it's also important to respect the wishes of the permanent residents who have to live with this year after year. Can I give a particular or specific example of what one side should 'give' and the other side should 'give' ... well, no. But that would be something that would be discussed, debated and considered in any sort of engagement.
As for the fraternity house situation. I view that as a property rights vs. zoning rights issue. The balance there being between an unpopular use of a particular piece of property (or pieces) and protecting the property rights of others. Again, the fact that the property owners are students or a student group is also immaterial to the issue.
I don't mean to be harsh - but bull. If it had been a group of old biddies wanting to put up a rose garden or a retirement community, you would NOT have heard any objections. The fact that they are students had EVERYTHING to do with it.
And you KNOW how I know that. :)
Can I give a particular or specific example of what one side should 'give' and the other side should 'give' ... well, no. But that would be something that would be discussed, debated and considered in any sort of engagement.
Well then why did you say it if you don't have any concrete examples to back it up?
Post a Comment
<< Home