Last Tuesday, the six branches of Penn's undergraduate student government did a curious thing.
In response to a recent Daily Pennsylvanian survey -- which revealed the ignorance of freshman Undergraduate Assembly candidates towards the workings of Penn student government -- the student leaders gathered for a "Meet and Greet" session, designed to help each other understand their respective organizations and the issues confronting them.
In the end, they complained that ignorance and apathy were chief problems. But, oddly enough, they weren't talking about themselves.
"There's a general apathy on the part of the student body," Student Committee on Undergraduate Education Chairwoman Lindsey Mathews said. "When the different branches of government reach out to the student body, we're met with apathy."
Undergraduate Assembly Chairwoman Dana Hork echoed Mathews' theme. "Students should challenge us to take up their efforts, challenge us to figure out the best way to address their concerns," she said.
The switch from a discussion on in-house apathy to student apathy was subtle. But it was a suspicious switch, one that calls into question how real this problem is.
The notion of student apathy as a major or even a relevant problem is a tough one to apply to five of the six branches of government. The Social Planning and Events Committee, along with the class boards, are essentially social event stagers.
For them to complain about "apathy" is like Mask and Wig complaining that not enough people came to their fall show. Unfortunate, but not something to fault the student body over.
The Nominations and Elections Committee oversees elections and the Student Activities Council distributes money to student groups. Student apathy is not relevant to the NEC's job and SAC has no shortage of groups soliciting them for funds.
SCUE is by nature a closed body -- a non-elected committee of 41 students -- concentrating on such complicated and long-term projects as revamping the General Requirement and forming an overarching vision for educational technology. While SCUE has an important mission, it has little bearing on the short-term interests of various student groups and does not require a constant stream of student enthusiasm.
That leaves us with the UA, the one truly representative body with an open mission to deal with all student interests. So what's the problem here?
According to Hork, students simply aren't being active enough in keeping the UA accountable to their interests. By attending meetings, sending e-mails and joining committees, Hork proposes that students should actively "keep track of the people who represent" them and "come to the UA and point [it] in the right direction."
While undeniably well-intentioned, Hork's wishes are more than a bit problematic. First of all, to say that students should come to UA meetings and join committees is essentially asking students to perform the duties of UA members. If that's what's needed, what's the point of electing representatives?
Secondly, Hork's remarks reveal a debilitating flaw in the UA's thinking.
The UA sees itself as a responsive rather than an active group, one which -- to borrow a phrase from Ross Perot -- believes itself to be the "hired hands" of the undergraduate community. While such a concept is chock full of folksy political appeal, in reality it isn't workable.
In the short time frame of an academic year, UA members don't have time to wait around to be told what to do. Their positions demand leaders with initiative, not bureaucratic lackeys waiting for assignments.
The UA must also recognize that the direction they crave from students is heard -- and should only need to be heard -- once a year. That's during election week.
Students, like citizens, speak with their votes. They pick the candidates who represent their needs. Running for a position implies that a candidate has a platform and is inspired not solely by a vague "will to serve," but by concrete goals to achieve.
But when the UA insists on a responsive posture rather than an active one, it betrays the emptiness of all that leadership professed on campaign posters. When these leaders chastise the student body for apathy, what they're really saying is that they're either fresh out of ideas or never had any in the first place.
It's easier to sit and wait for instructions than to lead. It feels better to blame inactivity on the "apathy" of 10,000 students rather than your own procrastination. Perhaps this explains why the focus of the "Meet and Greet" shifted from governmental incompetence to the student body's phantom faults.
But behind this deflection of responsibility is the truth that the UA was charged with a mandate when it was elected. It's about time they recognized that mandate and began fulfilling it.
Alex Wong is a senior English major from Wyckoff, N.J.
