The authors of this article were among those who voted “no” during the Senate meeting on Tuesday, February 3rd, on the proposed resolution to dissolve the Subcommittee on ADA and establish a new Committee on Institutional Accessibility (CIA).
The opinions and thoughts expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and are written in their personal capacities. They do not unanimously reflect the view of The Skidmore News staff at large or of Skidmore College as an institution or student body. The Skidmore News condemns harassment, intimidation, and the sharing of private information directed at any individuals involved in this issue.
The Skidmore News recognizes the breadth of viewpoints regarding this event and welcomes all respectful discourse related to this issue. Please contact us through our official email (skidnews@skidmore.edu) regarding any thoughts or concerns.
Last week, the Skidmore SGA Senate voted on a proposal to create a Committee on Institutional Accessibility. The resolution needed a ⅚ majority to pass and failed in a 12-6-1 (yes-no-abstain) vote.
The proposal was first introduced to the Executive Committee during summer training on July 22nd, 2025. It was then introduced and briefly discussed at Senate on September 23rd, 2025, and presented at the first Senate session of the semester on January 26th, 2026. The proposed committee and VP position were discussed in great detail throughout the semester. The decision to vote “no” was not taken lightly, and many senators have expressed hesitation and concerns throughout this process.
The decision to vote against this legislative change should not be interpreted as a lack of commitment to accessibility. We all agree that the lack of accessibility is a serious issue that the college must address. We agree on the facts: Skidmore College has a great deal of work to do to become ADA-compliant, which is the minimum standard for accessibility.
As upperclassmen who have participated extensively in SGA throughout our time at Skidmore, we bring significant institutional knowledge to all legislative decisions. We’ve spent up to 20 hours a week in SGA meetings, drafting initiatives, and reviewing legislation, and our vote reflects careful consideration within that context. Two years ago, Skidmore hired professional consultants to examine its student government constitution and propose changes to improve SGA’s functioning. Our current system is modeled after their advice. At their recommendation, the ADA Commission was changed to the Subcommittee on ADA to become more closely involved with and have a formalized connection to SGA committees and resources. This change was implemented to devote more resources to accessibility on campus, not less, by connecting the group to the existing SGA committees. Additionally, these changes were also made to address a consistent number of vacant seats in SGA. The Subcommittee of ADA was vacant for almost a year after its creation, and the chair was only filled this past fall. The longevity of a new, separate committee is a significant concern.
Our current Vice Presidencies (Executive, Academic Affairs, Financial Affairs, Student Life, Club Affairs, Institutional Diversity, and Engagement and Outreach) are modeled after those at peer institutions, as well as the Skidmore President’s Cabinet positions. The establishment of a specialized committee, such as one focused on institutional accessibility, would require an expansion to additionally support the formation of other committees addressing similar systemic concerns, such as mental health awareness, anti-discrimination, safety on campus, and affordability. At present, the size and structure of SGA do not provide the capacity required to sustain such an expansion. Additionally, existing offices and departments on campus, such as The Learning Commons, HPAC, Campus Safety, and the Office of Financial Aid, already work every day to address these concerns.
Altering the structure of accessibility groups rather than utilizing SGA’s current resources would result in an overwhelming amount of moving parts and a major lack of efficiency. This would actually hurt accessibility efforts on campus rather than advancing them. As a subcommittee, accessibility efforts can be discussed in multiple different committees and promoted by all of the VPs. In light of this, we believed that the CIA working group initiatives could all be accomplished without its own VP and committee. The accessibility button initiative was implemented by the subcommittee. The transit system has been under administrative concern but could be an initiative taken on by the Committee for Student Life (CSL). CSL also began an elevator initiative two years ago and could revisit this idea. The grief absence policy could continue to be developed in collaboration with the VP for Academic Affairs and the Academic Council. Accessible event club planning can be executed through the VP for Club Affairs and OSDI. These initiatives can and should all still be established through increased communication between committees, subcommittees, and existing college resources.
Furthermore, the subcommittee structure was not given a fair chance. The CIA working group argues that accessibility initiatives overwhelm the Committee on Institutional Diversity. However, the Subcommittee on ADA was created for this very reason! They can work on initiatives during their own meetings and bring larger projects to the committees. The Subcommittee on ADA just started running this fall, and the college is in the process of starting a working group on accessibility. These efforts need to be given an opportunity to succeed before we make a long-term change to governmental structures.
The reaction following Senate’s vote was deeply concerning, particularly given the limited information processed by the broader student body. In the aftermath, Senators experienced personal criticism and threatening language, which was disheartening.
At no point was the intent to dismiss or invalidate the lived experiences shared, nor to suggest a lack of empathy for the concerns raised. On the contrary, hearing those experiences made the decision especially difficult. The decision to vote “no” reflected concerns with the proposal itself, rather than opposition to the underlying issue, and was made with respect for the individuals who spoke and the importance of their perspectives.
We see and hear you and would love for you all to get involved. There have been 6 elections since the change in SGA structure, and we currently have open senator seats and a willingness to serve positions on nearly every committee. We want you to have a say in the changes that are being made and implore you to do so.