The Tartan

Governance overhaul push; AB survives

In a heated Feb. 13 General Body Meeting, Carnegie Mellon’s Student Undergraduate Senate voted 20–7 to reject J.24.02, a controversial amendment that sought to reclassify the Activities Board (AB) as a student organization rather than as a standing committee among claims of the Board’s mismanagement of student funds. 

The proposal, spearheaded by Constitutional Advisor Owen Hershey and Chief of Staff Grace Ahn, argued that AB’s current structure lacks “meaningful oversight,” citing its ability to roll over funds and bypass standard probation protocols.

“The status quo fails to capture the Senate’s interest,” said Ahn during the meeting, noting that the Senate’s only recourse for AB mismanagement is removing its chair. 

AB President Grace Li countered that the amendment would cripple operations: “During Carnival, we make dozens of purchases daily. Subjecting that to [Joint Funding Committee] approvals would risk contracts and CMU’s reputation.”  

Senate Operations Committee Chair Sanjeev Naiek echoed concerns about AB’s campus impact. 

“AB isn’t just another club — they’re responsible for events thousands rely on,” he told The Tartan after the vote. “Probation isn’t the answer. We need collaboration, not separation.”  

Zach Berger, Academic Affairs Chair, criticized the proposal’s timing: “We tabled this provision in January to allow time for amendments,” Berger said. “Radical restructuring wasn’t the answer.” 

Both senators stressed AB’s willingness to implement monthly audits and public spending logs as compromises — compromises AB has tentatively agreed to.

Neither senator had a definitive response regarding whether the Activities Board mismanaged student funds or the extent of any potential mismanagement. 

For context, each Carnegie Mellon student pays a $154 mandatory activities fee each semester, with approximately $66 — or 22 percent — allocated directly to AB, according to Berger. This translates to a conservative estimate of $481,800 annually (22 percent of $3.6 million activity fees from 7,604 undergraduates). 

While the debate over probation hinges on accountability, the broader imperative lies in fostering systemic reforms within the board. Those in leadership positions seek to prioritize transparency and oversight to ensure student funds are managed responsibly, aligning AB’s operations with the trust placed in it by the student body.

Behind the scenes: Probation tiers and strategic voids

Debates over AB oversight hinged on probation mechanics. Current rules reserve Level Two probation for organizations with “severe financial mismanagement” — a threshold Grace Ahn argued doesn’t fit AB’s scale. “AB’s budget is 22 percent of student activity fees. They shouldn’t be immune to consequences,” she said.  

Yet senators like Naiek pushed back: “Imagine if Spring Carnival was half as good … probation would punish the whole campus.” To this argument, Ahn told the Undergrad Senate that AB cannot run amok with funding no matter how vast their influence on campus is. 

Ahn countered that “no organization should be ‘too big to fail’… current rules let AB accumulate reserves of at least $250,000 without Senate approval.” 

If the Activity Board holds such a big influence over campus financing, she reasoned, that is more reason for them to have more oversight.

Meanwhile, the Senate’s lack of a long-term strategic plan drew self-criticism. “Every year is a reset,” said Naiek, referencing stalled efforts to mirror the Graduate Student Assembly’s multi-year vision. 

Gender ratios in SCS spark concerns for some

The meeting also raised concerns about the declining proportion of female students in the School of Computer Science (SCS). Once a prized cornerstone of Admission pitches, the 50/50 ratio has fallen off a cliff. Fall 2025 enrollment data revealed that SCS’s incoming class is about 72 percent male.

Berger, who acts as a liason with administrators, called the trend “unfortunate” but framed it as a “one-off event,” citing FAFSA delays and post-affirmative action admissions shifts. 

“The university is hyper-aware,” he said, noting efforts to broaden applicant pools. Still, some critics argue the drop reflects systemic issues.  “When I tour prospective students, I can’t tout SCS’s gender balance anymore,” Berger said. “That hurts.”  

While senators acknowledged the decline, concrete solutions were scarce. Advocacy Committee initiatives — such as funding for affinity groups — were highlighted as indirect supports, but no specific plans emerged. 

SCS’s gender ratio now mirrors tech-heavy peers like Georgia Tech but has a lower ratio of women than MIT (47 percent female in EECS). 

Berger hinted at adopting Cornell’s tiered funding model to incentivize diversity-focused clubs, though details were sparse.

Brief reaction to Valentine’s Day protest breakup

In an addendum to the Senate meeting, The Tartan also followed up with an interview with Senators Naiek and Berger about the reason for the dissolution of a protest on Valentine’s Day concerning reproductive health.

The meeting briefly addressed tensions stemming from a Feb. 14 reproductive rights protest, where students on campus parked a van distributing free Plan B, condoms, and Narcan — a move university administrators blocked under Carnegie Mellon’s “expressive activity registration” policy.

Berger called the situation “disheartening,” and said that “if students felt their expression was infringed upon, something was wrong. I want all students to feel safe.” 

Operations Chair Sanjeev Naiek echoed this sentiment, saying, “No group should feel harmed by leadership. [The] campus must be a safe space for expression.”

Naiek also pointed toward vending machines held on campus that the Undergrad Senate had passed to obtain. These vending machines contain reproductive health products.

“The UC basement [health] vending machines (among others [on campus]) remain operational,” he said when discussing solutions to such strikes.

However, senators’ responses lacked specificity when pressed about the administration’s rationale for intervening in the Valentine’s Day protest — a gap that underscores lingering questions about policy consistency. 

Many students have criticized the university administration’s actions, especially in light of the recent surge in protest and speech intervention from the Fence to the breaking up of peaceful protests.

These events underscore what some perceive as shortcomings in Carnegie Mellon’s protest policy, which many believe does not adequately safeguard the protesters themselves.

Given the recent developments at a school historically known for promoting free expression among its students, the Undergraduate Senate is at a crossroads.