Democracy Manifest: The case for a divestment referendum 

The University of Connecticut Undergraduate Student Government, in a meeting on Sept. 3, voted to dissolve a committee responsible for modifying a referendum calling for UConn’s divestment from the military-industrial complex, according to The Daily Campus. Now, as a result of the committee being shuttered, the referendum in its original language will once again reach the senate floor on Sept. 17. As always with second chances, The Daily Campus Editorial Board urges the senate to learn from their mistakes and make the right decision. If USG is truly a democratic institution concerned with the will of the student body, it has a duty to allow them to make the choice in this matter. On the matter of divestment from the military-industrial complex, it’s time to let the people speak.  

To fully understand the importance of why this referendum must be brought before the student body, it’s worth going back to the meeting where it was first proposed. On Feb. 3, over 250 students attended the USG internal affairs meeting, knowing that a proposal regarding divestment was on the agenda. Specifically, this proposal asked to put out a “glorified poll,” as the author Jasmine Maggio put it, asking whether students thought USG should advocate for UConn to create ethical investment policies and divest from the state of Israel, the military-industrial complex and other organizations guilty of human rights abuses in Palestine. The response to this proposal was clear, with a vote of 184 to 68 supporting the resolution and sending it to the senate floor. 

The senate chose to satisfy critics of the act who claimed it had “editorialized language” and create a committee meant to “revise” the resolution, according to The Daily Campus. The committee compiled a list of student groups — essentially those that explicitly favored the referendum as it stood and those who opposed any version of it. These groups were not made aware of their involvement in this process. Then, without any clear directions, the groups were expected to come up with a revised version which would satisfy both sides — a very high hope considering that half of this allegedly neutral committee was opposed to any referendum at all. This is not an attack on those groups, but rather a criticism towards the unrealistic tactic used by USG to handle this proposal.  

In the end, the committee failed to achieve its goal, with most groups abandoning it early on. Even its creator, Senator Smith Bernard, stated afterwards, “I regret making the motion to form this committee.” 

In the advent of a new semester, what should USG do now? The answer is clear: listen to the mandate given to them by over 180 students during the original Internal Affairs meeting.  

It is extremely rare that any USG event, let alone a committee meeting of theirs, can attain the interest that the Feb. 3 meeting did.  Although some USG officials in the past, like Senator John Guthrie, have claimed that the issue of divestment is unrelated to USG, it’s clear that students disagree and want the organization to take action here.  

As far as actions go, putting a referendum out to the student body should hardly be a controversial one. The results of this referendum will not materially change anything, as the university ignores any outcome that threatens its investments. All it will do is show where the majority of the student body stands and have the direction of their student government reflect that. Simply put, the only real reason to oppose that provision of democracy would be to preserve the position of whichever group is in the minority.  

The Editorial Board encourages students to attend the senate meeting at 6:30 p.m. tonight in hopes that USG decides to send the divestment referendum to the student body.