The Undergraduate Student Government voted to dissolve and merge with the University Park Undergraduate Association Saturday, consolidating the student voice and expressing intent to transfer its remaining funds to UPUA if certain demands are met.

This raises several critical questions about the future of student government at Penn State. One of the most obvious concerns is that fact that the Association of Big Ten Students (ABTA) does not formally recognize UPUA among the other schools' student-run governing bodies. This is truly problematic, because, as a Big Ten school, Penn State has no reason not to be represented in this association. It diminishes our credibility as a major university and casts doubt on the administration's commitment to putting students first.

The ABTA cites concerns such as too much power given to administrators and appointed students rather than student-elected leaders. One has to wonder, if the ABTA is asking these questions, why isn't the Penn State student body doing the same? While it is feasible that UPUA will become a viable governing body once its bylaws are ironed out, common sense dictates that a more student-run student government is always preferable.

And with the way things are now, the Penn State administration has an inappropriate amount of power over this new organization. When students voted to oust USG in the referendum last fall, it was made clear that those who voted did not feel this governing body was doing all that it could to serve its constituency of nearly 40,000 undergraduates. However, the very nature of the referendum makes it impossible to tell whether the results reflect students' genuine feeling of mistrust toward USG or their lack of understanding about how the organization worked and its often invisible effects. While the creation of UPUA may seem like a step in the right direction simply because it is a fresh idea, it is dangerous to assume that putting more power in the hands of the administration is the perfect fix. In the short time that USG has had a club status, it has distinguished itself more as an attentive and effective student voice than in its previous position as the university's official student government. This may be due to its members' increased activism in response to the creation of UPUA or simply because its greater autonomy and status as the "underdog" student voice led the organization to finally remember that it is here to serve the students.

One can hope that USG's former members will become active in UPUA, serving as a check to this governing body just as USG had done prior to dissolving. For the students currently involved with UPUA, it is vital that they remember their purpose is to serve others, not to build their resumes.

Finally, an informed and engaged student body is paramount to the survival of a democratic student government. Expressing dissatisfaction is easy; actually making a difference requires more work but yields far greater benefits. Penn State will only be at its best when the voices of students are the loudest on campus.