Since that meeting, I’ve received a lot of feedback about my part of the presentation. There can be no doubt that I was harsh on the chancellor and university administration. There can be even less doubt that many of the regents were not comfortable with my assessment that, by voting for this commitment, they would be proving themselves out of touch with UW-Eau Claire students.

Some of the feedback has been positive. UW-La Crosse students, who were there proposing a differential tuition increase of their own, have thanked me for standing up for students and forcing the regents to question their own positions. Others have determined that my aggressive speech alienated the board, actually costing us votes; that I had been too passionate in defending what I viewed to be right.

I wish I believed that either of these assertions were true. I wish that my speech had made any impact whatsoever. I wish that there was a chance for the student voice to sway the board one way or another. The very painful truth is that most of the regents seemed to have made up their minds long before that Feb. 4 and 5 session. While board members complimented students speaking for and against the proposal, there were almost no questions regarding the student body’s acceptance of the BGC. Few regents took the outpouring of student anger seriously. Even fewer thought that it should be acknowledged.

So I apologize to you, my fellow students, not for trying, but for believing that we could make a difference in a system which is, clearly, not centered around our input.

I am writing this editorial today for two simple reasons. First, given the fact that the regents passed the BGC, there is no recourse for the opposition. We must now come together to see that the proposal is implemented in a manner most beneficial to students. We must make sure that we retain the measures of oversight that Student Body President Michael Umhoefer and Student Senate Chief of Staff Adam Sorelle won through painstaking and difficult negotiations on behalf of students. It’s time to heal our wounds and work together.

The second purpose is much less limited in scope. Last week, former Intergovernmental Affairs Director Armon Tabrizi and I were invited to a UW-La Crosse Student Senate session in which we were given speaking turns. The reason we had been invited was the topic of the debated resolution: “Resolution Recommending Changes to Board of Regents Policies on Differential Tuition.” In this legislation, UW-La Crosse students unanimously voted to request that the Board of Regents change its policy on differential tuition, requiring the approval of the student body by referendum before proposals such as the BGC could even be brought to the regents level.

Former Director Tabrizi and I have, likewise, been in touch with other UW schools and are urging them to pass similar resolutions. Currently, Umhoefer has formed a committee of

UW-Eau Claire students that will be formulating its own suggestion. It is my genuine hope that both students who voted for the BGC and students who voted against it will see the value in requiring the ascent of the student body before bringing any proposals to the regents level.

Some have suggested that this measure undermines shared governance systems (such as Student Senate), cutting them out of the decision-making process. This is an important argument, and while I do not entirely agree, I feel that there is a simple version of this resolution which would take these concerns into account. In this version, UW-Eau Claire would call on the regents to make the ascent of the student body and student government necessary preconditions for bringing proposed differential tuition changes to the board of regents.

This will make the entire process better for all involved: the student body will feel like it has some say in future proposals, the Board of Regents will be assured that the proposal it is considering has the support of students and, finally, it will help Student Senate craft a solid proposal together. Too much of the debate on the BGC was due to lack of clear guidelines over the process; in many ways, it felt like we were blazing a new trail. A concise, clear and simple change to the regent policy is the only way to eliminate such complications.

The Student Senate debate following the student rejection of the BGC was particularly hard on those senators who supported the measure. A great deal of time was spent discussing whether we should be reflecting student opinion or acting on our own judgment. Those like me had an easy time. Not only did I oppose the BGC, but I also believed we should reflect the views of students.

It was, undoubtedly, much more difficult for those who respected student opinion but believed that the BGC was the right thing for UW-Eau Claire. A clear guideline requiring the support of the student body and the student governance body would eliminate this conflict in the future. Students on both sides could debate the quality of the proposal, not the merit of a student opinion survey. Perhaps we can make this the silver lining of a very ugly affair.

Hawkins is a senior world politics major, off-campus Student Senator and guest columnist for The Spectator.