I’d like to address a few of the points made by our President in his response to the call for him to fulfill his constitutional obligation.  First and foremost: I support the existence of the Inclusion Coordinator.  I recognize the need for a dedicated Student Government officer to focus on the needs of marginalized populations among the Student Body.  At no point have I ever made an argument against the existence of this position, contingent on certain conditions.  

Those conditions are that the Student Body must be involved in, and debate the specifics of, the responsibilities and duties of the Inclusion Coordinator.  This action is what is required by our Constitution, and it is what must be done to give the position direction, to give it substance, and to present an opportunity for engagement from students.  

I don’t seek to question or debate the importance of inclusion–I ask for debate concerning the particulars of the job.

During my time on Cabinet these past two years, I have watched first-hand as two separate Inclusion Coordinators, and two separate Presidents, have struggled to forge a defined path for how the position should function.  

Those who continue to actively prevent debate on the bylaws of this position are not saviors of inclusion.  They are not the heroes of this story.  Rather they are the ones dooming the position’s success.  

I have watched this happen two years in a row, and thus I hoped to see our President demonstrate courage by engaging the Student Body in these nuanced, hot-button topics.  Instead, attempts to discuss the necessity for debate on the duties of the position and its subsequent ratification have yielded the thoughtless, defamatory response that suggesting such things amounts to an anti-inclusion sentiment.  Has our level of discourse stooped this low?  

Holding such debate and seeking the required supermajority will give the position definition and direction.  Thinking along actionable terms will force those who hold the position to be held accountable to their promises.  

Although the position does have a vaguely stated intent, as of now it lacks any clear responsibilities.  A lack of relevant bylaws prevents the student body from holding the official to any tangible standard.  Without seeking the required supermajority from the assembly, this will not change.  We will have yet another year of unproductive, haphazard attempts at student involvement in inclusion programming–a reality that has greatly damaged Student Government as an institution.  

Furthermore, those who wish to obstruct debate in plenary and ignore the voice of the Assembly are not champions of inclusion, as they will surely claim.  Preventing the Student Body from engaging with the specific duties of this position and crafting its future condemns the role to perpetual misdirection.

Attempts to reduce this nuanced discussion of policy to one of anti-inclusion vs. inclusion prevent us from participating in constructive discussion and ignore the subtle complexities present in this debate.  Buying into this narrative while claiming to be a defender of inclusion by preventing debate–that is not noble in any sense.  It is cowardly.