Introducing a Safeguard to ensure gender equality in the SC

[Laurin-Notemann]

This amendment introduces a dedicated Representation & Equity portfolio (FLINTA+ only) and implements a proportional quota system to guarantee meaningful representation.

The Student Council composition must reflect the gender distribution at CODE, with the underrepresented gender holding at minimum either their actual percentage or 25% of council seats—whichever is greater (minimum 2 of 8 portfolios).

After elections, if the quota is not naturally met, the next-highest voted candidates from the underrepresented gender are appointed to fulfill the requirement. All portfolios except President are treated equally, removing any hierarchy bias in representation requirements. The system automatically scales with demographic changes, ensuring future-proof equity safeguards even if gender balance shifts dramatically. This approach provides transparent, mechanical enforcement while maintaining competitive elections and clear procedures for edge cases where insufficient candidates from underrepresented groups participate.

[georgyrudnev]

Why is the representation Flinta+ only?

[georgyrudnev]

Why is the representation Flinta+ only? I mean there are cultural and religious minorities as well in Code

[wherop]

Why is the representation Flinta+ only? I mean there are cultural and religious minorities as well in Code

@georgyrudnev Simply put, because FLINTA+ representation is the primary issue that the people who worked on this change are trying to urgently solve. If you have a proposal on how to imporve this amendment for other underrepresented groups, you're welcome to add it by the deadline on Monday. The stronger the amendment, the more likely it is to pass! :) And you can bring this up as a new amendment afterwards even. I personally don't feel well-equipped to make a suggestion on this, and trust that the Representation & Equity portfolio will be engaged in various aspects of diversity, but also don't mind making that more explicit. (Pro tip: you can edit your comment via the "..." menu, to expand on a previous thought.)

[wherop]

1. I suggest this branch to be rebased to branch off of #15 since it is dependent on that amendment. This would prevent #17 unintentionally reverting changes, that #15 had made.

2. I propose the voting be held starting with #17, and then #15 second, if #17 fails. This way, if #17 passes, there is no need for a second round of voting. If the voting would be held in the reverse order (chronologically: #15 first, #17 second), there would be a possibility for the votes to contradict each other, if #15 fails, but then #17 passes. That situation could invalidate the whole voting.

EDIT: format PR tag references as inline code, because GitHub's title insertion made the text hard to read.
#15: #15
#17: #17

[Laurin-Notemann]

@wherop thanks for the suggestion, actually a very good point, I will do that as you suggested.

technically it should be based on pr 15...

[Juliangebhard]

I have some concerns with this new request for later:
1. Outcome of Prior Discussions: The outcome of previous informal discussions (involving members of various genders) suggests that the current proposal may not be the most effective or universally desired path forward for achieving equity.

2. Negative Impact on Performance in Small Councils: For a small council consisting of only 8 people, strictly enforcing a demographic quota will inherently compromise the council's performance and operational effectiveness. Given the limited candidate pool typical in student elections, prioritizing a demographic requirement over merit, expertise, and proven commitment risks either selecting less qualified members or excluding highly competent candidates who are best equipped to handle the SC's demanding responsibilities. This prioritization ultimately reduces the overall quality of the council's work and decision-making.

3. Conflict with True Equality: A quota system does not represent genuine equality (Echte Gleichberechtigung). By making selection dependent on group identity rather than individual qualifications and equal opportunity for all, it introduces systemic bias and shifts the focus away from merit-based representation.

4. Rushing a Complex Issue: This is a significant constitutional or regulatory change that affects the entire student body. It should not be rushed through or pushed forward immediately before an election without adequate time for comprehensive, inclusive debate and thorough deliberation among all students.

5. Risk of Tokenism and Undermined Legitimacy: Implementing a quota in such a small body (8 seats) risks creating a perception of tokenism. Members selected or appointed primarily to fulfill a demographic requirement, rather than solely on electoral success or merit, may find their legitimacy and authority undermined within the council and among the student population they seek to serve.

6. The Primary Mandate of the SC: The Student Council's primary mandate is to serve and represent the practical interests of all students and manage operational tasks effectively. Selection should strictly focus on a candidate’s passion, expertise, and proven ability to execute the required duties, which should be the highest priority over demographic balancing.

7. Lack of Flexibility: A strict numerical quota removes necessary flexibility in the selection process. This lack of flexibility is particularly problematic in a small organization where candidate availability may fluctuate, potentially leading to seats remaining unfilled or being filled by appointment based solely on gender criteria, rather than finding the best available person for the role.

IMPORTANT: I absolutely love the idea of the second option to include FLINTA's into the SC. This is very important for our community, but I don't like the idea of having this super spontaneously right before the election, and not figure this out a bit more and find a solution that is not "just" a quota!

//I've used AI to make this easier to read let my grammar checked

[acristinaa]

To Julian's comment above:

Since Julian was given time to present his concerns right before the vote, without an opportunity for a counter-response, we’d like to publicly address each of the points he raised and clear them up here so the context is complete.

1.⁠ ⁠The outcome of prior informal discussions did not represent an official or collective decision. The feedback gathered during and after the last Assembly clearly showed that while students supported removing gendered positions, many were concerned about the potential loss of representation. The safeguard proposal was developed precisely to respond to that concern in a structured and transparent way.

2.⁠ ⁠There is no evidence that representation safeguards reduce performance. Studies by the European Commission and UN Women show that more diverse decision-making groups perform better in problem-solving, creativity, and fairness. The safeguard would not have replaced merit or competence. All candidates would still have run in open elections. It would have only adjusted results if underrepresentation occurred, ensuring fairer outcomes without compromising quality.
3.⁠ ⁠Equality and equity are not the same. Equality assumes everyone has the same access to opportunities, while equity recognises that systemic barriers exist. The safeguard aimed to make opportunities genuinely equal by correcting imbalances that appear even in neutral systems. This is a standard practice in many democratic and educational institutions in Europe.

4.⁠ ⁠The proposal was not rushed. The conversation about representation has been ongoing since the last Statute change, which removed gendered roles. The timing now was driven by the need to hold elections before the end of October, not by a lack of discussion. The amendment text was made public in advance for comments and reflected existing student feedback.

5.⁠ ⁠Tokenism happens when representation is symbolic. The safeguard would have done the opposite by giving actual structure and accountability through the Representation and Equity portfolio. Every seat would still have been earned through voting. The safeguard ensured that the council reflected the student body’s diversity, strengthening legitimacy.

6.⁠ ⁠Representation is part of the Student Council’s core responsibility. A council that mirrors the student community can make better and more informed decisions for everyone. Equity and efficiency support each other, rather than compete. Diverse leadership has been shown repeatedly to produce more balanced and effective outcomes.

7.⁠ ⁠The safeguard was designed to be flexible. It scaled with CODE’s demographics and would only have activated if underrepresentation occurred. It would not have left seats unfilled but would have used the next-highest voted candidates from the underrepresented group. This maintained fairness, transparency, and continuity.

Although the safeguard did not pass, these points remain essential to remember. Representation and equity are not opposing values to performance or fairness. They strengthen the quality and legitimacy of our shared decision-making.

Written by Luiza Lima Pinto and Cristina Ayala

If this is not clear enough, please reach out to us.