The past few days I have thought long and hard on the legitimacy of the Student Government Association. Different friends have suggested candidates to vote for. Free hamburgers beckon my name every time I leave my residence hall.
I wondered if there was something to this SGA business after all. Maybe they aren't the lame-duck organization of which so many students commonly complain.
Last week, a friend of mine announced an upcoming SGA debate and I honestly got really excited (I know lame right?).
Wilcox from Connect said pizza parties during campaign week were the best time to hear from students. I don't think I have ever heard significant discussion of campus issues while I picked up a semi-cooked hamburger from a campaign tent, but maybe I've been at all the wrong ones.I used to debate in high school. I remember learning that sometimes debate can help people solve problems and make clear who has the best ideas.
I successfully made it through both the vice-presidential and presidential debates. They spoke of connecting with the campus population, quite repetitively may I add, focusing on safety and petitioning for progressive changes on campus.
It didn't seem like a debate; it was more like a chance for the campaigns to talk about themselves on television. Then to my surprise, introductions and party platform questions ended and one group actually began to attempt to spark argument with the other. I couldn't believe it!
The candidates from Students for a Just University acted as if they actually planned to debate. Sadly, the other candidates had a strong lack of response.
When Samuel Mortimer and Kyle Hardy, presidential and vice-presidential candidates from SJU, attacked the Connect and Focus presidential candidates for their failure to propose a single bill in fall 2007, their complaint fell on deaf ears.
They explained that this inactivity should have resulted in their expulsion from the SGA senatorial body. The two SJU candidates not only attacked the two other presidential candidates for their ineffectiveness in SGA, they complained of apathy and non-attendance in the body as a whole.
Still it seemed as if there was no answer from the other candidates. They ignored the attacks. It was like watching a boxer being beaten relentlessly, waiting for him to hit back; then realizing he has nothing and is just as surprised as you by the ability of his opponent. Debate is about argument, not making broad statements to cover a lack of ideas or ability.
Wait, maybe I shouldn't be so dismissive. Meghan Blackwell, vice-presidential candidate from Connect, managed to say in defense of these ineffective senators that perhaps "we should teach them to write bills better so they will be more motivated to participate in senate".
Maybe she's right. Our poor senators just don't know how to write bills and this inability makes them apathetic. Then a fantastic thought crossed my mind: Perhaps the wrong people are in office!
If, in fact, this apathy to write bills also plagued Jeff Wilcox and James Akins, presidential candidates from Connect and Focus, as senators then why would they become affective SGA presidents?
Our poor senators just don't know how to write bills and this inability makes them apathetic. Then a fantastic thought crossed my mind: Perhaps the wrong people are in office!Wilcox and Akins had no answers. Mortimer continued to state his active role in the Senate to emphasize his expansive work on the writing of bills and lobbying of issues across campus. Mortimer stated that the work his party does is year round and the election season is a highlight of those efforts.
He made it clear he was interested in solving real problems on campus such as racism and lobbying for a living wage for UTK staff members, not just having pizza parties and barbecues.
In response, Wilcox from Connect said pizza parties during campaign week were the best time to hear from students. I don't think I have ever heard significant discussion of campus issues while I picked up a semi-cooked hamburger from a campaign tent, but maybe I've been at all the wrong ones.
The debates were simply un-intriguing. SJU pushed Connect and Focus on numerous issues at different times but never seemed to rile them up in the least; not even enough for them to make an attempt at defending themselves.
Focus and Connect appeared perfectly fine with relentless beatings and nonexistent comebacks. SJU's actions spoke louder than words. If Wilcox and Akins lack explanations for their own senatorial shortcomings, then SJU must be correct.
Either way, as I once heard a friend in debate say, "silence must be taken as acquiescence."
Comments
Sam commented, on April 4, 2008 at 7:53 a.m.:
So I take your friends were running for SJU? And how did they turn out with the actual voting? Oh, dead last, you must've been DEAD ON with this one.
Anon! commented, on April 4, 2008 at 10:39 a.m.:
Since when did voters pick the best leaders? The majority of voters probably consisted of Greeks who could care less whether or not SGA is effective and does its job. It's like "Mr. Popular" in high school all over again.
The candidates should've been kicked for not proposing a bill. They weren't. They got called out on it and had no defense. The fact that they were -still- voted for shows the mental thinking incapabilities, or at the very least the apparent apathetic attitudes, of most UT students.
Nate commented, on April 4, 2008 at 3:30 p.m.:
Sam, I had no close friends running from SJU. In fact I did have friends running from Focus and Connect. The article is simply a cover of the debate and the utter lack of commitment that SGA has experienced in the past.
Jessica commented, on April 7, 2008 at 3:54 p.m.:
Good story--I wasn't able to catch the debate because I had no idea when it was happening. It's pathetic that none of the campus media ran with the lack of participation of the Focus or Connect presidential candidates until the day of or the day after the elections. That's something that students need to know about.
I don't know what format SGA requires for bills, but it's not hard to (1) look up state bills online to get a sense of the format and then (2) use that to write a bill. I was one of over 90 legislative interns who wrote bills for mock session. College students in TISSL do it--heck, *High school students* participating in Youth Legislation do it--so how hard can it really be?
SGA is utterly impotent, and it's because it's run by people who are looking for nothing more than a resume padder. Just like any group project, the majority of people sit back and ride the coattails of the people who are there to get things done and try to make a positive impact on the campus. The Anon! commenter is absolutely right. Until they begin self-policing and banning people who haven't contributed as the by-laws require from voting, SGA is going to remain impotent, ineffective, and disrespected among student opinion.