On Wednesday Aug. 28, The Spectrum reported the nullified GSA election last semester. At the same time, their editorial addressed student apathy. I am delighted to see the problems of student government finally get attention. However, the report missed important information and offered an unrealistic solution.
The Spectrum editorial said, "If students want leaders to recognize accountability to their constituents, the students must shrug off the mantle of apathy and take a more active role in the oversight of their representatives." This is easier to say than do. Student government is intensive, tedious and heavy work. Not many students can afford the luxury to take this "more active role."
Since the prevalence of student governments, student activism is gone - despite the fact that students are neither treated better nor empowered in any substantial decision-makings that concern their interests. Empirical evidence shows on many large campuses the administration always takes an active role in resurrecting fallen student governments, while students often remain indifferent.
Without adequate training and monitoring, student elections are destined to be questionable. No student officers have ever received training of parliamentary procedure. Serious violations of the most basic parliamentary procedure occurred without corrections at student government Senate meetings all the time. I had the chance to witness the 1998, 2001 and 2002 University Council student representative elections, GSA officer elections from 1998 to 2002 and four Student Activity Fee referenda. None of them can be seen legitimate. No university authorities cared. The Student-Wide Judiciary even ignored a filed charge over the 2001 University Council election.
The finding of voting fraud in the 2002 GSA election was merely a tip of the iceberg. The Spectrum was blind to the fact the election itself was illegally conducted in the first place. The Election Committee, which administered the election, had violated the election codes, broken its own promise and disregarded the GSA Senate's resolution when conducting the online election. The predetermined and announced voting Web site, method and security requirement were all altered before the election without approval.
Many student officers are not aware of their proper positions in the student government. The GSA constitution and bylaws also stipulate the Election Committee be independent from the executive officers. It is inappropriate for any incumbent officer to get involved with the decision-making process or to speak for the Election Committee in any manner. In The Spectrum's report, the GSA president showed no hesitation expressing her preference, saying, "the voting will probably be held online again."
Online elections are problematic because of fraud. In the Aug. 28 Spectrum, Kerry Grant, dean of the graduate school, said, "The possibility of fraud in a paper ballot system is equal to that in an online system." America has an ideological tendency to seek solutions with expensive technologies or complicated instruments, neglecting that simple, efficient and effective solutions are already available.
The status quo fosters student apathy and unduly administered elections. The university authorities disregard its responsibility in providing adequate democratic citizenship training to the student leaders. The combination of the authority to represent the students and the power to govern student affairs and services within one student organization is incompatible to the idea of democracy. The problems are institutionalized. Without a change to the status quo, I see no hope for any improvement.
