We deserve better candidates for AAS positions
By Mira Serrill-Robins
I became increasingly dismayed last Wednesday as I read through the candidate statements for the Association of Amherst Students (AAS) executive board election. I realize that this column will be printed the day after the election is held, but I nonetheless feel the need to write something in response to the field of candidates and their statements. I hope that my concerns regarding the candidates will be taken into consideration for future AAS elections.

My first objection comes from the fact that some of the candidates have no experience in the AAS. My objection is not with people jumping in the deep end and joining the e-board without having ever been an elected official on the AAS. Rather, I would request that candidates be familiar with the current issues being discussed in the senate, as well as-gasp-the rules and procedures that the senate adheres to (sort of) during its meetings. I noticed that two of the candidates for president are not currently on the AAS and others haven't been to the past several AAS meetings. For instance, two candidates were not at Monday night's meeting at which the senate discussed the fall budgets.

As much as we may want "fresh blood," one cannot get through all of the bureaucracy (yes, believe it or not, the workings of the AAS do involve some unnecessary red tape) without knowing the way things work. Even if one wants to change the way things work, one cannot do so without knowing how.

Some of the candidate statements also revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the very offices that the authors were trying to fill. Being on the senate and hearing the reports of various committees is a good way to fix this glitch. Actually being on committees is an even better way, although some of the statements and people's performance in office show that this method is not foolproof, either. Knowledge of procedure and structure is an essential criterion in my opinion, but so is awareness of issues the senate has been dealing with lately. The only way to get a real understanding of the type of debate that is going on and the issues that are being raised is to attend at least a few meetings.

Don't get me wrong-all of the candidates are great people and I really like them myself. However, herein lies my second problem with the pool of candidates and AAS elections in general: As they were in high school, student government elections are largely a popularity contest. One might argue that people trust those they know, and have faith that respected friends will better represent them. And that might be true if their friends actually came to meetings and spoke up and voted "yea" or "nay" (rather than abstaining). Unfortunately, many people who have a lot of friends to represent still do not take their position as a student representative very seriously. Many of the candidate statements do nothing to change this, however. They seriously underestimate the student body's intelligence and address the issue of candidacy very broadly. Some candidates find fault with others or say what they will not do or speak in vague terms about their plans.

The final point that I would like to address here is the 'culture of quitting' that I have seen all over campus this semester. People join the senate to get their clubs funding or because they think (often mistakenly, I believe) that student government will secure them a job in the real world, or because they don't enjoy watching "Everwood" on Monday nights at nine. Then, they quit when meetings take a little too long or they become 'disillusioned with the system.' This goes along with the general apathy and lack of enthusiasm for anything. People quit organizations and decide not to attend events "in protest." Although absence can sometimes be conspicuous, it more often seems like surrender or mockery. The way to create change is by staying and pushing for it, not giving up and bowing out.

Some members of the student body do not even reach the point where they can quit, because they have never joined. The prevalence of this permutation of apathy and irresponsibility is evidenced by the two uncontested elections held yesterday for e-board positions. As we have seen throughout the course of this academic year, the AAS e-board can wield a significant amount of power; it is sad that, out of the 1,200 eligible students, a few more do not want to try their hand at directing this power.

I cannot vote for someone I consider unreliable, or whom I believe is ignorant about the AAS, the College and especially the position that he is running for. I hope that the outcomes of the elections reflect a similar sentiment in the rest of the student body. Aside from whom students vote for, however, I hope even more that the student body will turn out in force for AAS elections and at least devote two minutes to the shaping of their College.

Issue 23, Submitted 2004-04-14 18:51:04