Illustration By Mike Padilla

I have always conceived of student governments as kind of like the air inside of an oxygen chamber - pretty important to those who are within but not of much value to those who are not.

The College of Medicine's recent decision to withdraw from the Graduate and Professional Student Council and further integrate with the Associated Students of the University of Arizona, however, has sparked renewed debate about the purpose, performance and function of student governments. That decision has also forced this columnist to reexamine his own views on student government when trying to determine whether the law school should follow suit by joining the medical school in its withdrawal from the GPSC.

Like many students, my perception of student government has never been favorable. It seems to me that most student councils are led by individuals with an inflated sense of self-importance who make empty promises while campaigning and then provide no recognizable difference in the lives of those people who they are purporting to represent once elected. At the very most, my thinking went, these organizations were perhaps somewhat beneficial to those who cared enough about them to be part of them. Just as theatre provides an outlet for the thespians, or math club for the brainiacs, student government allows students interested in politics to practice that grimy art.

Jonathan Riches Columnist

However, a week researching different student governments at the UA and talking to the who's who within them has tempered my cynicism about the utility of student councils and has changed my view about those who lead them. What I found is that most of the students who lead these organizations are precisely that - leaders. This means that while some tend to be self-congratulatory and Lady Macbeth-ambitious, most are diligent and sincere people who really care about making a difference in the lives of those they represent. This appears to be particularly true of Alistair Chapman, whose work ethic and duty to service takes him into the ASUA office for upwards of 80 hours a week.

That said, the behind-the-scenes politicking that led to the medical school's decision to split from the GPSC is not quite as admirable.

The issue is essentially this: Some within the medical school (and now the law school) are disappointed with the representation that GPSC has been providing since becoming its own entity in 1996. In particular, some professional students feel that GPSC's political structure, pool of resources, and current leadership inadequately satisfies the needs of the UA's own burgeoning doctors and lawyers. Accordingly, the student council at the medical school recently passed a proposal to formally split from GPSC and become a larger part of the ASUA. The law school is now contemplating a similar measure. What the "becoming a larger part of" means is not entirely clear. The medical and law schools are already part of the ASUA, insofar as they have representatives within its cabinet, benefit from its administrative services and pay it dues.

The motivations of the parties involved are relatively straightforward. ASUA probably wants to benefit from the prestige attached to having the medical and law schools playing a more official and active role in its organization. The Graduate and Professional Student Council would have to change its name if it no longer had professional students among its membership. And the medical and law students (and representatives within their respective student governments) want to be part of whatever organization will best serve the needs of medical and law students.

As mentioned, in a close and (some say) inequitable referendum, the medical school has already decided to split from the GPSC. Should the law school follow suit?

The consensus among those involved with this issue here at Rogers' House appears to be "yes." Not only does ASUA offer better representation and a larger pool of resources, but most involved with GPSC seem to be woefully unsatisfied with the dispensation that they have received from that organization. To illustrate, ASUA's budget this year was just over $1 million, compared to GPSC's budget of $161,000. Although ASUA's budget is spread among a greater number of students (more than 35,000 compared to GPSC's 8,500), there is something to be said about the influence that an organization whose annual budget breaks the seven-digit mark can yield. This influence is implicitly manifested by the sway ASUA appears to exercise over campus affairs, and explicitly illustrated by things such as a permanent voting seat on the Arizona Board of Regents. There are other issues involved, including club funding (few if any clubs have ever received funds from the GPSC) and voting procedures (the executive is elected by a direct vote in ASUA, while officers in GPSC are chosen via a parliamentarian system).

The strongest argument, however, for remaining part of GPSC is that professional students' needs are probably more closely aligned with those of other graduate students. But Student Bar Association President Megan Nielsen settled this issue for me when she stated pragmatically: "The law school needs to be self-interested, and it should go with whatever organization best represents its needs." This is probably right, and as a student of politics, it is not surprising that self-interests dominate decision-making - even in the weird world of student government.

Jonathan Riches is a first-year law student. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.