---

In print | Published April 23, 2009

The Student Council elections did not end as dramatically as they could have. Despite the legion of votes amassed by the “None of the Above” movement, every position ended up being filled, and ultimately, a second set of elections will not be held.

Congratulations are due to all of the candidates. Still, we hope that the newly elected council will not dismiss the issues raised by the NOTA campaign. Even though “None of the Above” failed to achieve a plurality in any one category, only 16 votes separated newly elected StuCo President Rachel Bell from the “None of the Above” option in what was the closest call of the elections.

Rounding up 281 votes for Campus Life Representative, 300 for Financial Policy Representative, 245 for Student Groups Advisor, 216 for Educational Policy Representative and 276 for President, the NOTA campaign has brought up significant questions surrounding the role students expect StuCo to play on campus. We hope that the newly elected Council and student body will continue to discuss these issues and work together to address them immediately.

The first, and perhaps most obvious, problem is that so few candidates ran for StuCo positions. Only two students ran for president, and every other position remained uncontested.

So, the question stands: why did so few students enter the election? Students, after all, were bombarded with e-mails and announcements encouraging them to consider running for office. Everyone knew when the elections were being held.

No doubt, there were many reasons that few students decided to run. Because StuCo members work for no pay, less privileged students may not always be in a financial position to run. Also, students who identify as members of marginalized groups may not always feel that StuCo positions are entirely viable for them.

The fact that so few students ran is a clear indication that, despite the regular e-mails and invitations to sit in on Council meetings, there remains a real disconnect between StuCo and the student body it governs.

Another likely reason that so few candidates ran — the reason that this editorial will focus on — is that some students didn’t think that any of the StuCo positions (with the possible exception of the Presidency) had any real relevancy.

The primary reason for this is that few people are certain about what powers StuCo actually possesses.

Most of us know the basics. We know that StuCo dispenses funding for student groups and initiatives, and that it has some sway with the administration. What we don’t know is whether it has the power to place students on the Financial Aid Planning Committee, whether it has the capacity to alter student recruitment strategies to better target low-income student groups, or whether it is in a position to dictate how grant money in Chester is spent. These were three of the informal proposals suggested by Daniel Symonds, one of the few vocal advocates of NOTA. Is it in the Student Council’s capacity to achieve these things? What leverage, if any, does StuCo hold over the administration? These are the questions that the student body needs answered. Because we cannot judge the efficacy of past members of StuCo, we cannot hope to judge the agendas of current members, unless we know what actual power StuCo has.

This is why we are so enthusiastic about efforts by the current StuCo, and the StuCo that will succeed them next semester, to communicate with students and come up with goals and suggestions for the future. The latest iteration of incoming president Rachel Bell’s campaign poster and platform included a number of ways she hoped to make herself, and StuCo as a whole, more accessible to the student body. These included a proposed “agenda-setting forum” at the beginning of each semester, regular meetings with student leaders, polling of students, the distribution of her contact information, and, even more excitingly, an “Ask the StuCo President Column in The Phoenix and Daily Gazette.” If Bell and StuCo can deliver on these promises, then students will have a better idea of the extent of StuCo’s influence and will have a better basis for deciding whether or not structural changes to the Council are necessary, and if they are, what those changes ought to look like.

In the end, there is nothing wrong with the controversy that surrounded the elections and the questions that the NOTA campaign raised.

The contentious election may well point to a greater political divide in the Swarthmore community between those who approve of the StuCo’s current role and those who want a more activist StuCo that more readily challenges the administration’s decisions.

Either way, a real and serious attempt at dialogue between the incoming and outgoing StuCo and the student body is necessary so that everyone can better understand the powers and obligations of the StuCo, and how the Council can work to better serve the interests of the Swarthmore student body.

It is very important that a much stronger connection is established between StuCo and the student body.

This connection can only be established through greater dialogue: more students should show up at StuCo meetings and StuCo members should continue to find new and more effective ways to communicate with the student body. Once this connection is established, and students have a clearer idea of the capabilities of the StuCo, then, perhaps, we will see a few more names on the ballot sheet.

---

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »