33Fall 1999 •  Volume 7, Number 1 

CAMPUS NOTES Denise L. Rode, Associate Editor

Reviving an SGA: A Case Study
Michael T. Miller, Kathleen P. Randall, and Daniel P. Nadler

Students become involved in campus activities for a variety of personal and 
professional reasons.  Belonging to organizations can assist in students’ personal 
development and may help them find employment upon graduating from the university
(Albrecht, Carpenter, & Sivo, 1994).  Belonging to campus organizations exposes 
students to different concepts, ideologies, people, and personalities (Astin, 1984).
Organizations have the potential to provide students a sense of comfort and familiarity,
and many may even foster student retention.  By joining different organizations such as
fraternities and sororities, leisure clubs, honors programs, or student government, college
and university students learn about the functioning of the university and gain a sense of
belonging (Cooper, Healy, & Simpson, 1994).  This relationship in turn enhances 
students’ psychosocial and professional development.

Student governance organizations may take many forms.  Some institutions utilize a
traditional student government structure, modeled after a state or national structure,
while others design governing bodies to suit their unique needs (Alexander, 1969).  
The main technique institutions have used to increase student participation has been
leadership training and representativeness training.  Through training current and future
student leaders, student affairs professionals and faculty have attempted to give students
the skills needed to govern effectively.  The cooperation of student affairs professionals
has been targeted as instrumental in increasing students’ participation and 
accomplishments in self-governance activities.

Governance is the decision-making, problem-solving, and goal-setting processes and
activities involved in the short- and long-term functioning of higher education.
Governance is intended to represent both formal and informal measures that can be used
or implemented to increase participation and consensus development.  Self-governance,
then, is the process of allocating resources and developing and implementing policy for
peer undergraduate and graduate college students.  Specifically, this process alludes to
student councils, governments, or senates, which are intended to represent the good
intentions of the entire undergraduate student body.

The Student Government Association (SGA) at The University of Alabama has been
in existence for over 100 years, and by the early 1990s had developed and sustained a
reputation of control by a select group of undergraduate students.  Reports of abuses

Michael T. Miller, Ed.D., is Associate Dean of the College of Education at San Jose State University.
mmiller5@email.sjsu.edu

Kathleen P. Randall, Ph.D., is Associate Vice President for Student Affairs and Assistant Professor of Higher
Education Administration at the University of Alabama.

Daniel P. Nadler, Ph.D., is Associate Dean of Students at Tulane University. nadler@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu



34 The Journal of College Orientation and Transition

were common, and administrative concern over the operation, intent, and functioning of
the SGA resulted.  Students often found themselves aligning with political entities from
their first interaction during new student orientation.  The concern and alleged abuses
were so severe that the university’s administration took the unusual stance of closing the
student government organization in spring 1991.

Following a yearlong, student-directed constitutional convention and student 
referendum to re-establish the SGA, the university administration called for an 
evaluation of the new organization after one year of operation.  Due to the scheduling 
of the new organization, the evaluation was postponed until the SGA’s second year of
operation.  This also allowed for a full-set of orientation activities to occur following the
implementation of the new organization.

The Student Life Office and the Vice President for Student Affairs appointed a 12-
member task force to review documentation related to the effectiveness and functioning
of the new SGA.  The task force met 16 times over a twenty-week period to collectively
interview representatives of each branch of the new SGA, the advisors of each branch,
SGA members, student affairs professional staff, undergraduate and graduate students
not affiliated with the SGA, and alumni.  Additionally, the task force studied student 
legislation to identify any trends in SGA legislative behavior, and they surveyed 
members of the SGA executive council, student judiciary, senate, and general student
body.

The primary difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of the new student government
organization was in the establishment of a set of assumptions or framework for what an
SGA should, or could, be responsible.  This was particularly difficult in attempting to
identify an appropriate mission of the SGA following its reconstitution.

Of concern to the task force was the creation of a general sense of the role and mission
of student governance.  Based on the beliefs and perspectives of the task force, student
participation in governance activities was determined to be essential to the college 
experience.  Consistent with this belief, the task force operated and created these 
recommendations under the assumption that students should have an opportunity to 
operate a political system, and that, at times, the university administration may not fully
or completely agree with the manner in which the SGA operates (Cartwright, 1995).
Moreover, it is beyond the scope of the initial SGA evaluation to understand why one
group may dominate certain aspects of SGA.  Although political parties may dominate
undergraduate activities in a manner not pleasing to staff, the role of the division of 
student affairs is one of offering oversight and ensuring fairness (Astin, 1984).

The task force also accepted the assumption that students self-governance should be a
learning activity and a means to foster undergraduate student leadership (Astin, 1984;
Seitchek, 1982).  Involvement in co- and extra-curricular activities is a vital component
of the undergraduate experience and often provides the means for self-identification 
and growth (Williams & Winston, 1985).  This participation can take the form of
involvement in various clubs and activities, ranging from intramurals to honorary 
societies, and these 300-plus organizations must be taken into consideration during any
conversation about apathy or involvement.  Additionally, the task force accepted the
assumption that there is substantial value to diversity and that diversity must be broadly



35Fall 1999 •  Volume 7, Number 1 

defined to include different cultures, religions and faiths, ethnicities, genders, and social
affiliations.  

Throughout the collection of data for the report, it was accepted that governance is 
not an exact science, and that responsive governance takes time to develop and evolve.
In particular, students, whether or not they have a history of participation in governance,
learn about their roles, political processes, conflict resolution, and constituent 
representation. 

Conclusion

The task force report was discussed extensively by undergraduate students and 
professionals in the division of student affairs.  Although the operational portion of the
evaluation received the majority of attention, the assumptions and framing of student
government and student affairs have initiated broader thinking about the role, function,
and purpose of student affairs in general and student self-governance in specific.
Institutions should engage in discussing, comparing, and defining expectations with 
students, student affairs professionals, and faculty members, and should do this 
thoroughly before attempting to define program effectiveness.

References

Albrecht, D., Carpenter, D. S., & Sivo, S. A. (1994).  The effect of college activities and 
grades on job placement potential.  NASPA Journal, 31, 290-297.

Alexander, W. M. (1969).  Rethinking student government for large universities.  
Journal of Higher Education, 40, 39-46.

Astin, A. W. (1984).  Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher 
education.  Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Cartwright, C. A. (1995).  Inquire.  Learn.  Reflect.  The evolution of student activism.  
Educational Record, 76(1), 26-31.

Cooper, D. L., Healey, M. A., & Simpson, J. (1994).  Student development through 
involvement:  Specific changes over time.  Journal of College Student Development, 
35, 98-102.

Seitchek, M. (1982).  The relationship of student involvement to group-relevant 
personality traits.  Education, 102, 289-294.

Williams, M., & Winston, R. B., Jr. (1985).  Participation in organized student activities 
and work:  Differences in developmental task achievement of traditional aged college 
students.  NASPA Journal, 22(3), 52-59.