As University students begin casting their votes in spring elections today, one issue continues to cast a pall over this year's election process. The recent conduct of the Student Council Executive Board has given student self-governance a poor image, and Council is likely to reduce student interest in its activities after last week's petty squabbling.
Last week, Board members attempted to quash support for Daisy Lundy, a second-year College student who is running for Council president. The board asked Elections Committee Chair Julie Teater to stop two student organizations from endorsing candidates, on the basis that they are not Contracted Independent Organizations. The Coalition -- an alliance of five of the largest minority organizations on Grounds -- and First Year Council, the two non-CIOs in question, both have endorsed Lundy for Council president.
This political move by Council is ridiculous on all counts. From a practical standpoint, even if Teater had complied with the Board's request -- which she didn't -- the request would have been unenforceable. Council can do nothing to prevent non-CIO organizations from endorsing candidates.
Furthermore, there is no language in the Council Spring 2003 Elections Rules and Regulations that says non-CIOs are barred from endorsing candidates. The rules only state that student organizations which are CIOs may endorse candidates if they follow certain procedures. Teater herself said the purpose of this rule is "to make the endorsements fair and open to all candidates."
It's quite obvious that Council Executive Board members are fishing for ways to shut down candidates they don't favor. This is hardly the way to run an election that is fair and open to all and hardly the way to maintain the respect of the student body.
Council President Micah Schwartz has publicly acknowledged that he supports third-year Engineering student Ed Hallen for this week's presidential race. Other Board members appear to have lined up behind him. Vice President for Organizations Kelly Polk and Chief of Staff Sarah Jobe helped Hallen chalk campaign messages around Grounds last week.
Council Board members are clearly backing Hallen and appear to be doing everything in their power to hamper Lundy's campaign, making themselves guilty of hypocrisy. The endorsement of a particular candidate by the Council Executive b\Board, whether tacitly or explicitly, arguably gives that candidate a competitive advantage. To say a particular student organization cannot endorse candidates creates a double standard, in which Council benefits at the expense of its constituents.
A person with any sense could guess that Council wouldn't have made such a move if the Coalition and FYC had endorsed Hallen instead of Lundy. To protect their image, however, Council executives are loathe to admit this, claiming they are only concerned about following correct procedure.
At the University, endorsements are extremely valuable to candidates because they tell students how to vote. This is especially true of students who are members of the organizations doing the endorsing. For example, the University Democrats gave their endorsement to Lundy last week, so it is likely that many members of that organization will vote for Lundy.
With the University Democrats, the Coalition and FYC all endorsing Lundy, members of the Executive Board watched the opposition candidate gather momentum and support in her campaign. Council's move to silence the Coalition and the FYC, two organizations with a broad base of student support, has inappropriately interfered with the race for Council president.
Luckily, Council's meddling in the matter probably won't affect the outcome of the race -- in fact, it might even serve to boost Lundy's popularity with students and probably will decrease support for Hallen. Although Lundy formally dropped the endorsements of the Coalition and FYC last week, members of these organizations still are likely to vote for Lundy.
Council's calculated political move shows what students in positions of power are capable of. Fortunately, their plan has proved to be ineffective but should serve as a warning to future student leaders on how not to conduct themselves.
Student self-governance is not something to be ignored or trivialized, but that's exactly what members of the Executive Board accomplished by attempting to influence an election improperly. Student leaders must rise above petty differences if they expect their colleagues to become interested in the political process. Otherwise, they risk creating a dangerous level of apathy that will undermine the independence and autonomy that the student body now enjoys.
(Sam Bresnahan's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at sbresnahan@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | YesterdayIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
YOUNIS: The danger of dehumanizing language
By Ayat Younis | 5 days agoThe administration’s failure to condemn blatant discrimination exacerbates an impossible situation, fostering an atmosphere that misinterprets pro-Palestinian sentiments as support of terrorism.
