May the Efforts of This USA of Ours Not Be in Vain

While the unique nature of this organization has been well documented here and here, this article comes coincidentally in the wake of the current election cycle and this time shows not just this writer’s thoughts but also those of members of this organization selected at random. So as a new tenure begins, important conversations need to be had.

One of those conversations starts with a simple question this writer posed to students across different associations and levels: What does USA actually do? The answers, or lack thereof, reveal more than any constitutional analysis ever could.

Take Olarenwaju, a 500-level UADS student and sitting member of the USA-SRC. When asked that straightforward question, her response tells you everything. “UCH-Students association. I don’t know what they do. USA keep-fit or something.“

Her honesty is striking. This isn’t someone outside the system looking in. This is someone with a front-row seat to USA’s operations. And even from that vantage point, USA’s core functions remain unclear.

The ongoing elections have surfaced something equally remarkable. During candidate screenings, some aspirants scored 19% and 24%. These aren’t typos. These are the actual scores of people who wanted to lead an organization representing over 1,500 students across eight daughter associations. They were disqualified, as they should have been. But here’s the uncomfortable part: even with proper standards enforced, the broader question remains. When students themselves can barely articulate what USA does, does it really matter if candidates don’t know either? The screening process worked, but it exposed a deeper problem—an organization whose functions are so unclear that even understanding them feels almost irrelevant.

When asked what USA has done this academic year besides USA Week, Alimi (a 500-level UIMSA member) could recall only “courtesy visits on their media pages, some new-month designs, best of luck content for classes and schools that took exams over the tenure, and maybe one or two keep-fit activities.” Social media posts. Graphic designs. Wishes of good luck. This is what passes for governance. The screening process worked, but it exposed a deeper problem—an organization whose functions are so unclear that even understanding them feels almost irrelevant.

Here’s what you learn when you talk to students randomly: USA exists for one week, then vanishes. Jumoke, a recently graduated nursing student, doesn’t mince words: “Personally, USA hasn’t directly affected me in any way. When I have issues in UCH, my School’s SUGs, class reps, and head of school handle it. USA is not in any way involved.” Notice the precision of that statement. Not “USA hasn’t helped much” or “USA could do more.” USA is “not in any way involved” in addressing student issues.

Alimi’s experience during the extended blackout period tells you everything about USA’s idea of crisis response: “I remember that the only time they ever showed up during the blackout period was when they sent out a release. I can’t remember any other involvement despite it being a UCH problem.” A press release. Words on a page. Then nothing. Darkness returned to the halls, students continued navigating UCH without adequate lighting, and USA moved on.

Laurette, a 400-level physiotherapy student currently serving as an SRC representative, offered what might be the most thoughtfully diplomatic assessment: “The current USA feels together but still not together at the same time.” It’s the kind of observation you make when you’re inside a system and can see both its potential and its shortcomings. When asked what would be lost if USA disappeared, she spoke of “cohesion” and the “absolute lack of cohesion of the various student organizations within UCH” that would result. But even she noted the challenge of identifying concrete, tangible impacts.

Olarenwaju’s response when asked what she would lose if USA disappeared was equally candid: “I won’t lose anything.” It’s a statement that reflects systemic disconnect. Even those positioned to see USA’s work most closely find it difficult to identify its tangible impact on student life.

Every single student we spoke to drew the same comparison, unprompted: their daughter’s associations work; USA doesn’t. Alimi’s assessment is clinical: “UIMSA has been consistently active since my 100 level, with each tenure building on the previous one. USA still feels like it’s recovering from past setbacks, so their activity doesn’t match what I’m used to in UIMSA.” Jumoke echoed this: “My association is more active and closer to me. They directly affect my activities like my academics, my welfare, my clinicals, and other general student life, while USA feels more distant and general to me.“

It’s true that daughter associations naturally have an advantage. They’re smaller and more specialized, dealing with academic programs and student needs that are more immediate and tangible. Of course a nursing student will feel the impact of their nursing association more directly than an umbrella body representing eight different programs. The proximity alone makes daughter associations more visible in students’ daily lives.

But this structural reality doesn’t excuse USA’s absence. Other umbrella organizations manage to remain relevant despite governing diverse constituencies. The issue isn’t that USA operates at a broader level, it’s that USA has all but disappeared from that level. When Olarenwaju notes that “it is mostly ABH/UADS that’s involved” in activities, she’s highlighting a reality many students recognize: the daughter associations have become the primary engines of student governance, with USA playing a peripheral role even in matters that should fall squarely within its mandate as the coordinating body.

The elections operate through delegates. Representatives from each daughter association who vote on behalf of their peers. Laurette called this election “quite competitive, compared to recent pasts at least.” Notice that qualifier. When your baseline is apathy, competitiveness feels like enthusiasm. The delegates know candidates and have followed campaign activities. Olarenwaju confirmed being a delegate. Laurette has been following the election. This engagement exists, even as questions about USA’s broader relevance persist.

Alimi frames the core issue perfectly: “USA doesn’t fully represent my interests yet because they still need to rebuild trust.” But here’s the question that follows: Rebuild from what? When exactly was the golden age of USA representation? The students couldn’t identify it. They describe an organization that has always felt distant, always operated on the periphery, and always been more concerned with appearance than substance.

Trust isn’t rebuilt with graphic designs and social media posts. Trust requires presence. Trust requires action. Trust means that when a student faces an issue at UCH, they think to contact USA because experience has taught them USA responds. Right now, students have learned the opposite. They’ve learned to go to their associations, their class reps, and their school SUGs because USA has taught them through consistent absence that it won’t be there.

There’s something almost cruel about USA Week’s success. The organization can coordinate a week-long celebration that brings together multiple associations, organizes events, and delivers a genuinely positive experience. This proves the capacity exists. USA Week isn’t successful by accident. It takes real work to pull off. Which makes the other 51 weeks even more damning. If you can do it for one week, why not for fifty-two? The answer isn’t inability. It’s a priority. USA has chosen to be an events committee rather than a governing body.

When we asked students what USA would need to do to matter, their answers weren’t radical. Jumoke: “They need to communicate more with students, support each association directly, and show more concern for students’ complaints, especially when it has to do with UCH.” Laurette called for “greater impact & more connection… A way to foster stronger connection & impact on the comprised student bodies.” Alimi emphasized the need to “regain students’ trust and show consistent, visible impact from one tenure to the next.” Communication. Support. Concern. Impact. Connection. Consistency. These are baseline expectations. The fact that students have to explicitly request these things tells you how far USA has fallen.

Soon, delegates will cast their votes. A new administration will take office. New executives will make promises about representation, engagement, and student welfare. And unless something fundamental changes, those promises will evaporate by the time USA Week ends. 

The most revealing aspect of our conversations wasn’t what was said. It was what they struggled to articulate. Not one student could name a significant USA initiative from this academic year beyond USA Week and fitness activities. Not one could point to a problem USA solved that their association couldn’t have solved independently. These responses don’t reflect on the students we interviewed, many of whom are actively engaged in student governance. Rather, they reveal an organization that has yet to make its value clear even to those closest to its operations.

USA has become a tradition maintained by institutional inertia rather than demonstrated value. It continues to exist because it has always existed, not because anyone can articulate why it should continue to exist. The organization claims to represent 1,500 students but remains invisible to most of them. It maintains hierarchical structures without performing hierarchical functions. It speaks the language of student governance while practicing event coordination.

The new administration will make that choice through action or inaction. The students have already made theirs. They’ve chosen to invest their trust, energy, and engagement in organizations that actually show up. USA can join them in that work, or it can continue performing representation while practicing absence. The elections will determine who leads USA. But only the new administration’s actions will determine if that leadership means anything at all.