AT ITS first meeting of 2008, Student Council reviewed possible amendments to its constitution. The most controversial of the proposed changes include removing the voting power of the transfer student liaison and the First-Year Council president. Student Council must still approve these proposals, and the student body as a whole will consider the amendments in a University-wide referendum during spring elections.
Proponents of these changes argue that they would make voting more fair and help to make Council more efficient. Referendum supporters also argue that the changes would also create more representative positions based on specific schools at the University rather than based on specific interest groups such as first years and transfer students.
The truth is that representation based on specific interests does a much better job representing the student body. Students within specific schools such as the College and the Engineering School do not necessarily have much in common, so representation based completely on schools does not make sense.
Those with similar interests -- such as transfer students or first-year students -- necessarily have much more in common, so they should be represented as a group. The proposed changes should not be made to Council's constitution; rather, changes should be made to give specific interests greater representation, not less.
One of the main reasons for the proposed changes is the supposed double representation that occurs in the current system. The logic is that certain students will be represented by both their school's representative and a specific interest group's representative. For example, a transfer student within the Engineering School has twice as much influence as a regular engineering student.
This certainly makes sense, but it follows the assumption that representation based on one's specific school is superior to representation based on specific interests. Tom Bryan, a College graduate representative argues that getting rid of these voting rights would "encourage students to get in touch with their school representative."
This sort of argument does not always make sense when examining the nature of the specific schools. For example, an economics major within the College does not have much in common with a biology major, but they are still represented by the same person. Even those who have the same major often do not have the same interests or have a different perspective on how the University should be governed.
Having more representatives based on specific interest groups would better represent the student body and foster a greater enthusiasm for Council. The transfer liaison and the First-Year Council president are just two of many possible interest groups that could better represent students. Other groups that could merit representation include those who represent the interests of each graduating class, in-state or out-of-state students or even specific minority groups.
Some may argue that these interest groups already have other ways of representing themselves and that Council is not the appropriate place. There may be some validity to this argument, but representation based on specific schools does not effectively represent students. Another proposal may be simply to remove representation based on schools altogether and allow students to elect representatives based on any criteria they see fit.
The greater point is that students could stand to be much more excited about Council and to have a more personal connection with their representatives. Neither of these things will be achieved if we create greater representation based on our schools alone.Council should begin to represent University students more realistically and to create more dynamic representatives that excite the student body.
Sam Shirazi is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at sshirazi@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 7 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
