The student elections are here. The campus will undoubtedly be littered with posters of smiling candidates and their litany of proposed reforms. Kiewit will be overloaded with campaign-related BlitzMail. The consummate campus activists, eager for another opportunity to see their name printed in The Daily Dartmouth, will form "coalitions" and write "platforms." Candidates will sling narrow agendas and meaningless rhetoric back and forth at one another in the hope of getting your vote and beefing up their Law School resume.
These are the kind of things we love to hate about student elections. And they are the same things that prevent students from developing a consistent and coherent voice in this community.
It is my opinion that the spring elections should be a time when students openly discuss the issues which are important to the entire Dartmouth community and develop a set of basic expectations for the direction of student government in the coming year. Unfortunately, this ideal has not always been realized. The elections have historically degenerated into a raging battle of egos or been dominated by narrowly-focused student groups clamoring to get press for their own limited agenda. This electoral nightmare ruins the Student Assembly's relationship with the administration, with other student organizations and with the so-called "average Dartmouth student."
While I believe that competition is the best way to select the best people to represent us, I fear that the tenor of that competition has historically focused upon the candidates and not the community. This is the wrong approach. These elections, and the candidates running in them, should focus upon addressing campus-wide concerns and developing a shared sense of place. There is a considerable difference between the Student Leader, who openly commits him or herself to serving the entire community, and the Campus Politician, who uses the community to serve him or herself. We should and must expect more from the students who would earn our vote. Dartmouth College and the Student Assembly do not need politicians. They need leaders.
A number of candidates will undoubtedly argue that their "experience" will make them the best person to be the President or Vice President of the student body. I believe that this argument is fundamentally flawed. Experience on the Assembly or in student government cannot replace either the ability to develop a vision with which people can identify or the passion to realize that vision. No one is entitled, by merit of their so-called experience, to be a student leader. The Presidency and Vice Presidency of the student body are positions that must be earned through commitment and trust, not by selling a resume.
Who should you avoid? Avoid anyone who runs on their resume. They are not only running on it, but running to improve it. Avoid anyone who tries to be all things to all people. They will undoubtedly fail and delegitimize student government in the process. Avoid anyone who represents a certain group or political mindset. They will represent only themselves, not the student body. And lastly, avoid anyone who believes they have earned their stripes and are entitled to the job. An egotistical sense of entitlement is a prescription for indifferent, static, and passive leadership.
Who should you vote for? Vote for the candidate who campaigns hardest. He or she will need that tenacity to succeed in office. Vote for the candidate with a broad vision. It will be his or her job to serve the entire community, not just select groups with specific agenda. And most importantly, vote for the person who shows up at your room, haggard from an entire evening of campaigning door to door, and honestly listens to your ideas and concerns. That candidate will be the person most in touch with Dartmouth students, and most worthy to represent their interests to the Administration and Board of Trustees.
I fundamentally believe that what someone will do for the Dartmouth community in the coming year is far more important than what they say they have done in the past. Jon Heavey and Jim Rich approached the same fundamental questions in very different ways. The type of students they attracted to the Assembly were very different people. But both Jim and Jon actively listened to students. Both of them had a vision for how the Assembly could work in the future. And both of them worked themselves into the ground to realize that vision. They were committed to their job, shared a love for Dartmouth, and grew into the position. What "experience" did Jon Heavey or Jim Rich bring to the Assembly? Little or none. But their broad vision and tenacious work ethic made all the difference. Those are the qualities we should all look for in the candidates this spring.
