Apathy to the Council

Some people will dispute the point that the Council should have the interest of the student body. They say that there is nothing in the work of the Council to excite interest and that only a basic change in the functions of the organization could affect its position in the eyes of the public.

But granted that the students should be concerned with the activities of the group that represents then--and the Council is based on this principle--and given student indifference to the Council, we are faced with a need for change.

There are two possible means of correction. First, that the public should be artificially stimulated by election campaigns and undergraduate hullabaloo to pay more attention. And second, that the Council should be changed in some way to make it more interesting.

An appointed Council would undoubtedly do better (and be more "significant") than an elected one, but there are a great many weaknesses to the appointive system. Probably the loss would be more than the gain.

The best way to improve the Council is to get better men on it. How could we get better men to run for the Council? Have a better Council to attract the best. How could top-flight Council aspirants be sure of a chance in the elections? To have a chance, in pre-election campaigning, to show the excellence of their new and old ideas.

It all boils down to a paradox. To have better Councils we must have better Councils. The only suspicion of a break in this vicious circle is the prospect of intelligent and widespread campaigning.

With this in mind, the Council should to every-thing in its power to encourage campaigning. The most immediately attractive notion is for the Council to provide free mimeographing service to all candidates who have something to say and yet don't want to spend the money. This is the least the Council could do to foster a decent volume of campaigning and possibly raise voting above the "I like Joe" level.