I am not easily given to cosmetic changes in nomenclature, but this change will reflect a more comprehensive and contemporary understanding of representation, inclusion, and advocacy within student governance.

The term “Women Commissioner” emerged from a period when the urgent priority was to carve out space for women’s voices in male-dominated institutional structures. It served a necessary purpose when gender discourse largely focused on addressing systemic disadvantages faced by women. However, these challenges have evolved into broader gender-based concerns, many of which involve men as key actors, making inclusivity imperative.

A “Gender Commissioner” better captures this inclusivity. Issues affecting women are often shaped by the actions and inactions of men, meaning advocacy must extend beyond empowering women alone. Educating and engaging men becomes equally important, and a gender-focused office is better suited to handle this complexity.

Ghana itself reflects this conceptual shift. The change from the then "Ministry of Women and Children Affairs" to the now "Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection" signals a deliberate reframing of policy. It recognised that women’s issues are best addressed within a wider gender context that considers social dynamics, power relations, and systemic inequalities.

It is therefore inconsistent for tertiary institutions, which are centres of intellectual leadership and progressive thought, to lag behind in adopting this framework. SRC structures should reflect national and global developments, not remain tied to outdated perspectives.

Renaming the portfolio does not weaken the focus on women’s welfare. Rather, it strengthens it by placing women’s issues within a broader analytical framework that allows for more effective interventions.

Challenges such as harassment, unequal access to opportunities, exploitation, sex-for-grades/jobs and representation can be tackled more holistically under a gender-focused office, since they are usually facilitated by the opposite gender.

Moreover, a “Gender Commissioner” is better positioned to address intersecting student issues, including masculinity, mental health, sexual harassment, gender-based violence, and inclusivity. These are systemic concerns that extend beyond women alone and require a wider, more inclusive lens.

The symbolism of this change also matters. Governance roles communicate institutional values and direction. Retaining “Women Commissioner” may unintentionally signal a limited or outdated understanding of gender advocacy, whereas adopting “Gender Commissioner” reflects awareness and alignment with contemporary discourse.

Concerns that expanding the scope will dilute attention on women’s issues are understandable but largely misplaced. A gender-focused approach does not erase women’s concerns; instead, it strengthens the foundation for addressing them by recognising the broader ecosystem in which they exist.

For me, expanding the Women Commissioner role to Gender Commissioner is both a practical and ideological step forward. It aligns student governance with national policy direction, reflects current academic and social thinking, and positions SRCs as forward-looking bodies committed to inclusive and effective representation. The time for this change is now.

By: Daniel Fenyi, PRO, GES