At this Sunday's Senate meeting, Senate Chair Brian Orser opened the discussion on the constitutional proposal that we're all talking about. I was the only one to raise my hand.
I asked in plain terms:
What are the main objectives of the document? Who wrote it?
In what specific ways is it superior to the operative Constitution? What does it try to achieve?
(These were my honest questions. Every time I have had a conversation about this document, with Senator Buddy Bennett, Senator Liz Lipschultz, with authors Jerzy Kaufman and Jasper Kosokoff, I end up with more questions than I began with. I have NEVER heard a convincing argument for this constitution that made any sense to me.)
Senator Nick Tagliarino spoke up and "objected" to my questions on the grounds that they had already been answered during the first meeting in which it was proposed, back in November.
Official document author Lianna Schechter '10 said, essentially, that we had already discussed those things.
And with that, discussion ended.
So here we are, on the internet. Here are my concerns.
Transition
The current Constitution is the result of 16 years of trial, error, and improvement. It was just approved in April 2009 by a ballot vote of the entire student body.
The new system would require us to start from scratch: There is no transition plan. There is no "change.gov".
There has NEVER been public discussion on what would actually happen if this proposal is approved by the student body.
There is no set meeting time for the first meeting. There are no student leaders to facilitate the first meeting.
If it were approved, there would be a bitter struggle for legitimacy: different groups of students could say "The first meeting will be on Tuesday morning at 10 am at the Grove House!" "The first meeting will be on the Mounds on Friday afternoon!"
It will require people to create something out of nothingness, and the loudest voices will rule the day.
I think it is entirely possible that if this proposal were to be enacted, a first meeting might never even happen. The document is just that messy and incomplete.
Governance
The current Constitution is written in good plain English. If the entire Pitzer College student body were abducted by aliens and suffered from mass amnesia, our Student Senate would still survive: the Constitution lays out in simple terms how everything works. It is a simple and stable framework that specifies where to go, what to do, and how to function, while leaving very broad leeway for what we can actually accomplish.
This proposal is a mess. Its table of contents is fully half the length of the content itself. It is incredibly difficult to understand, and gives no guidance on how any body will actually function. It uses language like this:
We are not a collection of atomized individuals. Rather, we are an ecological student community, exemplifying mutualism, deep inter-relationality, multiplicity and complementarity. Recognizing this reality, that the development of one of us depends upon the development of all, we find it necessary to construct a space for the collective process of this communal development.
The question is HOW DO WE CONDUCT OURSELVES? How can I get involved? Where do I sign up? Who can I talk to if I want to get something done? Whose job is it to help me with this issue? This document completely ignores these central questions.
Exclusion
There is a reality that proponents of the proposal (whoever they may be) are unwilling to face: There are students who can never, will never, and don't want to, come to Student Senate meetings.
This includes student athletes, pre-med students, students with full-time jobs, students taking 5 or 6 classes, New Resource students, off-campus students, Residence Assistants on duty, students with children, whose schedules simply don't allow it.
It may include you, a first-time reader of this blog, who doesn't give a shit about Student Government. Maybe you never have and you never will, and you're annoyed that this keeps taking up your time and attention. (It may be hard to believe, but I personally didn't attend a Senate meeting until my second year at Pitzer, and I lived a very full life before I did.)
Under the current system, there are representatives who are accountable to EVERYONE-- who work hard on behalf of the students who aren't there.
Under the new system, the people who show up and shout will get to cast their vote. For the people who don't, can't, or won't show up, it's like they don't even exist.
Mob Rule
Contrary to its stated objective, this proposal would allow single students to become disproportionately influential. Students that are very popular, very well-connected, very wealthy, very involved, very opinionated, very outspoken, will effectively rule the Assembly.
Take me, for example. I'm a senior. This is my 7th semester living at Pitzer College. I've introduced speakers for Dining with Democracy in front of audiences of 200 people. 150 people read this blog yesterday. I have a voice that is FAR louder than the average student.
I am not against this proposal because I'm afraid that my own voice will be drowned out.
I am concerned for the first-year students who will be thrown into a hot mess of a governance system. I fear for the person who has a good idea but can't articulate it by yelling it out on the spot in front of a 150 people.
But when everybody shouts at once, nobody's voice is heard. And the quiet opinions will be silenced.
The current system of student governance protects minority opinions. It takes 2/3 of students to end a discussion about something, which protects that one third from being silenced. Under the new system, 51 people could vote to quiet the voices of 49 students who disagree with them, and win every time.
Vote NO.
Latest comments