A Hunter Dictated
Israel Burns
Issue date: 4/30/08 Section: Opinion
|
Many an aware student noticed that the elections this semester were a bit one-sided. The electronic ballot sent through Hunter's SNet made it painfully obvious who would run this coming year's student government. Hunter United ran virtually unopposed in all but two positions, and even those two brave souls ran as separate independents, respectively. Withstanding the feeling of futility that comes with having to vote in an election skewed so heavily in one direction, students noticed that this year there was no debate, no raffles from the third floor, no election parties, and none of the general excitement that comes with a dual-party wooing of the public.
All the joyous conflict of undergraduate elections was non-existent this semester. The defeat of competition for seats means Hunter students lose the ability to connect with their representatives. From President to freshman senator, the candidates who were elected are totally autonomous from the student body. This means none of Hunter's tens of thousands of students and hundreds of student clubs have any real leverage in affecting change through their student government. In totality, it means that students lose their right to choose, or rather, to vote.
This of course is not the fault of Hunter United. There is no way they might have known that they would run unopposed. In fact, rather than the current administration, this is the work of an apathetic student body disheartened by the previous year's election, an election in which Hunter Voice and Hunter United fought hard for the respect of the Hunter community, and both nearly died trying. What's happening here brings to mind the 2004 Presidential election. The Democratic Party, weakened and disheartened by the looming figure of an irresolute war, lost touch with its base and was plowed over by a unified Republican message. The only problem with that unified message was that it was wrong. The message was not wrong because it was unified, but rather because it was uncontested and, as such, incomplete.
Hunter United is no more at fault than the Republican Party was for standing behind their candidate. The Democrats, on the other hand, were scared, and in some cases more apathetic than defenseless. We face a similar dilemma now. Hunter's best leaders will always be selected by popular vote. However, this means nothing if the populace has no choice as to whom is on the ballot. Sure, the candidates are admirable, and the new administration will work together masterfully to plan many new and exiting events. Nevertheless, we should not forget that the political process was designed to be confrontational and difficult for a reason. The issues that matter most, such as student housing, tuition and general education requirements, are topics that should be thoroughly discussed, reviewed and built by consensus. Hunter students, quite literally, cannot afford to lose their right to select the voices of our government. The end of choice is the end of accountability, and the end of accountability is the beginning of totalitarianism.
Be the first to comment on this story