Amitabh Chibber '97 wrote, in his column, "Student Assembly's Obsolescense," (Jan. 25) that the Student Assembly is an obsolete body. Chibber fancies himself something of a budding political philosopher, and yet he has all too quickly acquired the arrogance and lack of depth that grip too many of America's pundits and so-called "insiders."
The two primary factors that Chibber cites as causing the lack of legitimacy of the Student Assembly are the extensive BlitzMail system and the fact that students do not respect SA.
Chibber is correct in pointing out that the information explosion may mean, for government in general, that ideas like an "electronic town hall" may soon become feasible. Indeed, it may not be long before citizens will have the capacity to vote from their homes and offices.
However, Chibber ignores an overwhelming issue. He implies that the only reason America is a representative democracy is that thus far it has been impractical to attempt otherwise. In short, he says that the only reason the Founders did not establish a complete democracy is because they couldn't.
Chibber seems to have forgotten the lesson of Madison: "a pure democracy ... can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction." Chibber's implied view that representative democracy exists in lieu of complete democracy is shortsighted and indicates a failure to grasp the basic fundamentals upon which this nation was founded.
But to bring this argument back to more familiar locales, the need for representative democracy is just as vital at Dartmouth College. Chibber may have communicated with administrators in the past via e-mail, but I wonder whether he has attempted to effect a serious policy change. He may find the Administration far less compliant.
Much of SA's time is spent slogging through bureaucratic muck and untangling red tape in order to make the student voice heard. It is not glamorous, but it is important work that is worth noting.
Moreover, the Student Assembly is the only collective voice of this campus. As anyone can testify, Dartmouth is hardly free of factions. If not for the SA, how would the Administration know which voice to listen to? Individual students who express opinions are just that: individuals, with each view as valid as the next. Who, then, would have the Administration's ear? The faction with the most money? The group which makes the most noise? The Conservative Union at Dartmouth, Chibber tells us, can handle the freshman dorms issue. What happens if someone does not agree with the position CUAD takes? Another group will rise presenting an opposing opinion. And then another, with an alternative point of view.
This downward spiral would factionalize the campus further. Madison's foresight was profound: the bottom line is representation. The SA is a forum of concerned, diverse individuals who do their best to represent the campus as a whole and to look out for student interests. It is the place where various voices are heard and differing opinions are presented so that we do not need to be a campus of factions. Individual students will not agree with every stand the SA takes, but they continue to recognize its legitimacy as an elected body.
The sloppiest part of Chibber's column deals with elections and representation. He claims that because most students do not care about the SA, the elections are illegitimate. Chibber would dismiss the thousands of votes that students cast each year, claiming that they are not serious votes, and therefore are invalid. This is a slap in the face of every voter who took the time to sit down and deliberate over the choices presented. Often there are complaints that political candidates insult the intelligence of voters. But none approaches the levels of affrontery achieved by Chibber in his dismissal of the voting process. I guess he thinks we just aren't smart enough.
The Student Assembly is representative. If Chibber doesn't believe this assertion, then he should attend an SA meeting (I don't ever recall seeing him at one). The diversity of opinions and dedication of the members is remarkable.
Nobody claims that the SA doesn't have problems that need to be corrected. However there are those who are dedicated to taking these problems and making them better.
Chibber isn't as visionary. Because we can have instant communication, he says, throw out the old system. Because the Student Assembly has problems, he tells us, get rid of it. There is a maxim that he, as a political philosopher, ought to follow: No discussion of what "is" is complete without a discussion of what should be. We could restrict our communication with the administration to BlitzMail. Should we? We could scrap the SA because of perceived flaws. Should we?
In his responses to these questions, Chibber proves himself to be a cynic. The SA representatives who put time and effort into making the SA the best body it can be prefer to be more hopeful. Faith versus Nihilism. To which would you rather subscribe?
