Correction 4/18: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated the plaintiffs in the CSJ lawsuit and the amount of money CSG reappropriated to their 2023 executive budget. This article has been updated to reflect that three parties were plaintiffs in the case, and that $30,000 of the 2023 budget was reappropriated to the executive committee budget.
The University of Michigan’s Central Student Government has traditionally been a voice that operates by and for the will of the student body. In recent years, CSG has undertaken the responsibility of providing funding for student organizations on campus, as well as a number of different discretionary programs. In previous years, however, they have been failing to do those jobs effectively, for a number of reasons.
For one, they haven’t been advocating for students’ best interests. Additionally, they have been mismanaging the funds that they have appropriated. CSG has stopped being the student voice.
Historically, student government at the University of Michigan has been at the forefront of student issues. Whether it was protesting the Vietnam War or demanding the University divest from apartheid South Africa, these were core issues that were important to past student bodies. Student government members were at the forefront of these protests.
However, this spirit of protest has become diluted. Regardless of any judgment values on the Israel-Hamas war and associated protests on campus, the University’s proposed — and now scrapped — Disruptive Activity Policy not only grants vague power over any “disruptive” student protests, but also allows for punitive punishment up to expulsion. If CSG was truly a voice for students, there should have had some intrinsic desire to take a stand against this policy. Instead, by not taking a side, advocacy surrounding the policy has been outsourced to the American Civil Liberties Union and other students. With this outsourcing, CSG has also outsourced the responsibility to advocate for students.
By allowing this policy to be directed toward those protesting the use of our endowment to invest in Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, CSG has been negligent in making it seem like this policy doesn’t have the capability to affect us all. Not only is this inaction bad in that it could allow potentially harmful policies to come into place, but it also does so in a way that makes the issue cause further division on campus.
Another reason highlighting why CSG is failing U-M students is the fact that it has become a bloated institution used for people who want to cosplay as politicians as opposed to advocating for students. Looking at the composition of CSG’s structure exemplifies this. There are more than 20 executive members in CSG. There is a legislature composed of much more than 45 different positions. There is also a judicial branch composed of a Central Student Judiciary that interprets “laws” from CSG’s constitution.
Despite the size of CSG, a smaller committee in the executive branch handles the student organization funding completely. Having dozens of extra positions within CSG’s executive branch, in addition to SOFC, only acts as a way for CSG members to add interesting bullet points to their resumes. Additionally, the legislature acts as a roadblock for no particular reason. Last year, the Student Organization Committee needed some amount of funds to be reappropriated in order to ensure funding was being equitably distributed across student organizations. The process of having to go through formal resolutions and votes in the legislature, instead of simply having a discussion with the executive committee, serves no purpose other than to unnecessarily mimic the legislative process and delay critical funds for student groups.
This self-serving nature is no more evident than in what took place in our recent CSG elections. A lawsuit was recently filed against elected presidential and vice presidential candidates of the SHUT IT DOWN ticket on the basis of improper campaigning, despite there being a lack of evidence. MomentUM, one of the three parties who filed the lawsuit, is mostly composed of people already in CSG. Trying to get rid of election results — which were deemed fair and correct — shows that they simply were more interested in having CSG act like a governmental body rather than a student voice. If they actually cared about student voices, it is reasonable to think that they would have realized that the goals of the SHUT IT DOWN campaign resonated more with students than their own, instead of contesting the results.
Having a student mediating apparatus similar to a court is genuinely beneficial to students. However, the manner in which CSJ is constructed is not. The positions within CSJ are not elected and are chosen by the CSG. This makes it susceptible to potential tampering by CSG for, perhaps, overturning an election result. This extension is another example of CSG acting as political theatre for students.
In terms of CSG’s other responsibility to fund student organizations, they have been lackluster at best. Typically, they raise funds from a small fee paid by the entire student body and use those funds to reimburse campus groups when they need it. However, CSG has recently been irresponsible with how they use the money designated for executive discretionary spending. In 2023, CSG lost track of $80,000, and then reappropriated $30,000 to the executive committee budget, rather than to student group funding.
Simply put, this money deserves to be put toward helping student organizations. As with most scenarios, it is always easy to see failures rather than successes. In many ways, lots that we do not actively see, CSG has a positive impact on the student life. CSG provides access to various news subscriptions that can be incredibly valuable to college students, and the AirBus program provides cheap transportation to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport. These programs are all genuinely great uses of CSG resources to improve the lives of students on campus. It is in these programs that CSG must look for inspiration. When there is a surplus of funding, instead of making an increasingly complicated student government more bloated, CSG should focus on providing students with simple programs similar to AirBus and news subscriptions, while continuing to build campus life through the funding of student organizations.
Most importantly, CSG should be a voice for the students. “SHUT IT DOWN” winning the election means that their cause has legitimacy and student support. CSG should be an institution that identifies with similar movements in the future, not one that allows itself to be ignored by the administration as a whole. While it may seem contradictory, short-term refusal to fund student organizations would show a great commitment to serving student interests once again.
While acknowledging the positive impacts CSG has had on campus life, it remains evident that CSG currently is failing to effectively represent and advocate for U-M students. The institution must prioritize student interests over self-serving ones, even if it means suspending one of those interests and eventually ensuring responsible allocation of funds, while recommitting itself to being a genuine voice for the student body in campus affairs. Only through such efforts can CSG regain the trust and support of the student community it serves.
Gabe Efros is an Opinion Columnist who writes about American culture and politics. He can be reached at gefros@umich.edu.