Without the three-hour showdown during the Student Government Association’s Wednesday, April 23, meeting, Saint Louis University may have welcomed a new club to campus. G.A.M.E., which stands for “Gun Awareness and Marksmanship Education,” sought Chartered Student Organization status.
After controversy erupted over the group’s name and purpose, the group’s members changed their moniker to G.S.E.C., “Gun Safety and Education Club.”
Now, both acronyms are as defunct as spent shells: After vigorous debate, SGA denied the request in a 22-to-10 vote.
SGA senators did well this time by prepping their constituents, e-mailing copies of the G.A.M.E./G.S.E.C. constitution, along with the bill set to charter it, to students for feedback. They did the same thing earlier this year with the proposed civility code, asking for student input on a relevant issue.
But that is not enough. If SGA pins SLU decision-making to the student body’s value judgments once, it sets a precedent to do that every time.
G.S.E.C.’s purpose was controversial. In addition to speakers, seminars and discussion groups, it aimed to visit shooting ranges to practice safe firearm discharge and hone marksmanship skills. They set their sights on educating the SLU community about “the proper role of government within the confines of constitutional boundaries” pertaining to the Second Amendment, which upholds U.S. citizens’ right to form a militia and bear firearms. They also planned seminars on gun safety.
G.S.E.C. resolved not to receive SLU or SGA funding for any activity involving the discharge of a firearm. All members participating in a “hands-on” activity would have to sign a university-approved waiver. G.S.E.C. forbade hunting, assault rifles, shooting at moving targets and bringing guns onto campus grounds. In short, the group covered its bases.
But preparatory legwork wasn’t enough to make the group legitimate. After two hours of debate, a temporary tabling of the bill and then another hour of debate-during which the term “values” was volleyed about-SGA decided that G.S.E.C. didn’t jive with the Jesuit Mission.
The Jesuit Mission is SLU’s version of the “elastic clause” of the U.S. Constitution: it ultimately means whatever the interpreter wants it to mean.
This illuminates a problem with our mini-democracy: Senators use the mission’s ambiguity to reflect their own values instead of universally defined ones. So, when senators debate, not just about G.S.E.C. but about any topic pertaining to the mission, they are actually judging using their values as a compass.
If we operate our government like this, we may as well give up any claim to representation. A senator must make decisions based on the views of constituents. But what if those views conflict with personal principles? As a political representative, one forfeits the right to impose personal value on an issue. One must decide as the majority of one’s constituency would.
G.S.E.C. was deemed a poor fit with SLU values and was discarded. But those values are students’ values.
We urge SGA senators to continue to consider their constituents’ values carefully before casting votes based on any mission, any goal or any perception.
