Article II, Section 1 of the Student Government Association’s Constitution states that one of the Association’s purposes is to act as the “official and final student voice on all appropriate matters” involving both students and the SLU community.

As such, SGA has the right to pass any resolution it deems fit, provided the subject matter is “appropriate.” A resolution, then, is a powerful statement of consensus on behalf of the student body.

But, what happens when SGA passes a resolution that pushes the boundaries of its perceived jurisdiction? Just what is “appropriate” content for a senate resolution? What happens when SGA passes a piece of legislation tactfully worded, but based in strong political opinion, a resolution that does not necessarily reflect the views of the entire student body?

This week, SGA passed a contestable resolution that raises these questions.

After approximately two hours of debate, senators resolved to declare Sunday, March 25, 2007, an official day of prayer and fasting on Saint Louis University’s campus for “peace and stability [in] Iraq and for mourning of the lives lost in combat.” The resolution also encourages the days’ “participants” to attend a vigil at College Church.

This resolution’s conclusion, paraphrased above, is thoughtfully worded and essentially free from political bias. It notes that this official day of prayer is voluntary, not obligatory. Indeed, many of the resolution’s proponents argued for its passage by asking, essentially, “Why not?” and, “What harm would it do?”

Eight of the resolution’s nine clauses, however, distinctly support a prompt end to U.S. participation in the war in Iraq.

Clause two cites opposition of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to the conflict. Clause three cites Pope John Paul II’s opposition to war, in general. Clause four reminds students that SLU, as a “Catholic, Jesuit university … is guided by the spiritual and intellectual ideals of the Society of Jesus.” (The Jesuits will, notably, hold an anti-war protest on Sunday, March 25, which is why the date was selected for SLU students’ prayer and fasting.) Clause five accounts for the number of violent deaths in Iraq in 2006. Clause six accounts for American armed forces’ casualties since the conflict began. Clause seven documents the conflict’s cost. Clause eight describes Iraqi refugees. Clause nine restates the purpose of the event: ” … so that all students upset by the war and the facts stated above can respond to the war.”

Clauses two through eight are, indeed, simply facts.

Clause nine betrays the authors’ political leanings.

Needless to say, some-but not all-University students support this subtle, political argument. Four years after the United States declared war, military conflict in Iraq is still innately divisive. Some students support continued U.S. presence in the Middle East. Others do not. Plus, the event was going to happen anyway, whether or not SGA approval was secured.

It is completely acceptable for a senate resolution to use persuasive language in its clauses in order to draw a particular conclusion. That is what a resolution is supposed to do. It exists to formally solidify student opinion.

Furthermore, this resolution appears to be innocuous, as it involves no exchange of funds. It is simply a formal statement of opinion. Yet, that is exactly why its passage must be questioned: Was SGA really the most appropriate venue for this proposal?

Sponsors of SR-0016-07 have several appropriate venues in which to advertise, if awareness was their sole aim. Proponents could have announced the event on the SGA mailer. They could have announced it in open forum, or during “pass the gavel.” They could have posted flyers. Possibilities abound.

We contend that sponsors had another aim: To support a cause. As noble as that aim might be, however, it forces words into some students’ mouths.

In a representative democracy, it is impossible to please all of the people, all of the time. Though it would be foolish to call SLU a true representative democracy at all levels of governance, it is safe to refer to SGA as one. It is, therefore, SGA’s responsibility to thoroughly consult its constituents before passing a statement of belief. If any doubt existed-which, as Wednesday’s debate proved, was the case-the resolution should have been tabled-in this case, a de facto scrapping of the bill, as it would push the decision past the date of the vigil and render it moot.

In the end, however, the students of Saint Louis University should be aware that SGA has issued a politically tinged opinion on a divisive issue-on your behalf. Do you approve?

Here, tabling the resolution for a week would have made it chronologically moot. In that case, it should have been scrapped, especially since the prayer and fasting will occur anyway.