Sometimes you don't know something's broken until you take a step back and get the bigger picture. I think they call it the "fog of war." Well, for the last three years, that would seem to describe my experience with the Student Assembly. Since freshman fall, I've been an elected representative, a committee chair and a committee co-chair. I've started programs, like the Student Faculty Brunch, that have been successful, and others, like the Assembly Town Meeting, that still need work. I observed and worked closely with three different Student Body Presidents, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. With that depth and breadth of experience I can honestly say that the Assembly is broken and needs to be fixed.
First off, are we sure it's broken? Well, most of the senior leadership in the 2007 class has left. "Uh-Oh" BlitzMail messages, BlitzMail terminals, and the course guide have all been left to languish. The Academic Affairs Committee passed a statement of no confidence in the Student Body President. Little to nothing has been done to make the campus safer for women except for a few alarmist falsified BlitzMail warnings sent out now and then. The Dartmoose, a mascot that was discussed, debated and defeated in numerous student polls in 2003 is now being discussed, debated and (will eventually be) defeated. I mean, the name of the "Diversity Affairs Committee" was changed to the "Community and Diversity Affairs Committee," so I guess that's good. The one bright light, the Committee on Standards Task Force Report, a project relevant enough to be discussed in the current trustee election, was not properly executed by the Assembly administration. Yep, the Assembly is broken.
But maybe it always has been. Perhaps it doesn't matter whether your Assembly leaders are solid (as many have been) or incompetent (like this year). Maybe, the very structure of the Assembly is to blame. Consider the following: Unlike other Ivy League student governments, the membership of the Assembly is only partially determined through voting procedures. The Assembly president and vice president select all committee chairs (the ones who set the agenda) and new members can join at any time after attending three straight meetings. So, essentially we have a club with an enormously disproportionate budget, with low barriers for membership, with little disincentive for leaving, led by an executive committee that is entirely chosen by one or two people. The result is a paralyzing lack of institutional memory, a disregard for student opinion, the alienation of the majority of campus and a blow to the credibility of the Assembly as Dartmouth's representative body. For example, in the last three years, one Assembly Executive Board supported the idea of creating a young alum trustee position, followed by the next board who opposed it, followed by another Executive Board that supported it. If you were a College administrator, why would you have a meeting with these people? Why would you take them seriously if they are liable to change their minds next year?
I write this knowing full well that many will just read the angry musings of a sore runner up. But, like Anoop Rathod '07 ("SA's real problem," Jan. 18), I believe that the Assembly is most effective and powerful when it calls for change on the part of students. That role as a champion for students can only be fulfilled under the current system with an incredible effort by those involved. This year's leadership certainly can be blamed for being divisive (read last week's headlines), disrespectful (read the memo calling men sexual objectifiers and women "back-stabbing"), and disillusioned (because it's possible to eliminate all "unsafe" places in the world), but to expect the necessary Herculean effort from them is wrong. Anyone looking for the Assembly to achieve lasting change given the current organizational structure is misguided. It's time we fix our student government.
