Like many seniors weeks away from graduation, I have spent time reflecting on my college career. Whenever I make trips home, friends always ask, “Why didn’t you just go to Iowa?” They usually laugh when I reply, “I went to Penn for the people.” Yes, I pay almost $50,000 a year for all of you.
My experience has been one part academic and nine parts enjoying this rich group of driven, smart students. My most cherished lessons have been the result of study-abroad escapades, late-night campus meetings, coffee with classmates and 30-person listserv discussions on race relations. My only regret is knowing when I leave, I will still have only encountered one of the many robust communities at Penn.
The decentralization and separation of our campus is a blessing and a curse — on the one hand it fosters the development of close relationships, but on the other hand it prevents the type of campus dialogue and unity critical to tackling issues such as rape or the administration’s lack of response on tenure policies. As students, we challenge each other in different ways — and in many instances, not nearly as much as we should in order to take full advantage of our collective potential.
This past fall, a group of dedicated students successfully changed the internal election of the head of the Undergraduate Assembly to a direct, campus-wide affair. While it may seem like a stretch, one of the driving goals in this change was to help establish a feeling of a unified University.
In just five days in March, over 300 undergraduates attended official debates, hundreds watched them live or on YouTube and for the first time in UA history, candidates developed external platforms and campaigns involving more than posters and catchy slogans. Dozens of organizations were able to meaningfully endorse individuals, resulting in internal discussion on a level that rarely happens in student elections. The candidates had to bridge the various gaps within Penn’s discombobulated structure to engage in a truly think-global, act-local mentality.
However, when I read The Daily Pennsylvanian’s evaluation of the new election process (“Referendum didn’t deliver all it promised,” 4/1/10), I was a bit miffed to find a lack of substantive criticism. Even worse, the only two con arguments seemed to be largely irrelevant to the new system.
While Nominations and Elections Committee voter turnout may not have changed, last year only 23 people could cast ballots for UA president. This year, 2,814 students voted for the top University-wide elected position on campus. That’s a 122,000-percent increase in participation.
The goal of the referendum was to change the process, not the NEC’s get-out-the-vote efforts. As someone who doesn’t buy the “vote-or-die” mentality, this year’s infusion of substance attempted to change the game to an “educate-yourself-or-die” way of thinking. Of course the long term goal of a cultural shift is hard to evaluate after a few months, but the immediate victory was giving the students the right to vote for this critical position.
Another issue arose in the lack of outside-the-UA candidates in the pool. Still, the goal was never to produce annual non-UA contenders, but rather to ensure that when the UA fails to field an adequate candidate, the student body no longer suffers through a year of mediocre leadership. Will outsiders run every year? No. Does it allow for a more diverse range of candidates over time? Absolutely. The system faces challenges, but this process can only improve with time.
If you have made it this far in the column, I commend you for not quitting at the sight of yet another student-government piece. Amidst the jargon, I am really attempting to address the bigger issue of student contributions. While not all of us can champion school spirit like Penn basketball superstar and Wharton sophomore Zack Rosen or create hoodies supporting class pride like Senior Class President and Wharton senior Arthur Gardner Smith, we all have passions and talents to contribute in one way or another.
If we each push ourselves individually and collectively, we produce smarter, more understanding students and leave a better community for Penn in the years to come.
Natalie Vernon is a College senior, chairwoman of the Commission on Presidential Debates and former chairwoman of the Student Activities Council. Her e-mail address is nvernon@sas.upenn.edu.
