ONE WEEK and hundreds of gallons of piña colada removed from the 2005 Spring elections here at the University, it is easier to look back at our annual spectacle of student self-governance in action and wonder if this is really why we are here.
Late February and early March bore witness to a familiar sight on Grounds: reams of bright flyers, gaudy chalked sidewalks, impassioned pleas on the pages of student publications -- a microcosm of the American electoral process. Indeed, our elections have it all, from substance to scandal to satire. Exactly what Mr. Jefferson had in mind for his University -- or is it?
With all that accompanies elections, it's easy to forget that the primary purpose of student government is to maintain the academic and communal quality of the school by distributing some administrative power to students, those best suited to address problems on Grounds. This central mission has long been complicated by student government's secondary purpose of teaching leadership, management and initiative to the budding leaders of each generation. While based on a logical foundation, this ideal has created a student government that frequently serves as little more than a staging ground for the insidious politicians of the future.
It seems the moment student self-governance was set down as a tenet, the much-maligned "politico" stepped onto the scene, pink-shirted and raring to learn the ropes of politics, padding his resume along the way. But while commonly labeled as self-serving and contemptible, many so-called "politicos" have done great things for the community of trust. Self-interest does not preclude integrity or civic-mindedness. And there is nothing necessarily wrong with student government functioning as an educational organ. That said, this year's elections still ought to give us pause for several reasons.
First, the manner in which students go about winning elections is lamentable. While regulations recently established by the University Board of Elections are fair and constitutional, allowing candidates free reign to spend personal funds on their campaigns, they have resulted in a surprising state of affairs. Expenditure reports reveal that over $6,000 were spent on the spring election by candidates alone. Add to that unreported cash spent lauding and decrying various contentious referenda, as well as funds siphoned into the fray by various student organizations, and the total is staggering.
If the incredible amount of money poured into the spring elections were indicative of student interest in University politics and candidates' fervor to advance their ideals, student self-governance would be both a boon to the community and an educational tool. But considering the apathy with which the student body regularly regards self-governance, the general homogeny within Student Council and the lack of issue-driven campaigns, the thousands of dollars squandered suggest name recognition is far more important than track record or platform and that many student politicians are in this for themselves. Several individuals spent over $600 a piece promoting their candidacies. It's hard to imagine any of them would shell out similar sums in anonymous donations to the school.
Not only is the manner in which elections were conducted abhorrent, but the causes advanced this spring were sometimes equally frightening. For example, the "consensus clause," an attempt to change the standard of community approval required to alter Honor Committee pillars, revealed the reprehensible underbelly of politics on Grounds. The referendum would have required a majority of students enrolled in all the University's many schools to vote in support of any change to the single sanction, a nearly impossible proviso considering that half the student body rarely even participates in an election, much less votes in one particular direction. The deceptively worded referendum was a rather obvious attempt by single sanction supporters to make the penalty invincible.
Rather than change our community for the better, the consensus clause attempted to use rules to tie legislators' hands in the future, stymieing dynamic student self-governance. The ploy behind the referendum was unnervingly familiar, reeking of the swindles and logjams that today clog American politics.
Perhaps this is what was so troubling about the spring elections and the current state of student government: Not only the manner in which the University community has strayed from the spirit of student self-governance, but the fact that in doing so politics on Grounds have mirrored the greater American political landscape.
It seems we are truly breeding the next generation of politicians here in Charlottesville. But unless you like the stagnant state of our national government, there is little hope in the offing.
Nick Chapin's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at nchapin@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: The truth about nuclear power in Northern Virginia
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoYoungkin is trying to entice data centers to move to Northern Virginia for his own political gain, and presenting this to the taxpayer as a service to the citizen is deceiving.
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 4 days agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | November 20, 2024We need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
