Talking Points:
Why Graduate and Professional Students Should Support the GPSO as a Full-Fledged Government
1. What’s wrong with the way things are now?
- The new bus plan, with the associated mandatory
transportation fee, was passed by IUSA without a chance for comment
from graduate or professional students. Now it is a done deal;
when graduate student representatives to the bus plan committee
protest the large increase in mandatory fees that may be necessary
for full implementation of the program, the administration says:
“But you [the students] wanted it.” We recognize
that many graduate students are in favor of the bus plan, and
do not intend to imply that becoming a separate government
would abolish it. But what happened once could happen again, and
for less worthwhile programs (like the Gannett newspaper
proposal—although it doesn’t appear at the moment as
if IUSA is really behind that one). As long as IUSA can make things
happen that affect the fees we pay without the consent of a body
that truly represents graduate and professional students, we are
at risk.
- Fee review procedure, Spring 2001: The fee
review board was chosen by the IUSA president, who also served
as a non-voting chair, even though IUSA’s own funding was
being considered. Result: IUSA received an increase in funding,
while GPSO’s funding was cut by two cents and seemed to be
in danger of being cut altogether when the board challenged our
validity as an organization. (Additionally, the Union Board received
nearly a dollar increase for programming attended primarily by
undergraduates.)
- Bursar fiasco, Spring 2001: When the social
security numbers of over 3000 Student Academic Appointees (SAAs),
mostly graduate and professional students, were accessed by a
still-unknown hacker, the GSO (now GPSO) swung into action by
disseminating information about the incident and organizing a
forum attended by hundreds of students. Due to GSO lobbying of
the administration, the students affected by the hacker were also
entitled to several credit checks at the expense of the university.
The IUSA response to this incident was virtually non-existent,
despite the obvious importance of what happened.
- Historical lack of participation in IUSA:
Graduate and professional students are usually surprised when
they first learn that they are represented by IUSA. They assume
that the GPSO is “their” organization, as evidenced
by the fact that they turn to us when problems arise (see bursar
incident). In contrast, the graduate and professional seats in
the IUSA legislature are commonly vacant; the current (January,
2002) list states that every one of those seats is open.
2. So why not get involved with IUSA and work within the current system?
- Time. IUSA meetings tend to be very long,
even without time spent discussing graduate and professional student
concerns. How many graduate and professional students would want
to be involved in IUSA if the meetings are primarily dealing with
undergraduate concerns? On the other hand, why should we take
time away from IUSA that should be spent dealing with those undergraduate
concerns to deal with our needs? On issues that affect all students
collaboration between separated student governments would be most
effective.
- We have the advantage, as graduate and professional
students, of departmental structures that allow individuals to
represent their constituents more effectively on the model that
the GPSO employs of having representatives for each department.
IUSA apportions a certain number of graduate student seats for
the entire College of Arts and Sciences; those representatives
have no effective means of communicating with their constituents
spread throughout many departments. A separate government would
most effectively capitalize on the institutional arrangement that
already exists at the graduate/professional level.
- We should also take advantage of the long
tenure many graduate students have at the university (distressing
though it may be in itself). Although many graduate and professional
students, especially in Master’s programs, are at the university
for a short time, and thus a relatively high turnover rate is
inevitable in a grad/prof student organization, many graduate
students continue to be involved with the GPSO for a number of
years. This gives the organization a continuity and institutional
memory not shared by IUSA, and which is further enhanced by the
structure of our executive committee. Such continuity is an advantage
in dealing with the administration and functioning effectively
as an organization.
3. What will this change accomplish?
- First, formally changing the GPSO into a
government will resolve the ambiguous relationship that exists
between GPSO and IUSA. Most students already believe that IUSA
represents undergraduates and we represent the graduate and professional
students, and this change will bring those beliefs in line with
reality.
- This switch will also bring the student governance
structure in line with what already exists at IUPUI. This consistency
will assist graduate and professional students at both campuses
to address issues at a university system-wide level.
- Finally, establishing the GPSO as the official
graduate and professional student government will grant the body
legitimacy and thus the standing to advocate for more regularized
access to the Board of Trustees and membership on university committees
from which we are currently excluded. Although the GPSO has a
good working relationship with the administration now, personnel
changes may alter this situation in the future. Even now, our
lack of standing puts the GPSO at a disadvantage because university
committee seat assignments may be altered to omit our participation,
as happened in one case recently.
4. Why should I care about the GPSO anyway?
- What’s the GPSO (formerly GSO) ever
done for me?
- Negotiated with the university to create
the G901 class shortly after the controversy surrounding the 1986
tax reform act. Essentially, this class allows advanced graduate
students who have finished their coursework to remain registered
as full-time graduate students at drastically reduced cost without
having to be on fee remission.
- Convinced the university to give health
benefits to SAAs and fellowship students in the early 1990s and
has lobbied hard for further improvements in health care coverage
ever since.
- Prompted creation of the Future Faculty
Teaching Fellowship program in 1997 that allows advanced graduate
students to teach at satellite campuses to gain classroom experience
in a different educational climate.
- Lobbied to prevent an increase in graduate
students’ technology fee in a non-fee review year during
Spring, 2000, although this fee increase did go through the following
year.
- Negotiated discount cards at Lens Crafters
for all graduate and professional students (Spring, 2001). Negotiations
with the Optometry Clinic for a competitive discount are underway.
- Persuaded the administration to pay for
three credit checks for those students whose social security numbers
were stolen during the bursar hacking incident (see 1c).
- Advocated for the creation of AI grievance
procedures (December, 2001).
- Awards research grants, Remak grants,
and now travel grants to graduate students and departments every
semester.
- What will the GPSO do for me if I support
it?
- having to pay non-remittable tuition fees
even with “full” fee remissions
- inadequacy & inequality of AI stipends
- housing issues, especially a lack of designated
housing spaces for graduate students and families
- improvements in medical insurance, including
contraception coverage
- the cost of transcripts ( $9 each—highest
price in the Big 10 )
First and best answer: anything the graduate/professional student body want it to. Make your voice heard! The GPSO has tended to be fairly COAS-dominated, but the new constitution allows for proportional representation, which will benefit professional programs—if those departments choose to send representatives.
Some issues that we have been concerned about:
