The Cavalier Daily’s lead editorial, “Self-involved,” (2/9/2009) highlights several serious misunderstandings that the writers must have about the new Civic Engagement Committee.
First, the Managing Board references Council’s “shrinking resources.” Yes, there are currently budget restrictions on all of our committees. However, some of the most successful committee initiatives have gone without the financial help of Council, including the Lighten-Up Campaign and the Community Garden. The only other resource Council draws heavily upon is student energy and effort, and there is hardly a shortage.
Second, the Managing Board fails to consider any notion of student self-governance by alleging that the committee is unneeded because of the Public Service Advisory Board. If this faculty-run Board wants to engage the student body in a meaningful way, of course they will need an additional mechanism for student involvement. Council offers the opportunity to reach a broad range of students, and the committee can function as an effective clearinghouse for the Board’s ideas and initiatives.
Finally, the Managing Board suggests that the current committees undoubtedly cover the issues that the committee would address. As co-chair of the Environmental Sustainability Committee, I beg to differ.
While it may be worthwhile to have members of each committee to consider ideas of civic engagement, it would be far more meaningful and efficient to have them focus their energy and attention, solicit additional student feedback and input, and develop their own projects and programs. This sounds like an excellent task for a Council committee, doesn’t it?