The relationship between a university and its host city has come a long way since the Battle of St. Scholastica Day in 1335.
Differences between the local townspeople and students, which began in a tavern (no surprise there), quickly escalated into a full-scale riot.
Many students were killed or maimed. The annual observance of the day of mourning for the riot’s victims continued for 500 years thereafter.
But the question today is: would a student representative “make much of a difference?” In other words, would he or she be more effective merely because of his or her student status?
The question is a variation of the perennial “town versus gown” controversy.
No one is denying the right of students to be represented, or the right of a student to represent citizens. As long as a student meets the basic legal requirements, there’s no reason why an elected representative could not be a student.
However, we shouldn’t expect a student representative to be more effective merely because he or she is a student.
That effectiveness comes from other qualities and traits.
There are several reasons why the odds may be against an effective student representative.
Most students reside in the area for only a brief time.
While townspeople may spend a lifetime in a locale, the chances of a student becoming a lifelong resident, with the perspective that accompanies it, are rather slim, especially if the University’s hometown is small, such as Bowling Green.
The facts: the 2000 Census counted 29,636 people in Bowling Green.
Ten years later, the population had increased to 30,028, an increase of less than 400 people. Clearly, not many students have chosen to make the area their home.
Of the nearly 18,000 students reported to be attending the University by the United States Department of Education for the fall semester 2010, nearly 15,000 are undergraduates.
More than 90 percent of these undergraduates are 24 years of age or younger.
The existence of a large university in a small town creates a large transient class of residents who constitute a portion of the pool of potential elected representatives.
Nearly half of the city’s population is made up of those in the 18 to 24 year age bracket; no doubt many are students. And since they are legal residents of the city, they deserve representation in local government. But it should not automatically be assumed that students are best served by being represented by a student.
There is also the matter of perceived maturity. There are good and valid reasons why there are minimum ages for certain elected offices.
Nationally, a United States Representative, Senator, and President must be at least 25, 30 and 35 years of age, respectively. The founders understood the need for a candidate to possess some life experience. This would not necessarily guarantee effective candidates, but it was designed to eliminate candidates who would not possess the necessary perspective needed to represent or govern well.
This is not to suggest that a student representative would not do a conscientious job in elected office. But neither does it suggest that a representative would do a good job merely because of being a student.
The 2011 election saw a University student elected to represent the city’s 1st Ward. We all wish him well.
But would he, or any student in that position, make a significant difference merely because of attending the University? Time will tell, as it will with all newly elected officials, but the case has not been conclusively made.
Respond to Phil at
