Inside and outside of Student Assembly, students have long been clamoring for reform. Changes addressing the organization's lacking validity and significance are indeed necessary, but the Assembly must be unified before they are attempted. By no means should reform efforts devolve into personal wrangling.
Unfortunately, the recently publicized divisions within the Assembly, which peaked with the Academic Affairs Committee's "Statement Expressing No Confidence in the Leadership of Student Assembly President Tim Andreadis" ("SA committee votes no confidence in Andreadis," Jan. 17) and a subsequent series of opinion columns in The Dartmouth, are good examples of such squabbling. Instead of striving for effective reform, these altercations are undermining the already meager potency and respectability of the "student body's only voice" ("SA's Real Problem," Jan. 18).
No student should have to care whether a personal conflict exists between Andreadis '07 and former Academic Affairs Chair Adam Shpeen '07, who spearheaded the effort to impeach Andreadis. Such a quarrel should be neither significant to the operation of the Assembly, nor discussed by the two bickering parties alongside their proposals for improvement of the organization. Regrettably, the two factions have made their potentially private dispute public and have thereby imperiled the Assembly. In a guest column, Shpeen alleges that Andreadis "divided campus along dangerous political lines, further marginalizing the Assembly in the process" ("A Call for Change at SA," Jan. 17). His statement is, paradoxically, divisive in itself: It is cleaving the Assembly along the lines of personal allegiance, which is just as likely to lead to further marginalization of the organization.
Similarly, in his response to Shpeen, Andreadis questioned "why ... Shpeen [hasn't] come forward sooner, rather than at a time when there is speculation that the reasons for doing so are more personal than professional." Ironically, he has also called on "full cooperation of every Assembly member" in that same column ("Work Together to Reform SA," Jan. 18).
Universal cooperation within the Assembly and the students' respect for the organization are unlikely to blossom in such an atmosphere. Due to their relative lack of prestige and significance, it is already difficult for student governments to garner the respect they need to be effective. Idealism is a redeeming characteristic of school politics that at least partially makes up for its lack of power; however, instead of taking advantage of such zeal, the Assembly is falling victim to disillusionment, internal strife and severity common to real politics. Since it is a student body organization and not the U.S. Congress, the Assembly cannot afford such sentiments. Before it can attempt procedures as grave as impeachment, it should first work on increasing its gravity and legitimacy in the eyes of the students.
The Assembly must therefore undergo significant reform. In his letter, David Zubricki '07 rightly asserts that "the Assembly is broken and needs to be fixed," and points to a number of specific issues that must be addressed ("It's Time to Fix SA," Jan. 20). However, prior to such major restructuring, the Assembly should present a unified front to the student community. A divided Assembly does not stand a chance. It is unreasonable to expect students to have confidence in an organization that some of its most prominent members are not only failing to support but are even calling to dissolve. Before substantial reform efforts are undertaken, a cohesive Assembly should also strive to unite the campus in support of it by focusing on some less polarizing issues. Only then will the organization have sufficient clout, effectiveness and students' trust to address more controversial questions and be truly capable of making a difference on this campus.
