ALL THREE candidates for Student Council president support the three most important current student initiatives: the living wage, on-Grounds production of green energy, and purchase of renewable energy credits. However, based on responses to an e-mail questionnaire I sent to them, Greg Jackson and Sam White demonstrated that they would be more aggressive advocates for student interests. Jackson's record is impeccable; White's membership in the College Republicans is the only blemish on an otherwise stellar candidacy.
Jackson, White and Darius Nabors all indicated that they would use their capacity as president to pressure the administration directly and to participate in other ways to win an indexed living wage for all contract and direct employees.
All three candidates also said they would lobby the administration to bring on-grounds production of green energy (solar, geothermal, etc.) to Grounds and to establish a program where the University purchases renewable energy credits, reducing its consumption of fossil fuels.
The candidates' responses to questions regarding "charter" legislation, politicians and University labor policies illuminate differences in political philosophy. They all supported "charter" legislation, which represents a remarkable failure to examine administration propaganda critically. Fortunately, this indicates naivete rather than antipathy towards the public university. Sam White said that he did not support privatizing the University work force or granting the Board of Visitors the authority to raise tuition as much as they want. It is disturbing that he has those positions and also supported the "charter," of which those two objectives were central. However, his position is superior to that of Nabors, who supports giving the Board authority to raise our tuition through the roof without democratic oversight from our elected officials. Unfortunately, Jackson supports privatizing the University workforce and granting the Board greater tuition-setting authority.
The decisions of state legislators have immediate and powerful impacts on the quality of the University and other public universities. Gilmore's fiscal mismanagement, for instance, caused the tragic loss of professors during the budget crisis, as the state was unable to pay them reasonable salaries. Because the University can only maintain its position as a top public university with adequate funding from the state, students in general and Student Council members in particular must be political actors; we cannot risk electing another Gilmore. The Student Council president should publicize politicians' records regarding higher education, such as by writing guest opinion columns for Virginia newspapers. In cases where someone like Jerry Kilgore, who aggressively opposed increased funding for higher education, it would be appropriate for the student council president to endorse the candidate or candidates friendly to student interests. BothJackson andWhite said they would be willing to support state politicians who demonstrated commitments to increasing funding for public higher education.Nabors was more reticent with respect to his role as a public advocate for higher education.
This administration has a history of labor repression, creating a moral imperative for students to work with university employees to protect workers' rights. BothJackson and White said they would publicly denounce labor repression by the administration, such as the recent firing of Dena Bowers. Nabors said that students " aren't privy to the exact reasons that people are hired and fired," and that it would be difficult for him to take any position. In fact, the stated reasons for Bowers' firing were in the public realm, and there was plenty of evidence to indicate that the real reasons for her firing were political. The Student Council president must be willing to stand up to the administration when they assault workers' rights. Jackson and White appear to understand the importance of their role as workers' allies.
Although all three candidates said they would lobby in Richmond to win increased funding for public higher education, these candidates would not be equally effective advocates for public higher education. Jackson and White indicated both a greater willingness to use their public position to be strong advocates for the University, and they also indicated a willingness to take on the administration to protect the human rights of workers.
Either Jackson, White or Nabors would probably serve as a competent Student Council president. If his positions on issued addressed by the "charter" debate is any indication, White would be more independent of the administration and an aggressive advocate for student interests. Nabors and Jackson demonstrate dangerous naivete in trusting the administration with greater autonomy with respect to labor and tuition. It is unfortunate for White that his membership in the College Republicans casts doubt on his ccommitment to progressive ideals. I do not think this membership should immediately disqualify him from candidacy. Given Jackson and White's similar positions, it may be safer to choose the candidate who does not associate with anti-government fanatics. On the other hand, Jackson's support for privatizing the University workforce is inexcusable.
Zack Fields's columns appear Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at zfields@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.
