Every spring semester, democracy puts on its Pearl Jam hoodie and swipes into the dining hall as it is time again for student government elections on nationwide college campuses. Just as in political campaigns, rhetoric on the "it" topics and claims to take on the demands of effecting seemingly hundreds of thousands of administrative meetings and paper cuts lead the campaigns of hopeful freshmen, confident sophomores, resume-writing juniors, and incumbent seniors. As the student government acts to vocalize the wants and needs of coffee drinkers, nap takers, pot smokers, library dwellers, pre-workout shakers, and penny board riders alike, at times the desire for a reference point presents itself.

As the Microsoft Excel-fluent among us, student government acts as the voice of students in the university checkbook, they allocate funds to all clubs and organizations based on need and legitimacy. They decide whether your Aviation Club flies folded up looseleaf papers across the quad or if it takes a trip to Red Bull Flugtag Portland this year. As a legitimate hand in the university's purse—the body of which is built with your tuition dollars—student governments potentially have the power to make or break a significant fraction of your college experience. In the pursuit of doing this job appropriately, a government such as this must preserve the desires of all students and foster communication between the student body and administration. It is the responsibility of the administration to act in synergism and to perpetuate a relationship of mutual uplift. However, in the pursuit of policy there exists the possibility of intentionally or unintentionally paving a certain path for information gathering by organizations like student governments.

A ready comparison to draw is one with the relationship between national intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA, etc.) and policymakers (Congress). Dr. Joshua Rovner, a professor in the Dedman College of Southern Methodist University and distinguished political scientist specializing in strategy and security, writes of this politicization of intelligence in "Fixing the Facts: National Security and the Politics of Intelligence" (Cornell University Press, 2011). Dr. Rovner outlines the phenomenon at three distinct levels: personal proximity, organizational proximity, and organizational dependence.

"The first explanation [personal proximity] holds that the likelihood of politicization increases when intelligence officials interact closely with policymakers," Rovner says. If Intelligence Officer John and Senator Mary are acquainted in and beyond a professional manner, the Senator's attitude toward pending policies she is working on may persuade I.O. John in his research and reports. Regardless of whether this form of politicization turns out for the greater good or not, assigning a polarized leaning can alter findings that should be blunt data and analyses.

Organizational proximity "is based on buraucratic design. Leaders are more likely to politicize agencies that are bureaucratically intermingled with policy bodies," says Rovner. The more connected an intelligence agency is with its policymaking counterpart, the more likely the two are to hold influence over each other. This form of politicization is difficult to antagonize however, because, as Rovner points out, without the guidance from policymakers in what to look for in their research, intelligence officers may feel less compelled in their work. The great paradox of this tendency is that without motivation, intelligence may miss its mark, and with it the mark may be in the wrong place.

Finally, organizational dependence "is based on the idea that leaders are able to manipulate intelligence by holding the bureaucratic incentives intelligence agencies at risk," Rovner furthers. This speaks more to the two-sided possibility for straying in this relationship. If the intelligence agencies do not necessitate "patronage or bureaucratic protection" of their counterparts, then the agencies can act more autonomously. Without required interaction, the relationship between these entities does not as easily foster potential manipulation.

Keeping these three pathways for politicization in mind, how would a relationship between a student government and an administration bear any resemblance? To draw this comparison, student government becomes the intelligence agency and the administration becomes the policymaker. Intelligence to an intelligence agency is the purpose of the institution, analysis being the usable product of all organizational efforts. The mission of a student government is to effectively cater to the wants and needs of the student population in relation to the university as a whole. The purpose of the student government becomes the opinion of students on life at the university, and the tangible product of all efforts is a healthy relationship between students, faculty, and administration. If the administration interferes with the student government's action, the outcome is identical to that of policymakers' politicization of intelligence. Incentivizing intelligence officers through the excitement of the immediate change which policy enacts gives the administration the potential to direct intelligence. By guiding the programming of a student government through an advisory panel and bureaucratic stipulations, a university's administration has the ability to programmatically guide the organization and provide both useful and possibly manipulative influence.

Since student governments are democratically elected by students they are seen as representatives of the population as a whole. They will advocate for students on the budget, for the betterment of student life, and in looking toward the future. However, since it is the administration's job to doctor the short and long-term health of the institution, some decisions may not always be in current students' immediate interest. Since those currently enrolled at the time of any decision made by the university should champion the list of priorities, who is to blame for detrimental administrative actions? Who is best positioned to advocate for the holistic well-being of students? With no vocalization of current students' interests, the administration cannot satisfy its constituency and cultivate a healthy organization. Without power and potential given by the administration, a student government's representative voice is useless. Without intelligence, policy is spineless. Without policy guidance, intelligence looks for a needle in a haystack.

Again, who is best positioned to advocate for the holistic well-being of students? Should all power lie within the inkwell of often faceless administrators? What amount of power is sufficient for a student government that has trouble knowing who to answer to?

Who but a personally invariable, organizationally autonomous and independent student union could stand immutable in defense of the constantly evolving college student?