STUDENT COUNCIL has a reputation as a do-nothing body among students. Lately though, not only has Council been proactive, but for once it has gone too far.
On the upcoming ballot, Council has decided to put the question of the formal rush date before the students. Indeed, ascertaining student opinion on the matter of rush dates is a good idea, but the way Council is gathering that information is dubious and will provide an inaccurate portrait of the student body's feelings on the matter.
The proposal before the students on next week's ballot reads: "We, the Student Body, in accordance with the principles of student self-governance, hereby request that contracts between Greek organizations and the University be renegotiated to allow decisions concerning rush dates be determined solely by the elected governing body of the respective Greek organizations."
Certainly Council could have done a better job of concealing how skewed this question is. Who doesn't support student self-governance? The fact is this question is loaded with words that inspire pride in every true follower of Mr. Jefferson. But it also steers us away from the real issue.
This referendum question serves no good purpose. Engineering School Rep. Vince Lim, in a personal interview, said that the purpose of the rush referendum is a way for the students to "tell us what [they] think about this." He further added, "It's polling."
But this explanation simply doesn't add up. If you want to know what the students think about fall rush compared to spring rush, then ask a question along the lines of: Do you support fall rush or spring rush? But to say: "In the interest of student self-governance, do you support fall rush?," is bad polling. It leads students to give an answer partial to the bias of the question.
Lim further justified the referendum by stating that if the question were a case of fall rush versus spring rush, then it "trivializes the question," adding that, "We want students to consider student self-governance." This explanation, however, reeks of paternalism.
If Council believes that we're too dumb to consider all relevant factors in the debate over setting rush dates to the extent that they must tell us what to consider, then the real culprit isn't the University or Dean of Students Penny Rue. By this referendum, Council has made clear its lack of faith in the ability of students to govern themselves.
More likely, though, is that Student Council wants more than to test the waters. It seems that this is a scheme to create another bargaining chip for fraternities in approaching Dean Rue, who has the final say over fraternity rush. Referendum framer Nathan A. Cook, a College representative on Council, said in a personal interview that the goal of this referendum is to "renegotiate Section 9 of the Fraternal Organization Agreement which stipulates that the Dean of Students has final authority over rush dates."
It's not likely that Rue will fall for this. It isn't hard to see that the biased referendum hasn't given students a fair chance to decide. Even if the referendum passes with unanimous consent, how do we know that every voter supported fall rush or student self-governance or both? Unless Council were to split this into two resolutions - one on student self-governance, the other on fall rush - an affirmation of this proposal is at best ambiguous. "Surely any proposal that is ambiguous is subject to multiple interpretations," said Rue in an e-mail response. This suggests that she's not fooled. So not only will Council exploit students to use them as a bargaining chip, it won't even work.
Council's move is a poorly thought out attempt at swaying public opinion. Even if there is a causal connection between student self-governance and freedom to set rush dates, volunteering that logical link slants the question.
This proposal is so couched in flowery language that it disguises the fact that it's a cheap ploy designed so that the IFC can get what it wants - formal rush in the fall. This proposal insults the intelligence of every student. Until this can be fairly put to a vote, vote against it.
(Jeffrey Eisenberg's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | YesterdayPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | April 27, 2024The University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
