I have to tell you, I am pretty upset.
The Student Assembly really did it this time, and I think I have to say something. On Tuesday night, the Student Assembly met, discussed and voted on a handful of issues. The Assembly voted 10-to-eight in favor of a proposal by Director of Residential Operations Woody Eckels to have all dorm entrances locked.
Now, I really do not want to discuss the merits of the particular proposal, instead I would like to point out how this latest vote highlights some of the ineptitude, complacency and misguidedness of our Assembly.
In regards to the proposal by Eckels, Assembly member Leonora Snyder said, "Every single person I've spoken to is very against this." Without conducting a real survey, I have a hunch she is right on the money about this one. In light of this perception, it is not surprising that there was a heated debate before voting took place. What is surprising is that the vote went the way it did. At least two people quoted in the article who voted in favor of the proposal said the new proposal was a bad idea or that the majority of students were against it.
What were they thinking as they voted? Did they somehow feel that the opinions of the students they represent were somehow invalid, inappropriate or wrong? I cannot say for certain, but I have a sneaking suspicion that when these folks ran for student representative they vowed, "to carry the voice of the students to the administration" or to "champion the will of the students" or some other such poetic and inspiring line as they tried to get your vote and mine.
So what are they doing now? Apparently they are voting for themselves. They were aware of what the majority of us wanted, or so they claim, and then they turned a deaf ear to us and once again assumed the position of administration lapdog.
I might have sounded a little harsh in that last comment, but you know what? I don't care. I have spent three years here disgusted and annoyed by the Assembly. I try and avoid it as if it were the plague. Periodically I am impressed with things that they do. I think Mugshots is a feather in their cap. I think they support some excellent organizations and events on occasion. But by and large, I think it is a pretty pathetic body.
Sure, I could get involved and try to change it, and I would be willing to discuss the merits of criticizing something I am not directly involved in and have consciously stayed away from, but you know that you too have had those exact same thoughts. And that doesn't change my point. The bottom line is they are elected as our representatives and as such should represent us.
When something big really does come up, like turning our campus into the New Hampshire version of Columbia University with locked dorms, and the Assembly has the opportunity to do something notable and worthy, they bungle it. They ignore those of us who voted them in. Their justification? Just read what President-elect Green had to say: "I think what I felt ... was a distinction between what I feel and what a majority of the students feel ... It's important for every member to vote for what he or she thinks is best for the student body. I think tonight is the beginning of a major discussion ... not the end."
I have a couple problems with this: Green is right on the money when he points out his feelings are different from those of the majority of the students. This is not inherently a bad thing in my mind. But just because he has a different "feeling" about an issue does not mean he is right, nor does it mean our "feelings" should be ignored.
The Dartmouth's April 10 Weekend Gazette presented Green's views on the need for the student voice to be heard. He said, "The Assembly needs to do a better job listening to students." He expressed a desire for the Assembly to "more accurately reflect what students want to see done." He also believes, or at least he did, that the Assembly should be "there to facilitate giving the students a 'formal voice.'" So either this guy forgot what his priorities were, or he is trying to justify making a gigantic mistake.
Lastly, I think a final vote condoning the proposal puts a damper on further discussion. If he had really wanted to further discussion on this issue, he would have supported a no vote or delayed the vote. This might have given them more time during which he and the rest of the Assembly might have tried to better understand how the student body felt about this. Of course, that would only have been worthwhile if he would have then been willing to listen to us instead of himself.
I know a fair number of the people who voted. Some are acquaintances, some even friends, but I think the 10 who voted in favor of the proposal were wrong to do so. What is at stake here is the integrity of student representative government. If they are truly our representatives, and if they are really determined to be our tools for building a better Dartmouth when dealing with the administration, they had better stop just giving lip service to those ideals and start acting on them.
The vote Tuesday night was important. Locks on every dorm will ultimately change the character and feel of Dartmouth. With the Assembly's endorsement, Dean of the College Lee Pelton will now pledge his support for the plan. If there is a time to act on this proposal, it is before Pelton gives it his official support. The Assembly was given a window of opportunity to deal with this. Their hasty vote against the will of the majority of the students closed that window, probably for good. Unfortunately, I think they lost more than just that. They lost face, integrity and some of the claim they have to being our representatives.
My thanks to those who voted against this, regardless of my personal opinion about locks on dorms. You earn my thanks because you voted the way the majority of us wanted you to. That is why we elected you. That is your job, and you did it well.