What is one commonality across American campuses? Every campus has a governing structure designed to aid the advancement of college life. The real question is, do these governing structures help or hurt
By Adriane Alston
Editorial Editor
As a former member of the Council of Student Leaders (CSL), I witnessed firsthand the exclusivity and challenges that come with student governance prior to the transition to the Student Government Association (SGA). The shift from CSL to SGA marked more than just a change in name; it symbolized a restructuring of student representation and leadership on Winthrop’s campus.
When I first applied to CSL as a freshman, I vividly remember walking into a room of more than 25 familiar faces, only to leave feeling defeated. Other applicants who already had connections to members seemed to know exactly what to say and how to say it. That experience revealed how limited and insular in nature CSL’s structure could feel. While the voting system was imperfect, I still miss the ability members once had to make key decisions internally and externally. The new SGA model, while more structured, restricts some of that decision-making power.
Kyra James said she has also noticed a change in atmosphere since the transition. “Last year it was hard to be in CSL,” James said, highlighting how it was challenging to gain acceptance or be involved with the governing structure. Now, with SGA, it’s more welcoming and more intentional in undoing things that used to be considered barriers for students. James stated that members of the association are “trying to make a real change […] It’s more proactive than CSL.”
With the adoption of a Parliamentarian, the new system emphasizes professionalism and order, mirroring state and national government-based structures. Members now have the opportunity to serve on five committees that are broader in nature in terms of the populations and areas in which their civic engagement lies. The five committees are Campus Safety, Student Involvement, Campus Wellbeing, Civic Engagement and Internal Operations that handle everything from campus advocacy to policy drafting. The added structure has given the organization legitimacy, but it has also created distance from the spontaneous, student-driven feel that once characterized CSL.
Sasha Vorontsov, a passionate former member of CSL and current member of SGA and chair of the Civic Engagement committee, said the shift has both its strengths and weaknesses. “It feels more professional and more structured,” Vorontsov said, “but with the chartering loss, at times it feels like it’s gotten less student-oriented and less about
what students wish to see on campus. It focuses more on the opinions of the admin now, and then the association hears about it. It’s less governing in a sense but more government-oriented.”
While the SGA structure promotes accountability, it also comes with challenges for newer members learning to navigate its formal processes. As the Secretary on the SGA executive board, I have seen the importance of balancing professionalism with care for our members. We try very hard to prioritize the mental health of everyone in the association. We also aim to make meetings more valuable in nature, but it can be difficult when there are so many issues to discuss. The civic engagement required of SGA members is meaningful but demanding, especially for students unaccustomed to sitting through one– to two–hour meetings filled with procedural language and debate.
Jada Howze said she sees the name change but still struggles to understand what the organization actually does. “I knew CSL through a former member,” Howze said, “but I didn’t know the details of how they made campus better. I don’t know much about SGA either, but I know more about what they do on a surface level than I did CSL.”
Her observation points to one of the main hurdles facing SGA: visibility. Even with its expanded structure and official tone, the organization must continue to find ways to make students feel connected, included and heard. Outreach initiatives, open forums, and collaborations with other organizations are steps in that direction, but consistent communication remains central to eliminating problems.
Despite its growing pains, the move from CSL to SGA reflects progress toward a more inclusive and transparent system. The framework may feel rigid at times, but it provides a foundation for future student leaders to continue shaping Winthrop’s culture of engagement and student advocacy.
From my perspective, the transition is both a gain and a loss. CSL was able to have a say in direct decision-making, but SGA’s expanded format brings credibility and sustainability. As Winthrop continues to refine its approach to student leadership, the most important goal remains clear: ensuring that every student, no matter their background or experience, feels empowered to lead, serve and be heard.
