2008 Woodie Awards
Make the choice to end corruption in Student Council
Adrian Shanker
Issue date: 2/22/07 Section: Op/Ed
- Page 1 of 1
Since the corruption and scandals of the 109th congress, we Americans have grown all too accustomed to a corrupt leadership. Even with indictments, resignations or the lost campaigns of Tom DeLay, Jack Abromoff, Alan Hevesi, Bob Ney and the too many others, it seems as if we just do not care how corrupt our leadership is (as evidenced by the people of New Orleans voting to reelect exposed Democrat William Jefferson this past November).
At Muhlenberg, we should hold our elected representatives to a higher standard. We should not allow them to allocate themselves a blank check. We should not allow the treasurer of Student Council to threaten student organizations. We should not have allowed a Spring 2006 Student Council to spend thousands of dollars on the "one-night-stand" Henry Awards ceremony (which I did not attend, despite that a group I was involved in was nominated and won an award.) And most importantly, we should never allow a member of Student Council to stifle debate and criticism among students, as was advocated by Brian Goldberg '08 in last week's issue of The Weekly on the Accountability Resolution.
Basic theory on leadership dictates that the represented, especially in a form of democracy, has the right (and in many cases the duty) to criticize and to call out bad moves by their elected leaders. But at the College, we are only a few shots away from Tiananmen Square. When a student writes to an elected leader, for example, the Treasurer of Student Council, and complains about the threatening nature of her emails to student leaders, and receives an email back saying that she is "appalled and disgusted after reading your email" proves my point. Some members of Council are, simply put, unable to take any criticism from their constituency. Instead, they take it as a personal attack, when in reality it is meant to keep them in line, as an elected leader.
On Monday, students have a choice to make, and there are a few. Pure apathy is one of course. The majority of Americans seem to feel the need to not vote (which is their constitutional right) and likewise, students have right not to vote on their Student Body President. Or for students who care about the leadership at the school where we are paying exorbitant amounts of money for them to attend, they can vote for the same leadership we have had, which has involved no accountability of council members, wasteful spending and a neglect of small student organizations. Or they can vote for a changed leadership with significantly less corruption and a strong push for self-accountability.
Recording Secretary Lisa Harrison is right, if you don't make an effort, then stop complaining. If you don't vote, then deal with whoever is elected to spend your money--that's fine.
But students have the right to vote, the right to complain and the right to criticize their elected leadership. I will personally be voting to keep our elected representation accountable for their actions. We need a regime change at the College before we become the house that Jack Abramoff built.
At Muhlenberg, we should hold our elected representatives to a higher standard. We should not allow them to allocate themselves a blank check. We should not allow the treasurer of Student Council to threaten student organizations. We should not have allowed a Spring 2006 Student Council to spend thousands of dollars on the "one-night-stand" Henry Awards ceremony (which I did not attend, despite that a group I was involved in was nominated and won an award.) And most importantly, we should never allow a member of Student Council to stifle debate and criticism among students, as was advocated by Brian Goldberg '08 in last week's issue of The Weekly on the Accountability Resolution.
Basic theory on leadership dictates that the represented, especially in a form of democracy, has the right (and in many cases the duty) to criticize and to call out bad moves by their elected leaders. But at the College, we are only a few shots away from Tiananmen Square. When a student writes to an elected leader, for example, the Treasurer of Student Council, and complains about the threatening nature of her emails to student leaders, and receives an email back saying that she is "appalled and disgusted after reading your email" proves my point. Some members of Council are, simply put, unable to take any criticism from their constituency. Instead, they take it as a personal attack, when in reality it is meant to keep them in line, as an elected leader.
On Monday, students have a choice to make, and there are a few. Pure apathy is one of course. The majority of Americans seem to feel the need to not vote (which is their constitutional right) and likewise, students have right not to vote on their Student Body President. Or for students who care about the leadership at the school where we are paying exorbitant amounts of money for them to attend, they can vote for the same leadership we have had, which has involved no accountability of council members, wasteful spending and a neglect of small student organizations. Or they can vote for a changed leadership with significantly less corruption and a strong push for self-accountability.
Recording Secretary Lisa Harrison is right, if you don't make an effort, then stop complaining. If you don't vote, then deal with whoever is elected to spend your money--that's fine.
But students have the right to vote, the right to complain and the right to criticize their elected leadership. I will personally be voting to keep our elected representation accountable for their actions. We need a regime change at the College before we become the house that Jack Abramoff built.