As the most competitive Student Association election in years comes to a close, the tactics employed by those running gives us pause. And we've come to the conclusion that the current outdated rules and regulations pertaining to campaigning are to blame.
It's a given the tactics and methods utilized by those running for SA office this year raise ethical considerations. Mass e-mailing, possible listserv abuses, illegal dorm flyers, and prohibited campaigning are all under question as a result of this election. And if any dirt does come out of this, it's because those running for office were limited to little over a week of campaigning. It's not surprising those running went over the top this year: the stakes are high, and the short time frame allotted for the campaign practically begged for shenanigans.
What's needed to fix SA's elections is an expanded campaign cycle of at least a month. An extended cycle would allow for more substantive forums and debates, and allow those challenging the incumbents to better get their platforms out, which would level the playing field for all running in the end. And more students would vote if there were a longer campaign because the election wouldn't sneak up on them.
Rule changes regarding the Internet and expanded polling destinations are needed as well. Why can't parties running for office set up their own Web sites? The space SA's Web site currently allots to the candidates is weak and doesn't adequately convey their messages. And having the Student Union as the only voting outlet for students is ridiculous. Booths should be placed in Capen Hall and on South Campus as well. Students who avoid the Union, which is common among UB's hefty commuter population, miss out on voting. Even a move to online voting using UBLearns offers potential for easier voting.
The competition in this year's SA election has been great but shows the need for improvement. Elections often bring out the worst in people; expanding the elections parameters is needed to limit this phenomenon as much as possible. Otherwise, you'll always have more of the same.
Borders control
Bookstore chain decision to dump Kurtz's magazine within their right
UB professor emeritus Paul Kurtz's magazine, Free Inquiry, is in national headlines once again. Borders and Walden Books decided against stocking the April-May issue, which reprinted four of the controversial Muhammad cartoons, in their stores. Kurtz claims this harms free speech. We say, get real.
Borders and Walden Books, as multi-national corporations, are certainly within their right to put what they choose on their stands. Wal-Mart, the world's largest company, routinely pulls CDs from its shelves that carry "parental guidance" stickers. And, issues of Rolling Stone, Cosmopolitan, and Vibe have all been pulled from Wal-Mart in the past for covers deemed offensive. Obviously, this isn't ideal in a free society, but it's not censorship. It actually points to the nuances freedom of speech entails. You can say what you want, but private citizens - and private companies - don't have to give it a forum.
The truth is that society practices self-censorship all the time, under the guise of decency and good taste. X-rated movies aren't shown in multiplex cinemas, and media -both news and entertainment - self-censor content regularly to sell as much of their product as possible. That means not offending their consumers. Borders can sell whatever it wants; all they care about is what's good for their business.
We support Kurtz's right to publish the offending cartoons, though we've said in the past his decision to do so was misguided. We also recognize a division between publication and distribution exists in terms of free speech. The government isn't restricting Kurtz's right to say what he wants, no one prevented him from printing what he wanted, but corporations choose not to carry it. That choice is simply a part of freedom of speech - the right not to say something.
Photo: Breadchastick / Wikimedia Commons
