The new executives for the University Judiciary and Honor Committees - whose election results we have published this and last Monday - receive our attention and congratulations. But it is not all handshakes and flattery. These two judicial bodies ought to follow a more representative direct election process which would ensure all students are engaged in the selection of their leaders.
The process last month went like this: Students from each school voted for representatives to both Committees. This was the election season of campaigns and high-res photos. The results this year looked close for some of the UJC representatives and Honor's, especially.
Following student-wide voting, the two committees had closed elections to choose their top executives. The Honor Committee went to a retreat where its members inducted their chair and four Vice chairs. For the UJC, elected are the four voting members of the Executive Committee: a chair and three Vice chairs - this one's for Sanctions, that one's for Trials and look, there's one for First Years - a complete, furnished set which would satisfy even Goldilocks. But this is not just right.
If we are to give any importance to University elections, students be able to elect their leaders, and chairs should not be saved for closed-door politics.
A direct election would benefit the students as well as the candidates. Currently, would-be chairs have to stand as representatives, and some may do this with secondary aspirations. Candidates aiming for chaired positions may save their best talking points before unveiling them at executive elections. Hopefuls may be unable to tailor their platforms for the positions which they seek. This approach could disqualify potentially good leadership at the competitive pool of representatives. The results could make candidates with savvy campaigns, but few qualifications, crowd out those who have got things done and would make better chairs. There are distinct roles distinguishing a chair from a representative, and the former need not necessarily have the qualities of the latter. But the current electoral policy means some representatives are disgruntled for not getting chair, leaving them stuck out of necessity in a position they may not care for. A good chair requires the confidence and initiative to lead procedures and discussions, and similar characteristics in a representative could obstruct the same process.
We do not vote for Honor and UJC chairs, only the oligarchy which constructs them. In contrast, Student Council has direct elections for its top positions, with some appointments, and only those who want to be representatives run, though they don't always show. Of course, nothing is perfect, but we can only bring change to these Committees if we can vote when it counts.
Read More
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | 7 hours agoIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
