On Sunday, the Creighton Students Union executive team posted on its website an open letter to the Creighton community regarding the anonymous social media app “Yik Yak.” The letter notes that many of the “yaks” on the app cast a negative light on certain University institutions and organizations. It further implores students to delete the app from their phones. It also suggests that “should you have a criticism of this university, or a member of the community, have the courage to put your name behind the comments.”

Anyone who has used the app will quickly notice that many of the negative comments are actually directed at CSU (perhaps second only to Sodexo), which makes CSU’s motivation for the open letter clear. However, the open letter misses the point of the deeper criticism that underlies the yaks that CSU finds so offensive.

 Certainly, the CSU executive team is correct on one aspect. Some of the yaks have not only been negative, but crude and borderline libelous. They appeal to a sophomoric level of humor which is inappropriate for furthering the larger discussion at this university. But in the end, this only admonishes how people are criticizing CSU, not why.

Much of the letter seems to express a frustration that amounts to “why can’t you say it to my face?” While some people enjoy anonymity for devious purposes, there are many reasons why someone would want to make a criticism anonymously. Fear of retribution in some form is more often a legitimate reason than we might care to admit. However, in this case, the desire to vent anonymously may well come from a sense of hopelessness.

Many people, including us, have openly noted their frustration with CSU only to be met with the tired response of “join it and make a difference if that’s how you feel.” The reality is that many students already realize that doing so may be the most inefficient way to make a difference. For a case in point, let us look at the recent history of CSU.

Last year, CSU passed a resolution encouraging that Fox Sports 1 be added to the basic residence hall cable package. CSU is  proud of this and has noted it as an “accomplishment” from the past semester. However, a professional staff member in Residence Life acknowledged that Residence Life was already negotiating with Cox Cable  before this non-binding resolution was passed. It is a bit embarrassing to list as an accomplishment something which was essentially an empty resolution already in

the works. 

The same may be said for the resolution to enforce the already existing smoking ban on campus. A short walk to some corners of campus will find many have not taken this resolution seriously, either.

Further, CSU, the “comprehensive student government at Creighton University,” sat idly by as the Board of Trustees chose to disregard its own statutes and reduce the student members of the Presidential Search Committee to a single member instead of the recommended two. It said nothing as the Board allocated more seats to its own members, undermining any pretense of shared governance and respect for student input on this campus.

This has not been the only time CSU has accepted the University’s dismissal of its power as a representative body. Any resolution it passes that is not limited to social events must be approved by the Vice Provost for Student Life who may pocket it for as long as she or he desires. We remember too well the ultimate slap in the face when the (then) Vice President approved the “Good Samaritan Policy” in CARE cases on the grounds that most, not all, student help-seekers will not be reprimanded with a policy violation  effectively neutering the policy. 

To the tired reply from CSU to “run for office and be the change you want,” we say “been there, done that.” One of us served on CSU for a semester and decided that his time was better spent serving the University in a more constructive manner. Even after leaving CSU, one of us attempted to draft legislation to limit the use of disposable water bottles on campus. However, support was minimal with the explanation that certain established administrative groups drew issue with the proposed changes. Of what value is a representative body if not to contemplate and potentially alter the status quo?

Ultimately, the “Yik Yak Self-Censorship” crisis will fade as those who abuse the app grow bored and find their next target of childish scorn. But after that all that passes, the problems that plague CSU will remain. These are problems that cannot be solved with concert tickets.

So if CSU wonders why so many students are frustrated at their organization and feel a need to yak about it, or why the last election for CSU Representatives saw such dismal participation, it may be because students have a hard time seeing what, if anything, CSU actually does to meaningfully represent them.  The language of the yaks may too often have been crude, but underneath it lay a very real frustration. And we are not afraid to put our names on that.