History of the Rensselaer Union

The Rensselaer Union student government that exists today is, as administrators and accreditation boards often remark, “unique.” This uniqueness never emerged from a single moment or idea but rather, it represents a combination of student-focused narratives and ideals spanning more than a century.

The Foundation: 1860s Traditions and Student Initiative

The Rensselaer Union’s current governance structure starts much before its creation in 1970. In 1883, Rensselaer students recognized a need that the Institute wasn’t addressing: they wanted a gymnasium. Rather than convincing Institute administration to cover it, they took action, pledging nearly $1,300 (at the time) to fund what would eventually become the ‘87 Gym, inaugurated in 1921.

According to Rensselaer historian Sam Rezneck, the ‘87 Gym “became Rensselaer’s first concession to non-academic student needs, achieved largely on the initiative of the students themselves.” More significantly, these “early efforts to develop and improve athletics led, in fact, to the beginnings of what might be called student self-government, since the Institute authorities were not greatly or directly concerned.”

Students at Rensselaer began organizing and governing their own non-academic affairs. In 1890, the RPI Union was formed “to provide, as it were, a comprehensive organization for all students, supported in time by assessments imposed as a compulsory supplement to tuition.”

The 1940s: Delegated Authority

The concept of “delegated authority” in American colleges gained prominence in the 1940s. This philosophy maintained that students shouldn’t just have clubs and activities but rather hold genuine administrative power over certain aspects of campus life, delegated from the institution’s Board of Trustees.

At Rensselaer, this philosophy proved successful. The Institute’s Board of Trustees granted the Union significant powers, including control over student organizations, activity fee allocation, and even some campus policies. This inevitably created a real government structure where students made binding decisions.

More specifically, and the Union’s power is derived directly from the Board of Trustees through a special charter approved by the New York State Senate. The Student Senate training document states that “The Union gets its power from the BoT… We’re not just some random student government, we’re a recognized administrative structure, with power over all Student Orgs.” This relationship and trust between the Institute, BoT and students is considered one of the greatest experiments in shared governance at an American university.

1960s: Expansion

As Rensselaer’s enrollment significantly due to the G.I. Bill, by the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Union had completely outgrown its original home in “the clubhouse” (a building that is now Lally Hall). Students recognized that a new building wouldn’t happen without their financial commitment, and in a move that demonstrated the Union’s growing complexity, they approved by referendum vote a plan to tax themselves for construction of the current Union building. Students contributed $300,000 (equivalent to approximately $3,000,000 today) before construction even began, paying off the building over 30 years with the last payment made in 1994.

While students built their physical home, the Vietnam War was reshaping how young Americans thought about democracy, representation, and institutional authority. College campuses became hotbeds of activism, with students demanding more voice in institutional decisions. At many universities, this led to confrontation and crackdown. At Rensselaer, something different happened.

1970s: Formation of the current constituion

The major transformation came in 1970, when Rensselaer students rewrote their government from scratch. As one judicial records document notes, the original constitutional referendum was highly contested, with charges brought that the referendum itself was invalid (Watzman vs Rules & Elections Committee, 1971).

The architects of the 1970 Constitution were deeply engaged with political theory and constitutional governance. They modeled the Union explicitly after the United States government, complete with separation of powers, checks and balances, and a bill of rights.

This theoretical grounding meant drawing on Montesquieu (who advocated separating those who make laws from those who enforce them) and James Madison (who championed the three-branch system).

In short, the Union was founded on real political theory and Enlightenment principles.

The Structure: Five Branches and Constitutional Law

The 1970 Constitution created an unusually complex structure. Unlike typical student governments with a president and senate, Rensselaer’s Union established five distinct branches.

The “Big Three”:

• Student Senate: Legislative body responsible for policy creation, advocacy, and oversight, led by the Grand Marshal
• Executive Board: Operational body carrying out Union policy and managing resources, led by the President of the Union
• Judicial Board: Interpretive body resolving disputes and ensuring constitutional compliance, led by the Judicial Board Chair

The Councils:

• Graduate Council: Advocacy and programming for graduate students, led by the Graduate President
• Undergraduate Council: Coordination of class councils and undergraduate programs, led by the Undergraduate President

This structure created a distinct separation of powers. The Senate couldn’t just order the Executive Board around, and the Executive Board couldn’t operate outside of set policy. Each branch had its own constitutional authority And critically, the Judicial Board could hear cases against any branch of student government or even against the Institute administration (in cases of student rights, for instance)

The Constitution also embedded Robert’s Rules of Order as the parliamentary procedure binding all Union bodies.

Shaky Ground

The early 1970s saw an explosion of judicial cases as the new system was tested. The judicial records from 1970-1990 tell the story of a government wrestling with fundamental questions about power, rights, and process.

In 1971 alone, the Judicial Board heard cases involving:

Media freedom: The Black Students Association and Executive Board charged The Bachelor magazine with “culpable racism”. The Judicial Board found the magazine guilty and banned it from Union facilities, but a Review Board overturned the decision.

Administrative overreach: When President Richard Grosh transferred $3,444.74 from Union accounts to pay for protest damages without notification, the Graduate Council challenged this as unconstitutional. The case was referred to Joint Board, but Grosh settled the case before the hearing could occur.

Some food for thought: What if the hearing happened? What if the joint board had ruled against Grosh, setting the precedent that the student judicial system could rule directly against administrators?

Constitutional interpretation: In Freshman Class Council vs Student Senate, freshmen challenged the Senate’s rejection of all freshman candidates for open Executive Board positions. The Judicial Board ruled the Senate wasn’t required to approve freshmen, but could only change the Executive Board’s composition through constitutional amendment.

One 1971 case particularly demonstrates the system’s seriousness. In McDonough & Friedman & Schween vs Student Senate, three students charged that Senate Parking Committee member Richard Simon was “extending special privileges to members of Student Government, dorm councilors, and personal friends.” The Judicial Board not only ruled that Simon had exceeded authority, but in fact declared all parking tickets invalid and censured the Senate for acting in an “improper and irresponsible manner.”

Democracy vs. Bureaucracy: The Tensions Emerge

The Vietnam War-era emphasis on democracy and representation sometimes clashed with the need for effective governance. A 1973 case illustrated this perfectly, where the Senate created a special fund for the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), raising the activity fee to support it. But the Executive Board challenged whether the Senate could direct Union money to an external organization. The Judicial Board ruled the Senate could raise the fee and create the fund, but couldn’t bypass the Executive Board’s financial control.

Another 1973 case showed the complexity of media freedom. The Executive Board tried to require weekly reports from WRPI (the campus radio station) after changing its format. The Judicial Board ruled the Executive Board, “being a purely budgeting body,” had overstepped its authority because the reports were not in fact necessary for budgetary purposes. This established that the Board couldn’t use funding as leverage for editorial control over media organizations.

The 1976 Election Crisis: Process Over Politics

Perhaps no case better exemplified the Union’s commitment to constitutional governance than the 1976 election case. John Moelsphini, a candidate for President of the Union, alleged his opponent won due to postering violations. The Rules & Election Commission and Senate viewed it as a “technicality” and certified the election anyway.

Moelsphini took the case to the Judicial Board, which declared the entire election invalid and required all elections to be redone. The Board also established that the Senate must establish all election rules itself and couldn’t delegate everything to the R&E Committee.

The 1980 WRPI Case: Constitutional Crisis

The most significant constitutional crisis came in 1980, when the Executive Board ordered WRPI to cease broadcasting. WRPI accused the Board of overstepping its budgetary role and violating the Union media statement. The Judicial Board issued an injunction, and the Executive Board ignored it.

This was unprecedented: one branch of student government directly defied a judicial order. The Judicial Board ruled against the Executive Board and placed disciplinary actions on all members who voted to ignore the injunction. Eventually, the Executive Board appealed to the Review Board, which produced a landmark ruling:

1. The Union is required to adopt a media statement, and the Senate is responsible for initiating all legislative action, bylaw or not. As the Senate had never passed the media statement, the media statement had no weight in the Union. “No common law in the Union”

2. The bylaws of the Judicial Bylaws of the Union allowing it to temporarily hold Constitutional actions of the other bodies are valid constitutionally, as they are passed through it the senate 

3. The freezing of funds by the Executive Board is allowed, but the Executive Board overstepped in their authority here by doing it for reasons that were not related to financial mismanagement, as permitted in the Executive Board bylaws

4. The limitations of the Executive Board, and the jurisdiction over funded activity approval, is unclear, and legislation should be passed to clarify the jurisdiction and limits.

5. It is the responsibility of the Senate to pass a media statement, and to pass legislation to “clearly delineate the responsibilities and limitations to authority of the Executive Board”

6. It is the responsibility of the Executive Board to update their bylaws after Senate pass said legislation

This case demonstrated heavily that the judicial system could check executive power, but ambiguities in constitutional language created gray areas that couldn’t be resolved without legislative action.

The 2000s: Risk, Liability, and Institutional Pressure

As one training document notes, the modern Union also incorporates “2000’s ideas of risk and liability.” While maintaining its unique governmental structure, the Union has had to adapt to modern concerns about student safety, legal liability, and institutional risk management.

The Union still maintains constitutional authority over student organizations and activities, but has to balance this with Institute risk management policies. The relationship between Union staff (who are Institute employees) and elected student officers remains “contentious and complicated.”

Save the Union & Shirley Ann Jackson

Recovery

This article draws on primary sources including judicial case records from the Institute Archives, Union constitutional documents, and training materials from the 55th Student Senate. Special thanks to Timothy Miles, Vice Grand Marshal Senate Historian, and certified unc, whose compilation of judicial cases from 1970-1990 provided documentation of the Union’s early constitutional development.