Learning Law, Living Politics: When Student Government Forgets the Students

By: Ian Duncan

  Article II, Section 1 of the Student Bar Association (SBA) Constitution states that SBA "shall represent the interests of the student body of the Cleveland State University College of Law…" This is not just a duty, but a profound commitment to each and every student, regardless of their beliefs or background. SBA's purpose is to champion student interests, ensuring that all students have equal access to educational and professional opportunities. However, this year, SBA has veered off this path, prioritizing politics and self-interest over its core mission of student representation.

  That shift first became clear earlier in the year (after the Department of Justice said they would train and place JAG officers as immigration judges) when SBA sent a message to the CSU administration urging that the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps not be given “a privileged platform to advertise careers to our students.” SBA justified this stance by invoking the Posse Comitatus Act and asserted that allowing JAG to recruit would “degrade the rule of law.” In doing so, SBA attempted to masquerade a political position as a legal one, cloaking its objection in statutory language without offering any meaningful legal reasoning. The effect was not to uphold justice, but to restrict students’ access to legitimate educational and career opportunities based on ideology.

  Irrespective of personal political beliefs, SBA's actions have tangible consequences. By attempting to exclude JAG from campus, SBA was not defending justice; it was limiting student access to meaningful educational and career opportunities. In doing so, it acted not as a representative of students, but as an arbiter of which career path it found politically acceptable. This should raise concerns about the future of student opportunities and the role of SBA in shaping them.

  That same disregard for student representation reappeared in SBA’s budget allocation process. According to the official meeting minutes, student organizations collectively requested funding that exceeded SBA’s recommendations by more than $25,000. While it is fair that a portion of the remaining funds were reserved for school-wide initiatives—such as the Barristers’ Ball and general programming—the distribution among student organizations raises serious questions about consistency and fairness.

  Some groups saw significant increases from their initial SBA recommendations to the final approved amount (ranging from $50 to $2000). In contrast, other organizations with comparable levels of activity and membership—such as the Federalist Society, a prominently conservative student organization—faced not only reductions but motions to eliminate their funding entirely. During the meeting, the Federalist Society was the only organization subjected to a motion to reduce its proposed allocation and, uniquely, a motion to cut its funding to zero. Though that motion failed, the organization’s budget was ultimately reduced from the recommended amount. No comparable scrutiny or reduction was applied to any other organization.

  The issue is not which organizations received more or less funding—it is the basis on which those decisions were made. According to multiple accounts, much of the discussion surrounding the Federalist Society’s budget focused not on programming quality or fiscal need, but on perceived political ideology. That kind of reasoning undermines SBA’s obligation to apply viewpoint-neutral standards to its funding process. SBA is entrusted with these resources and has a duty not to endorse certain viewpoints or reward ideological alignment, but to ensure that those resources are allocated fairly, transparently, and consistently. By allowing politics to influence those decisions, SBA risks eroding the trust that gives it legitimacy in the first place.

  Both the JAG recruiting dispute and the budget allocation process reveal an SBA that has drifted from its purpose. SBA is not a political body. Its legitimacy depends on neutrality–on applying consistent, viewpoint-neutral standards in funding and policy decisions. When it rewards or punishes organizations and opportunities based on politics, it ceases to represent the student body as a whole. Instead, it represents only those who share its views. This not only undermines the immediate opportunities for students but also sets a dangerous precedent for future SBA actions, potentially leading to further restrictions on student opportunities and a less diverse and inclusive academic community.

  It's important to remember that disagreement is healthy. Debate is vital to our law school community–it's why some of us chose to be here in the first place. However, representation demands fairness and restraint. Students elect SBA members to manage resources, not to decide which ideas or careers are worthy of institutional support. This underscores the need for fairness and restraint in student representation.

  If SBA hopes to restore credibility, it should begin by returning to the language of its own Constitution: it must “represent the interests of the student body.” Law school teaches that institutions earn their legitimacy not through ideology, but through fairness in process. SBA should model that lesson. Instead, it has offered a cautionary example of what happens when those entrusted to govern, those elected to represent, forget the very people they serve.