Well, it's been a very stressful week, but I've got some free time now so here goes. I've received comments from some of you about various aspects of my last post, not the least of which is that I wouldn't have the authority to do what I've suggested be done.
Here is my response.
First and foremost, democratic government of any sort is cooperative by its nature. Those who are elected don't operate in a vacuum, and the people who participate (if they participate) offer their support, suggestions, complaints and constitute a source of political pressure when they don't get what they want.
This generalization applies to the criticisms leveled against my last post in a couple ways. On the one hand, turnout at Student Senate elections is abysmal. If little gets done, one has to wonder whether lack of student participation might have something to do with it. Hmmm. On the other hand, there are realistic bounds to what Senate can accomplish, even if there is full student involvement. I know this. You know this. Good.
So what are those limits? Anything that requires the approval of either the General Faculty or the Board of Trustees is not under the direct purview of the Student Senate. This doesn't mean we can't make those kinds of changes, but it means it's that much harder. Some of my ideas fall under this category, like changing the structure of the General Faculty itself. Other people's proposals, I might interject, are difficult to pass for the same reasons, like the ban on bottled water.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue these things, but we also have to ask WHY we're doing it. My campaign focuses on more fundamental issues regarding elections and government, not only because that's an area in which I have some experience, but because it could serve as a stepping stone for those other ideas. For instance, let's suppose we wanted a ban on bottled water. This proposal was tabled in the General Faculty last year. Even if we assume Senate had 15 votes against tabling the motion, look at what the structure of college government tells you right there: the voice of students is deliberately diluted. Maybe not for malicious reasons, but it is diluted nevertheless. Thus, changing the more fundamental rule, while not under the Senate's direct control, would give Senate more freedom to take stands on issues, and on the flipside, halt policies it objected to! (If you say, made Student Senate the lower house of a bicameral system)
Many of my other ideas relate to changes within Senate that we CAN change. Altering or eliminating the quota for elections, expanding the size of Student Senate,etc. All of those things are available for us to change.
But the central message is this: your government, whether it's on campus or off, is what you make of it.
President Krislov recently urged us all to vote in Ohio. Fine. Sure. Do that. But it's a damn shame that the one thing we as students have the most control over and the most to gain from, is the one thing that people don't participate in enough. And that's why I'm running and that's why I'm proposing changes, some of which I can influence directly, and some of which I can't.
Student Senate isn't a cheerleading squad for the student body, and it ought not to be a popularity contest. Maybe I'm no worse than the people who want to put wind turbines on top of all the dorm buildings. Are you going to tell them that's not under their control, too? In short, I challenge you to think about what you'd like, not about what you think I can't fix. I'm out to represent everyone, not just myself. But I can't do it alone. We're going to have to work together.
No comments:
Post a Comment