6
WLlz m MTi ■
by Lydia Berzsenyi
On April 1, 1987, elections were
held at Texas A&M University to elect
the school’s student leaders. For this
all-important election, a scant 5,500
students expressed their opinions by
voting.
On April 8,1987, run-off elections
were held, and this time only 2,019
A&M students showed up at the polls.
These numbers don’t sound
unreasonably small, but considering
the fact that the student body
numbers close to 35,000, this means
that only 1 out of every 6 students cast
their votes and chose who they
wanted to represent them.
Why the extremely poor turnout in
such an important race? The reasons
may vary with the individual, but the
bottom line is that students just don’t
seem to care.
They don’t care who represents
them in Student Government. They
don’t care what Student Government
does or who is involved with it. Many
just don’t care about Student
Government at all.
Richard de Castongrene was one of
the nine candidates who ran for
student body president in the April 1
election. Castongrene drew attention
for his unique campaign platform,
namely “Student Government should
be abolished!”
De Castongrene said he bases his
claim on his opinion that Student
Government has no real power and
that it is not representative of the
students. He said that Student
Government would provide better
representation if its members were
randomly selected out of a computer.
De Castongrene said that he ran for
student body president as a statement
against the existing system. In the
statement he entered in the Battalions
Voter’s Guide, he said that most of
what goes on in Student Government
is needless.
“Student Government needs to
continuously prove its need to exist,”
he said. “If it fails to prove it, Student
Government should be abolished.”
David Alders, student body
president 1984-1985, defined what
he termed the three major functions of
student government:
• To serve as a platform representing
all the students for the advancement
of student opinion to the
administration, with whom the student
government meets frequently.
• To increase and improve
programming by working to advance
Aggie Muster, Parent’s Weekend, the
Big Event and the Aggie Blood Drive.
• To promote leadership training.
Alders said this function is especially
important because Student
Government closely mirrors the
structure of the Federal Government,
so training in Student Government is
invaluable.
Read that first function again. “To
serve as a platform representing all the
students for the advancement of
student opinion...” Does Student
Government fulfill this function? Do
the leaders of the school truly
represent their constituents in issues
that affect them?
De Castongrene’s argument and
these questions raise the issue of
whether Student Government does
have a need to exist. One way to
arrive at a conclusion is to look into
the past. For example, what
accomplishments has Student
Government made in the 16 years it
has existed in its present form?
In a report submitted by Pat
Pearson, 1982-1983 student body
president, there was a list of 10
significant contributions made by
Student Government during the
period from 1972 to 1983:
• Secured a full-time legal advisor for
students (1973)
• Brought about the printing of class
schedules and professor assignments
for preregistration (1975)
• Initiated night-time shuttle van now
driven by Alpha Phi Omega (1979)
• Secured lighting for Penberthy
Intramural Complex (1977)
• Secured a Nautilus weight gym for
student use, opened in Spring 1981
(1979)
• Secured six new lights for aerobics
track (1979)
• Researched and recommended an
off-campus recreation area (1981)
• Initiated the Conference on
Student Government Assiciations
(COSGA) during which student
governments from colleges and
universities across the country are able
to exchange ideas (1981)
• Increase in Library Hours during
Dead Week (1982)
• Student Academic Council (1982)
• Central Quiz File Started (1982)
Several highly debated issues
which don’t appear on the above list
have received a great deal of
recognition through the years by the
student body. Bills have been
presented to the Student Senate
which would: request a ‘no-
confidence’ clause to be included on
all election ballots in 1976,
standardize Q-drop periods within the
various academic colleges in 1980,
require professors to provide written
course requirements in 1984.
recognize the Gay Student Services
Organization in 1984. improve the
bicycle parking and traffic problem on
campus in 1985. and provide funding
for extended library hours in 1982
and in 1985.
Let’s look at just two of these
issues, one of which gained the
Student Senate’s approval and one of
which was dismissed by the Senate. In
both cases, the Senate voted contrary
to the student body’s expressed views.
This discrepancy leads to the question
of just how much say students have
had in the issues that have directly
affected them.
In 1976, the Student Senate
debated the possibility of adding a
‘no-confidence’ selection on election
ballots. Under the resolution, the “no-
confidence" choice would have
appeared on all presidential and vice-
presidential ballots. It would give the
voter the chance to express his
opinion that none of the candidates
meet with his approval. If a majority of
the voters registered “no-confidence,"
a second election would be held
within two weeks of the first election.
The “no-confidence” selection would
not appear in the second election.
Supporters of the bill argued that
the resolution would pressure
candidates into more earnest
campaigning, and also would allow
voters to express their interest, or lack
of interest, in Student Government.
Stan Stanfield, the vice president for
academic affairs at the time,
introduced the bill.
“No voter should be denied the
right for participation in an electon
due to his lack of confidence in the
candidates, ” he said. “The use of
confidence voting encompasses the
basic rationale of being wise enough
to choose representative leadership.
The logical end to the transferral of
that rationale is that an individual who
is given the responsibility to choose his
leaders should be given the chance to
reject leadership he deems
undesirable.”
However, opponents of the bill
argued that it would not increase the
intensity of campaigning and would
only delay filling some governmental
offices. Scott Gregson, the vice
president for finance in 1976, was
particularly opposed to the bill.
“This proposal has no place in our
election process, on a campus level, a
local level, or a national level,” he
said. “A negative vote like ‘no-
confidence’ does not do anything to
aid the image of Student
Government. A&M is a unique
institution because we have resisted
useless change This is a useless
change. Lets keep A&M unique
Before the Senate voted on the
resolution, the canvassing committee
of the Senate polled students to get
their reactions to the idea. The poll of
229 people showed that 7 8.1 percent
agreed that there should be a method
to demonstrate “no-confidence” in
the candidates, while 17.0 percent
disagreed and 4.8 percent were
undecided.
Despite the enthusiasm for the “no
confidence” clause demonstrated by
Jhose polled, on Sup. I thu
resolution was defeated by the
Student Senate by a vote of 33 30
with one abstention
The fight for recognition of the Gay
Student Services Organization
between the organization, the Texas
A&M Administration and the state
court system dragged on for years.
Although the actual decision-making
process rested with the administration,
members of the student body did
register their opinions in the issue
through a Student Government
resolution calling on the Texas A&M
Board of Regents to recognize the
GSSO.
The resolution passed by one vote
in the Student Senate in October
1984 and was a formal expression of
the will or intent of the Student
Senate. Yet there was heated debate
over the Senate’s decision in a
meeting of the Issues and Grievances
Committee of the Student
Government.
The resolution’s approval would
have been justifiable if it had been
passed in compliance with the student
body’s opinion, since Student
Government is supposed to represent
the student body’s opinions.
However, 55 percent of a group of
students polled by The Battalion said
they disagreed with the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals' ruling which was in
favor of the organization’s recognition.
It was pointed out that the polling
was not considered a true sample of
the entire student body, as only 100
people were surveyed. The
breakdown was as follows: 39 seniors,
21 juniors, eight sophomores, five
freshmen, 20 graduate students,
seven faculty and staff members, 33
women and 67 men. The average age
of the respondents was 22.62.
One senator said that in an
independent poll of his constituents,
only two out of 100 persons were in
favor of the Student Government
resolution.
The results of these and other polls
conducted before the final voting was
held were considered, and Senate
members were reminded of the
importance of representing the
opinions of their constituents. Yet,
several senators told reporters that
they voted for the resolution even
though most of then constituents were
opposed to it.
One senator said, “How the Senate
votes has not always been in the best
interests of the students. ”
So the question remains: Are
student opinions truly being
represented? Looking at these two
examples from the past, the answer
would appear to be no.
Admittedly, there are Student
Government-addressed issues that
have both benefitted the students and
represented their views.
Students must let their leaders
know how they feel if representation is
to be improved. Otherwise, the
apathetic attitude associated with
Student Government will continue to
be a detrimental thorn in the sides of
all students.
“Student Government needs to
continuously prove its need to exist. If it
fails to prove it, Student Government
should be abolished.”
— Richard de Castongrene, 1987 student
body presidential candidate.