I can almost feel the Student Assembly election candidates creeping through the Hanover forest in camouflage clothing, guns at the ready. Face paint offers a guise of bloodthirsty ruthlessness, and as soon as the first shot is fired, they will charge upon us, hurling insults and threats and screaming until the day has come and gone.
Or maybe not.
There are a few posters around. So far we have heard (or read) all the phrases that are supposed to inspire confidence and universal trust: no more infighting, serve the students, responsible leadership. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that all these things appeal to students. I would add to that list experience, open-mindedness and familiarity with the community - all of it, not just one or another aspect of it.
At least one candidate has put a new twist on the purpose of SA: last night Kenji Sugahara '95 proclaimed proudly, "Student Assembly should be fun." It almost sounded, from his excitement about prospective cameraderie in the SA, like he was about to add, "Why can't we all just get along?" As if people disagree only to make trouble. As if what we really want is a Student Assembly whose major purpose is to earn a place in the Weekend Update for its "enjoyable" meetings. If he has comedy in mind, there's no reason to change the Assembly we have now.
On the flip side, Jeremy Katz '95 proclaimed his "diehard" support for free speech and debate, although I couldn't help but notice that only everyone "with a worthy idea" will have an opportunity to voice it to the Student Assembly. Nevertheless, his commitment to this ideal is reflected in his involvement with the Dartmouth Review, which he somehow forgot to mention in his list of contributions to the campus. I was happy to hear that the SA just needs some "manpower" (emphasis his) behind its intentions, which he will make sure it provides.
Jim Brennan '96 made some impressive comments. After three candidates tried the "nice" approach to managing differing opinion in the Student Assembly, he pointed out what should be obvious by now: not everyone is going to agree. The foundation of a working Assembly is-hallelujah-respect. He went on to explain the need for greater cooperation among students in the Assembly, and he mentioned his own devotion to the "Vote Yes" campaign in the fall, even though he is not Greek.
Both Brennan and Caleb Scott '97 criticized political infighting in the SA considerably, with Scott referring to it as a "clown show." But neither offered very concrete goals or methods to achieve their high ideals. I found myself hoping they will run again next year or the year after - maybe because Brennan still thinks everyone who goes to Dartmouth is happy here (many aren't), maybe because I feel like they need to see more before they step in and take over. Hooray for high ideals, but what do they know about women's concerns? Minority issues? Gay and lesbian students' needs?
Not that some of the other candidates know much more. But how can I, a woman at Dartmouth who deals with issues which affect primarily women, pretend that this isn't important? Katz gave some lip service to lighting and escort services - but is this the heart of the problem? Or is it a treatment of the symptoms in hopes that the problem will go away? Sugahara didn't seem to be aware that there even was a problem, since all we want to do is party, right?
Danielle Moore '95 is the only one who sought to delve deeper than the Student Assembly Course Guide and the obvious need for leadership. That is to say, she offered a platform. She called upon her experience as a Native American woman and Area Coordinator in working with students of all different backgrounds and said, Hey! Groups of students have been ignored on this campus, and I am going to make sure they have a voice. She wasn't afraid to align herself with women's, minority, and gay/lesbian issues. The others spoke of students, students, students, but I wanted to ask, what students? When the current SA tried to impeach president Nicole Artzer '94, the members who supported the motion claimed to act upon the needs of the students, too. They meant themselves.
Rukmini Sichitiu '95, Vice Presidential candidate, said something very important.
She asked us all to question the rhetoric. Challenge slogans. Remember, she said, that leadership is linked to person.
So we can have a socialite for president. I know as well as anyone else that, sadly, name recognition always procures votes - issues and concerns aside. Or we can elect our very own liason to the Review to represent us all, although he has said himself that he does not support the empowerment of women or exploration of women's issues. Or did he say feminism? Same thing.
We need to have these troopers storm the Hanover plain and challenge us somehow. Tell us what they stand for. Tell us who they are, without catchy phrases or empty promises. And then we need to fire back and take some stock in the future of this school and our Student Assembly. Because it was admirable, once. Because right now it is a shame to us all.
I guess I've fired the first shot.
