Notwithstanding the two hilarious puns in the title, I am shocked and outraged at the mysterious and dark machinations of our student government that have conspired to select a University dog without any consultation of, or consideration for, the thoughts and opinions of the student body (“Student Council transfers power to Nelson administration yesterday,” 3/24/2009).
In an unprecedented act of corruption and nepotism, Matt Schrimper made one giant leap towards the authoritarian regime we all feared Student Council was aspiring for.
My question is simply this: at a University where we hold student self-governance in the highest regard, and revere the voice of the common man (as lowly as he may be), and in a year where we see record voter turnout, how can an act that so blatantly reaffirms the common student’s meaninglessness be tolerated?
If Schrimper intended to choose a University dog, he should have planned months ago to hold a special election in which the student body could rightfully select the canine they wished to represent them. Barring his incredibly audacious name, what makes Noble so qualified for this position? Why should he be selected over any of the other dogs whose home is our University? In fact, I can think of several dogs who were qualified to at least be considered for the position. Dean Laushway’s dog is always walking around Rugby Rd. greeting students with a smile and a nuzzle. Noble’s only qualification seems to be that he spent the last few months buttering up the right guy while playing fetch with Schrimper on the Lawn.