Reform the Students, Before the Constitution

I was sure I wanted to be a part of it. So I picked up a petition, collected signatures from friends, acquaintances, and even people I didn't know, and began campaigning. Postering the bathrooms, handing out slips with my name, knocking on doors -- like most candidates, I learned the key was catchy slogans, no substance. Fortunately, I lost the election. And that was probably the best thing that could have happened to me at Penn. I have learned a lot about student government since then. And the more I have seen, the more I am dissatisfied and the more I am sure that student government is not the most efficient route to truly effect change at this University. It is now almost three years after my run for office and the dawn of a new era in student government is around the corner -- or so the planners of the constitutional reform proposals say. Less bureaucracy. More efficiency. Less overlap. More advocacy. Less internal fighting. More responsibility. These are indeed lofty goals, which if achieved, will be a huge victory for students on campus. But the issue of student governance is far more complex than changing the structure of the system. A new constitution establishes new rules and new priorities, but it does not necessarily bring with it a change in attitude among those elected to serve on the body. Behind any Undergraduate Senate or Undergraduate Assembly is a group of students who can make or break the campus community. Two years ago, one candidate promised to "install Evian machines in the gyms" -- she was elected. Another stated that she was "Kid-tested, mother-approved" -- she also won. This is not a joke. These are the students who are running and winning seats on the campus student government. And because of this, it's no wonder that student government is being ignored by students, faculty members and administrators alike. The way I see it, reforming student government is a double-edged sword: The system should be in working order, but the students must be competent also. This year, for the first time in several years, 40 candidates are running for 25 positions. Last year, it was more like 29 candidates for 25 spots. While this wider field certainly gives students more of a choice than they have had in the past (except for the Nursing spot which is uncontested), the low numbers are an absolute disgrace for a school with an undergraduate population of nearly 10,000. The obvious question which arises for this miniscule pool of candidates is what students can do to make sure their representatives are competent. The most obvious answer is to let students know what the candidates stand for -- not in the form of sound bites which appear in a DP ad and not in the form of colorful flyers. The solutions are simple: campus forums that allow candidates to answer questions on issues, longer campaigning cycles, permitting candidates to speak to the press without having to worry about violating a gag rule. At a university that prides itself on cranking out the leaders of tomorrow, the students must take notice. Representatives like those on the Student Activities Council who voted against funding The Red and Blue should be sent a message that they have no place on campus. While student government reform certainly changes the structure of the system, it is only half of the solution. If given the choice between systematic reform and better student leaders, I would without a doubt pick the latter. Genuine student leaders can represent students regardless of the structure. Genuine student leaders actively solicit comments and suggestions and work to implement them. Genuine student leaders take it upon themselves to change the system if they see its inefficiencies. Genuine student leaders have not yet found their way to the UA body.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.