Give the Rest of the Students a Break

FOR SEVERAL weeks, bright yellow posters brightened the kiosks around the college not advertising movies or auditions, but luring undergraduates to elections for spots on Four Faculty standing committees. The position on the committees offered a chance to influence Faculty opinion and policy on issues ranging from advising to athletics. But, though the opportunity to run gained wide publicity, the actual election fell far short of the egalitarian mark.

Held by the Undergraduate Council, the elections were open to all undergraduates, including council members but only council members could vote. Many of these bold 25 who last week declared their candidacies for a total of seven seats were in for a surprise come election time at the UC's regular meeting last Sunday. After short speeches by each self-nominated candidate and several numbered more that half of those elected to the standing committees.

In fact, almost all the candidates who were council representatives won seats--predictably. Of the 25 candidates, five were council representatives. And of those five, four won committee seats: the fifth was a freshmen new to the council.

Not only do the candidates with name recognition-those on his council-have a natural edge, but also the last that the committee's purposes are obscure to the average undergraduate hinders any candidate's attempt to run on a coherent platform. An ability to propose constructive action depend on an understanding of the committees, which appears to hinge on how many council members of candidate known. Such self-selection, however, destroys the original purpose of increasing the breadth of student opinions expressed to the Faculty on key issues for undergraduates.

The Faculty standing committees on Libraries. Advising and counseling. Advisory committees on Shareholder Responsibility (ACSR) and Athletics have been established by the Faculty Council to provide a forum for faculty student exchange. The Faculty gave the Undergraduate council authority to select representatives to the committees, feeling that the selection process should be charged to those who represents undergraduates.

The Faculty left the election format up to the council. The UC wasn't required to hold college wide elections, nor was it required to launch a massive publicity drive to attract candidates. But while it limited the voting process to its own representatives, its poster drive suggested that it wanted to give all undergraduates an opportunity to sit on the committees-in order to broaden students input. As it turned out, four of the seven people elected.

The standing committees already had a direct line to Faculty and administrators through the official students government with result such as this, the massive postering effort turned out to be nothing more than a waste both time and a portion of the Undergraduate Council's limited budget.

THERE ARE two wave in which this problem could be averted next year. First, Undergraduate Council members could be ineligible to run for the standing committees. Such a policy would necessarily involve more students in matter of University ends concern. Moreover, it would increase the number of student who would run for the standing committees because "outsiders" would no longer be intimidated by the Front-runner status of the UC-members running.

If the consensus is that council members should not be excluded, then a campus wide election is the only alternative. This could easily be accomplished in conjunction with elections for the Undergraduate Council and Senior Class Marshals-and those elected would have the endorsement of the entire students population. Also, such a system would not waste one of the dozen or so council meetings on standing committee elections.

As a third, less desirable alternative, the Undergraduate Council could even limit eligibility for candidacy to its own membership. At least this would and the hypocrisy of simultaneously promoting more student participation and keeping insiders on the inside.