2008 Woodie Awards
Agreements merit a closer look
Allen Graziadei
Issue date: 5/15/07 Section: Opinion
After two years of threats, the Era of the Student Leader Agreement is upon us. Starting next fall, student leaders receiving stipends through the Office of Student Affairs must sign contracts.
The students must agree to maintain a minimum GPA, fulfill their position's responsibilities, adhere to conduct guidelines and support the University's Catholic mission and Basilian values.
At first glance, these agreements seem innocuous. What is wrong with outlining requirements for students who receive other students' money? True, expecting leaders to do their jobs is justified. It is also reasonable that student leaders, like all students, should follow the University's code of conduct. As for GPA requirements - well, we don't want stupid leaders now do we?
If these were the only requirements, I would have no problem signing such an agreement and I doubt others would either. However, demanding that students support the school's Catholic mission and Basilian values requires closer attention. The requirement is too vague.
Even conservative Catholics could debate the definition of supporting a Catholic mission. Students may be agreeing to something as simple as the Golden rule. On the other hand, they could be signing over the right to voice any beliefs that contradict Catholic teaching without risking their position.
In other words, they might be agreeing to support the pro-life movement, decry same-sex marriage, oppose birth control and condemn the death penalty - a requirement no University should be able to make. My opinions on any of these topics are not the case in point. Rather, students' ability to think and act independently is at issue.
The problem is that the agreement's terms are not defined and therefore could be interpreted (or rather misinterpreted) at the vice president of student affairs' whim. I would not venture to say that this is intentional. But, it is a concern that should be addressed.
Students have a right to know what they are signing. Without defining these requirements, one might argue that the stipulation is too broad to enforce.
The students must agree to maintain a minimum GPA, fulfill their position's responsibilities, adhere to conduct guidelines and support the University's Catholic mission and Basilian values.
At first glance, these agreements seem innocuous. What is wrong with outlining requirements for students who receive other students' money? True, expecting leaders to do their jobs is justified. It is also reasonable that student leaders, like all students, should follow the University's code of conduct. As for GPA requirements - well, we don't want stupid leaders now do we?
If these were the only requirements, I would have no problem signing such an agreement and I doubt others would either. However, demanding that students support the school's Catholic mission and Basilian values requires closer attention. The requirement is too vague.
Even conservative Catholics could debate the definition of supporting a Catholic mission. Students may be agreeing to something as simple as the Golden rule. On the other hand, they could be signing over the right to voice any beliefs that contradict Catholic teaching without risking their position.
In other words, they might be agreeing to support the pro-life movement, decry same-sex marriage, oppose birth control and condemn the death penalty - a requirement no University should be able to make. My opinions on any of these topics are not the case in point. Rather, students' ability to think and act independently is at issue.
The problem is that the agreement's terms are not defined and therefore could be interpreted (or rather misinterpreted) at the vice president of student affairs' whim. I would not venture to say that this is intentional. But, it is a concern that should be addressed.
Students have a right to know what they are signing. Without defining these requirements, one might argue that the stipulation is too broad to enforce.