In defense of SG

I was both an RSO leader for two years and the professional staff advisor to SGFC for four years. As a student, I took much the same self-righteous tone you do in assessing the competency of SG. As a staff member, I carried that self-righteousness with me, but it was soon supplanted by something much more reasonable: a desire to work with SG to accomplish the mutual goal of supporting student life at the U of C. It may come as a surprise to you, but SG is composed of people.

These people are as susceptible to ignorance and ego and the pull of good intentions (even when information or thorough analysis is lacking) as you are. I opposed the LCD screens too, but I assure you that that decision was made by people who believed they had the best interests of the student body in mind. Furthermore though, these people are elected by the abysmally low percentage of students who deign to vote, which is not a reflection on them as much as a reflection on the apathy that is very real and that is felt at every moment.

You are quick to jump on SG for a misguided plan, but where were you when they discussed what plan to take in the first place? Student Government meetings are open to anyone, and the name and contact information of your representatives are public. It is easy to be an armchair critic (and clearly easy to find a forum), but blessed few even bother to vote, much less send an e-mail or show up to a meeting. Rather than calling for the abolition of the single legitimized channel of influence between the students and the administration, why not call for increased participation on the part of the student body? I assure you that that is much more effective than an editorial.

Diana Doty

A.B. ’02