LETTERS

  /  

May 2, 2005

Letters to the Editor

SG election coverage

I'm writing in response to the Maroon's lack of response to Robert Hubbard and Phil Caruso's incredible immaturity about the relationship between the student government and the student press. Two-thirds of the SG Executive Slate elect has decided not to speak with the Maroon because the Maroon endorsed their slate only unenthusiastically.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Does Better Slate Than Never intend to give the Maroon the silent treatment throughout the entire year? What if Hubbard needs to announce something? Does he think that the student body will flock to the SG website? The Doomsday Party, as far as I can tell, ran their campaign on the fact that the SG website's links don't work. Moreover, does Better Slate Than Never think that when they do bad things, no one should notice?

The Maroon has given Robert Hubbard better than he deserves. Hubbard fell down on the job of announcing that executive slate petitions were due, essentially rigging the election and leading directly to the low number of slates this year. Though I am sure that the Maroon knew of these insinuations, it was never mentioned nor investigated. Also, instead of steering away from endorsing a stagnant and perhaps even unethical slate, the Maroon decided to endorse what they know. In my opinion this was a bad decision, especially given Hubbard and Caruso's thanklessness.

Once I read about Hubbard and Caruso's unwillingness to speak with the only campus publication that will likely run many articles on SG, I expected to see a scathing unsigned editorial on the relationship between government the press. Instead, I saw one on T-shirts. As a former Maroon editor, I think that the Maroon has let SG get away with its utter opacity for far too long. Most students don't understand the complicated workings of committees and financing in SG; the least the executive slate could do is talk to us. If the president and vice president for administration now won't even communicate with the student paper, the issue has become urgent.

This is not about SG being an important institution in our lives. This is about people in (some amount of) power being nice and playing fair.

Libby Pearson

Fourth-year in the College

On behalf of the Doomsday Party, I would like to thank everyone who participated in this year's SG elections, particularly those who so enthusiastically gave us their support. Though the outcome was not the one we had hoped for, we are nonetheless pleased that the message of our campaign received such a positive response from so many students. In the coming year, we will continue to work toward the goals we have set, using all the means at our disposal to ensure that the entire student population is properly represented, and we hope that everyone who supported our campaign will join our efforts.

The need for increased student involvement in campus leadership is as clear as ever now that the polls are closed and the campaign posters have come down. With the free publicity that accompanies the end of the elections, the slate-elect had a great opportunity to lay the foundations for improved communication between the student body and its representatives. Unfortunately, in their first public act after the poll results were announced, two members of the incoming slate unconditionally refused to answer the questions of a reporter from this paper. It is simply not acceptable for the leaders of Student Government to willfully ignore the people they were elected to represent, and I sincerely hope that this is not a precedent for the way the new slate plans to communicate with students. They can do better, and we should demand it.

Mike McCarney

Doomsday Slate Presidential candidate

Third-year in the College