In a March 14 editorial “Aid Japan, responsibly,” The Flat Hat compared student responses to the recent tsunami in Japan with those to last January’s Haitian earthquake, suggesting a more efficient direction for aspiring aid. We at William and Mary Supports Haiti also believe students should actively engage with global events through their local philanthropic efforts. Unfortunately, the article made a couple errors of assumption.

First, Japan and Haiti are two distinct nations with wildly dissimilar disaster responses. While Japan is a prosperous G8 country with an established capacity for relief, Haiti was — and remains — the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere with political instability crippling any semblance of effective governance. Every life lost is a tragedy in itself, but Haiti suffered 12 times current casualty estimates in Japan: 230,000 (11.5 percent of population) to 18,000 (.0014 percent of population). Together, the record earthquake and thin response created a catastrophe unlike anything in our generation. That’s why the student network of WMSH has remained committed to Haitian reconstruction, even as the American media moves on.
Since Haiti’s government lacks sufficient relief resources, a surfeit of global NGO’s have swamped the region, arguably robbing the Haitian people of their rightful democratic participation. Seeing this occur last spring, WMSH channeled all campus donations to two rural Haitian-run institutions, with $3,000 to reconstructing the University of Fondwa, and $668.11 to Sonje Ayiti (a community organization teaching ESL and cholera prevention). What’s more, we have continued to fundraise this year, reconstituting as an official on-campus organization to raise over $300 for our Haitian partners.

WMSH has not disbanded, and certainly we hope to be more than “rarely heard from” as we follow through on our long-term commitment. In fact, through WMSH (along with Haiti Compact and Catholic Campus Ministries mission trips), we hope students will continue to eagerly learn about the country, for both its plight and its rich cultural history. We encourage similar student efforts for Japan to look past the photos and into the unique underlying situation of its people, thus enabling an adaptive, educated, sustained and compassionate approach to all relief.

I will be the first to admit that I am not overly educated regarding politics here on campus. It is easy to become wrapped up in your own life at the College of William and Mary — classes, activities, social life and everything else can really distract students from what is going on with the Student Assembly. That being said, I made sure to vote in the recent elections. After all, I have always held to the opinion that you cannot complain about what decisions are made if you didn’t partake in the voting process. Although I participated in all sections of the voting, to me the most important aspect were the referendums on the ballot this year.

I liked that I had the chance to directly vote on referendums concerning STI testing and gender-neutral housing, because I often feel that students become distanced from decisions made due to the lack of direct voting. Obviously, it would be impossible for all students to directly vote on all issues, but I appreciated the chance to influence the outcome of the two referendum votes. It was also reassuring to see the results of the vote, with both referendums receiving above 80 percent of the votes. This signifies to me that students have similar views on these issues, and it’s nice to know that our campus supports both STI testing and the option for gender-neutral housing. I congratulate the student body for passing these two referendums.

What was most frustrating for me, however, was the lack of candidates — specifically for my class, 2013. I was disappointed to see that several offices had only one person running. I am sure these candidates are qualified and will do a great job, but a lack of choice always concerns me, especially in an election. Without competition, I believe the candidates have less incentive to determine the student body wants and needs and to fulfill those through their decisions. I realize write-in votes were an option, but realistically it would be very hard for a write-in candidate to compete with someone officially on the ballot. In the future, I hope to see more students breaking into politics on campus and taking a chance by running for office. Increased diversity in ideas and opinions and more competition for offices will only make our elected bodies more helpful to students.

As I mentioned, I was not very aware of the candidates’ campaigns at all going into this year’s elections. Therefore, I was relying primarily on the short statements included on the ballot for each candidate. I admit it is up to voters to be educated and informed about all candidates in order to make a truly informed decision. However, I think it would be helpful to include more than simply the short paragraphs. While these perhaps were meant to give insight into the overall personality and views of the candidate, not all of them actually outlined the positions of the candidate. This made voting more confusing because it was harder to compare between candidates. Realistically, many students have not paid close attention to the campaigns leading up to elections, so I think it would benefit all candidates and the election as a whole to include more pertinent information about each student running. This could still be set up as a separate link, so that it would not burden the ballot with extra information that some students wouldn’t want to see. I have to say that although I voted, I was not overly confident in my vote in several cases simply because I could not glean much real information from the short blurbs included on the ballot.

There is no excuse as to why all students on campus should not have cast votes and involve themselves in the political process on campus, which I think is very important. The more people that get involved, the better our SA will be able to align its goals with students and understand what the campus really needs and wants.

As a member of the College of William and Mary’s Redistricting Team, I would like to counter a couple of potentially misleading points concerning Virginia’s upcoming redistricting session made in the March 22 op-ed “Redrawing the lines.” Throughout the piece, points were made about the negative effects of political manipulation on school districts, centrist voters and community bonds through redistricting. It is right to mention and object to these maladies, but such evils of the political system are not the result of redistricting per se; rather, they are the perverse form of redistricting known as gerrymandering.

The practice of gerrymandering, exemplified by Patrick Henry’s attempt to have James Madison drawn out of his own Virginia district, received its name from 19th century Massachusetts Governor Elbrige Gerry and has since taken on many nefarious tendencies. Using census data, an incumbent’s opposing voters can be packed into a single district in order to minimize their overall power, or they can be dispersed across districts so they are unable to constitute a majority anywhere. In the spirit of the bipartisanship we all love, incumbents from both parties can consolidate their bases to create universally safe and uncompetitive elections. Prior to — and, some would argue, after — the Voting Rights Act of 1965, these same tactics could be used to suppress a racial minority’s political power. The advancement in mapping technologies has only exacerbated they ability of gerrymandering to delineate districts that already look something like flattened squirrels.

Given this, citizens should be skeptic when approaching this year’s round of redistricting in Virginia and throughout the United States, but one should also remember redistricting is a necessity and has the power to correct the same evils it can cause. The implication made by last week’s article that redistricting should somehow be avoided is a tremendous blow to democracy. Population shifts and growth necessitate the redrawing and reallocating of districts if we are to have one vote per person in our state legislatures and the House of Representatives. If Congressman A represents 400,000 fewer people than Congressman B, the former can be influenced by more and more consolidated interests. The incentive to vote also becomes skewed between districts. Simply put, maintaining equal representation demands redistricting.
More and more states are also opting to have independent commissions — not legislators — draw the legislative maps. Alhough Virginia and other southern states have historically been the most guilty of gerrymandering, even Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has appointed a bipartisan commission to recommend new legislative maps that avoid political considerations. I’m proud to say the teams from the College’s government department and the Marshall-Wythe School of Law teams, after spending spring break on the beach with precinct charts and census blocks, won divisions of a statewide collegiate competition and created a State Senate map which Delegate Robert Brink (D-Arlington) plans to introduce in the upcoming legislative session.

Redistricting projects like this have the ability to correct burdensome school district breakups, to empower racial minorities, to respect county and city boundaries, and to increase competitiveness, all while maintaining the democratic necessity of equal-population districts. Through open-access mapping software, more and more citizens are able to create their own maps, submit suggestions to their legislators and most importantly, prove that legislators, are not the only ones endowed with an expertise in mapmaking. The people from all walks of life, including extracurricular clubs at the College, partaking in the redistributing process should be celebrated, not bemoaned.

It is a fact of democratic life that redistricting will and should happen. It is a complex, contentious process often ending in representatives choosing their voters instead of vice versa. I encourage all who are interested to contact their state legislators and remind them that redistricting is no longer a closed-door process. As with all democratic issues, redistricting is best improved when citizens become more active in the process, not when they dismiss it.

This week, the Student Assembly, Young Democrats and College Republicans have joined together to host a week of events constructed to help students better understand the rights they have here at the College of William and Mary and in the City of Williamsburg. More specifically, the goal of these campus-wide events is to inform students about regulations of which they may not be aware and to help students understand the consequences of violating the law.

These events, most of which are set-up as forums, will touch on issues such as the College’s drug, alcohol and sexual harassment policies. Sanctions against those found responsible for such violations will also be discussed. It is not only important for students to be informed about the conduct code, but to also know the possible repercussions for violations. Better knowledge of the code may help prevent future violations, and knowing the consequences could also be a deterrent for unsafe or foolish actions. Students should also understand what happens when a student is accused of a violation, including what resources are available, what hearing options are accessible and how the process fits in with the College’s community of trust.

Discussions will also focus on laws in the City of Williamsburg. Many students live off campus, and this week provides a chance for them to learn the city’s laws, which sometimes differ from College policy. It is important to realize that a violation of Williamsburg law is a criminal offense.

We urge students to attend these events and to become informed about their communities’ laws. It is a chance to learn about the values most important to the College and Williamsburg area. It is a chance for students to understand why some regulations exist and what their rights are while living here at the College and in the surrounding community.

At 8:00 p.m. Thursday, the polls for the Student Assembly election were closed, and the College of William and Mary eagerly awaited the results. With the votes counted, Kaveh Sadeghian ’12 and Molly Bulman ’12 were named the College’s newest SA President and Vice President. Following a tough campaign, we congratulate them on their victory. As we go into next year, we hope both Sadeghian and Bulman remember the support they have from the College community and that they honor their campaign promises with this support in mind.

In the last few days, a campaign based on “no more petty politics” has put to the test the ideals and aspirations of their candidacy. The SA has been a culture of distrust and uncertainty, and it is our hope that Sadeghian and Bulman will be able to eliminate this atmosphere and to replace it with communication and compromise.

Sadeghian and Bulman campaigned on a platform based on more than just redefining the view of the SA.
There are plenty of other improvements we wish to see. For example, we would like to see a change in the Board of Visitors’ relation to the College. The BOV decides many things pertaining to the College — from the faculty to the budget to commencement speakers. Positions on the board are important and powerful. As president of the SA, Sadeghian will have a seat on the BOV, which means a direct vote from the students of the College. The position may seem like just a formality, but the ability to vote and make change presents a unique opportunity. As Sadeghian attends BOV meetings, he has the chance to affect College policy. We have faith he will relay student opinions to the BOV and show that students are invested in the College by conducting more surveys and obtaining more student responses as promised. We don’t just want our opinion to be heard: We want to see the BOV — and the school for that matter — making changes in line with student opinions.

In addition to uniting the student body and the BOV, we also want to see Sadeghian and Bulman unite undergraduate and graduate students. With his promises to get graduate students more representation in the SA, Sadeghian will have the opportunity to unify the two groups the College exists to serve. Kaveh’s creation of HARK — a website where student organizations can post online flyers and announcements — will also serve to unify campus. The website has university authentication and will launch this spring.

Another initiative on their platform was the implementation of a need-based scholarships. This scholarship will benefit students in low-income situations. Socio-economic status should not deter any student selected to be part of this community at the College. Sadeghian’s plan involves SA fundraising for an outside bank account controlled by the Office of Financial Aid, which would then allocate money to students in need. Students would be able to use this money for tuition, books and other various expenses. The College community values its students, and this is one campaign promise we want to see fulfilled.

Again, we wish Sadeghian and Bulman the best of luck as they step into their new roles in the coming months. Be proud of the accomplishments you have already achieved, and be proud that the student of the College selected you. Embrace this support, and remember to let the voices of students be heard, and to push for actions to be taken.