Sunday’s debate provided candidates with the opportunity to flesh out their campaign slogans and platforms. Unfortunately, the only things filling Commonwealth Auditorium were buzzwords that held no sting.
Diversity. Openness. Accessibility. Subsidize. Cliches. Too many “um’s.”
As the microphone passed from one end to the other, there seemed to be a recurring theme: How do we, as potential presidents of the student body, best serve a student body which, for the most part, doesn’t care and doesn’t know about the Student Assembly’s objectives?
Bravo to all candidates for addressing this issue — they know it’s there. The problem, however, lies in the fact that nobody outlined a reasonable approach to the issue of apathy. Diversity and accessibility sound great, but they don’t count for anything without substantive plans.
Opening executive posts to the student body is one plan — and the only real plan put forth — but it faces an array of problems. First, selecting students from an applicant pool takes time, which an already congested system may not have room for. Second, opening positions to an apathetic and largely unaware student body stands a strong chance of getting zero responses.
It’s back to the old way of doing things, with the president appointing positions of power to whomever he or she pleases. The question remains: How do these candidates deal with a student body that either doesn’t understand the inner workings of the SA or simply doesn’t care?
The next great leader of the student body will be the one who can energize the College to do something as a collective body. Some might say that breaking the world record for spooning was a start.
Me? I want a president who can turn us from apathetic to motivated.
Email Chris Weber at [email protected]