EDITORIAL: Good Riddance

As the student body elects aAs the student body elects anew Undergraduate Assembly,As the student body elects anew Undergraduate Assembly,we reflect on those who haveAs the student body elects anew Undergraduate Assembly,we reflect on those who havetried (and failed) to bringAs the student body elects anew Undergraduate Assembly,we reflect on those who havetried (and failed) to bringabout changeAs the student body elects anew Undergraduate Assembly,we reflect on those who havetried (and failed) to bringabout change________________________________ As the student body elects anew Undergraduate Assembly,we reflect on those who havetried (and failed) to bringabout change________________________________ About this time last year, the campus was abuzz with excitement over the fledgling Coalition for Responsive Student Government, a newly-formed group that pledged to "revitalize student government." Record numbers of candidates ran for each position, and there was a palpable hope for a more responsive and effective UA after years of incompetence and inefficacy. Fast-forward 12 months. Twenty-nine students are running for twenty-five positions on the UA. The UA no longer needs to be reinvented -- it needs to be resurrected. How did we get to this point? What happened to the UA was worse than the familiar cliche of elected officials abandoning campaign promises -- it was more like a cancer which spread throughout the body and stifled just about every creative and innovative impulse at its inception. The UA hit rock bottom last week, when several members manipulated parliamentary procedure to avoid voting on whether or not to endorse sophomore rush. This came after almost two hours of debate. But serious problems had surfaced within the UA months before. While the Coalition initially brought a lot of enthusiasm to the UA, it also provided division, as the UA was unable to agree on a number of issues (witness the Human Rights League/First Amendment Task Force shenanigans). Moreover, they were unable to channel their ideological diversity into a coherent search for possible solutions, but rather, remained entrenched in their viewpoints, unable to reach out to the other side. Part of the problem was UA chair Seth Hamalian himself, a man with very strong views on a number of issues. Torn between his allegiance to his constituency that had elected him precisely because of those views and the impartial position of UA chair, he was often unable to provide the kind of leadership that yields results. Too often, he was unable to motivate members, build consensus and garner respect from students and administrators -- which, as the UA's leader, was his obligation to all undergraduates -- simply because his own ideas clashed with those of other representatives. While Hamalian, as chair of the UA, must bear ultimate responsibility for the UA's failures this year, many individual representatives are equally guilty of apathy and stubbornness. For example, the initial attempts to reach out to students via newsletters, ads in the DP and UA office hours were commendable, but soon became little more than hot air. No newsletter was anywhere to be seen, and by the end of the year, many members were blowing off office hours like Friday morning classes. In just a few months, many UA members found themselves practicing the very same apathy and irresponsibility their predecessors were guilty of. While there were a few bright lights when the UA did do something tangible for students, as with Kirsten Bartok's Academic Integrity bill and Dan Debicella's Dining Service recommendations, they were quickly dimmed by the inaction, apathy and incompetence of many members. When the UA truly served students, its work consisted of extensive research and realistic proposals, such as the Dining Service recommendations. That is how the UA serves its constituents best -- by coming up with strong, well-documented positions and practical recommendations, not whiny and wishy-washy resolutions which merely support or denounce an already-held position. It is no coincidence that the Student Committee on Undergraduate Education, perhaps the most respected branch of student government, has enjoyed considerable success doing exactly this kind of work. The UA was a failure, but by no means did it have to be or does it have to be in the future. Respect is something that is earned, and the new UA must realize that the administration will only listen to them if they prove they have something worthwhile to say.