Opinion: Editorial

FACES only a mother could love

The ASM elections are upon us. (Or didn’t you notice?) Just as in previous years, a critically low number of people are campaigning for Associated Students of Madison Student Council. The only contested seats are for representatives from the College of Letters and Sciences, where 19 students are vying for 12 seats. Many candidates are running on the For Accessibility, Community, and Empowerment of Students slate, comprised largely of activists whose Vote No Coalition defeated ASM’s recent reform efforts.

FACES opposes the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates on principle unless equivalent increases in financial aid are provided to accompany tuition hikes. One member even suggested lowering tuition at the University of Wisconsin. Clearly, the FACES slate does not understand basic economic principles, not least the imperative tuition keep pace with inflation. (They also remain blisteringly unappreciative of Chancellor Biddy Martin’s comprehensive attempts to increase financial aid for lower-middle-class students.)

FACES’ plans for promoting diversity on campus are also misguided. While we do agree refunding the PEOPLE program is, in practice, a reasonable move, their central recommendation with regards to what ASM is feasibly able to do is mandating diversity training for all ASM and SSFC representatives. Someone should alert FACES no amount of incessant cheerleading will solve our issues with diversity. Symbolic statements of solidarity and decisions to fund specific diversity initiatives will not bring this campus one millimeter closer to the inclusivity we desire. The best way to advocate for minority representation on campus is to ensure quality, fair-minded representation for all students; the zealotry and grandstanding of FACES misses the point. This grandstanding is equally-evident in FACES’ safety-oriented proposal for more blue light phones near the Southeast residence halls — an anachronistic suggestion which, in the age of universal cell phone usage, leaves us scratching our heads.

All of this neglects the most serious objection to FACES: This candidate slate largely misstates ASM’s role, believing “grassroots activism” can be deployed for any political whim whatsoever. The last thing we need on Student Council is a group of people who spent the past six months apologizing for ASM’s grave institutional flaws and scaring students away from needed reform. Another FACES candidate spoke repeatedly to us about giving “power to the people” — a worthy idea, which traditionally requires clear conceptions of power and clear plans for change. The above policy prescriptions notwithstanding, the FACES platform reveals a tidy assortment of banal platitudes.

One exception from FACES is Sam Stevenson, who claims only nominal affiliations with this ill-conceived platform. Stevenson supports the Madison Initiative, taking a more moderate position on tuition increases, as well as acknowledging a need to tone down the sometimes vitriolic rhetoric that has alienated some students. You could do much worse than voting for Stevenson.

Yet FACES is not the only problem with this year’s ballot. Other candidates have more feasible policy positions but are comparably ignorant of what their responsibilities as ASM representatives would be. Most of these 19 candidates have no business running for ASM. After dismissing both FACES and equally uninformed candidates, we are left with four people who could conceivably do something in these positions; Stevenson is one. Then there’s former Student Services Finance Committee Chair Kurt Gosselin and current SSFC Secretary Tyler Junger, who already have demonstrated informed leadership. Finally, we were impressed by Adam Johnson. Johnson unambiguously supports the Madison Initiative; he also has specific ideas for improving lighting throughout campus and revamping the SAFE program to cut down on frivolous usage.

We wish we could endorse more candidates for ASM, but there’s just nothing to work with here. For now, Gosselin, Junger, Adam Johnson and Stevenson will have to do. These individuals might not ensure that 2009-10 becomes when our sarcophagus of a student government breaks through into meaningful leadership. But voting for them certainly can’t hurt.

Have a thought? We welcome your input, but please be polite and stay on topic wherever possible. Your comment may be deleted if it is inappropriately off topic or promotional or if it is unnecessarily rude or contains personal attacks. We may delete comments for other reasons as well. Just keep it simple and focus on your points as respectfully as possible.

We allow and encourage comments employing satire, wit and irony to make points. Do not flag comments just because you disagree. Flagged comments will be immunized from further flagging unless they stray far from the guidelines and do not add to the discussion. Before flagging a comment you think is offensive, consider your time might be better spent rebutting it than censoring it.

blog comments powered by Disqus

4 older comments

user-pic

The lights are still out for Elizabeth Wrigley-Field.

user-pic

Badger Herald,

What are your thoughts on Tom Templeton? I heard he is running and is currently involved in ASM.

user-pic

Adam Johnson for ASM Student Council! :)

user-pic

The FACES slate is a little faulty, yes. But it’s ludicrous to say that none of them have any business running for office. Any student can run. It’s a democratic student government, which means that possibly none of us have any business in voting for FACES, not that they shouldn�t run. I think there’s a few good ones in FACE worth your vote.

“Then there�s former Student Services Finance Committee Chair Kurt Gosselin and current SSFC Secretary Tyler Junger, who already have demonstrated informed leadership…”

MAYBE he’s the FORMER SSFC chair because he stepped down after bullying, side-deal-making with, and silencing the groups the committee he chaired allocated funds to…not because he demonstrated informed leadership. Duh.

Donate