There are several problems with the Daily editorial "A Sound Amendment," published on Monday. First of all, the two so-called grievances in the current culture representative system, as enumerated by the editorial, are inaccurate. While it may be true that there are currently only four cultural groups being represented along with a commuter student representative, the legislative process does not exclude the possibility of future representation of other groups.
"What makes these four [current culture groups with reps] more special?" Perhaps it is the fact that they took initiative in promoting their cause, and eventually garnered the support of the student body. The editorial is quick to pit groups against each other rather than promote an alliance and support for other culture groups. I agree that other groups should have a vote, but perhaps the Daily does not realize that this is a feasible goal, which can be accomplished within the current system.
Another point of contention in the editorial is the claim that "no one voted for these culture representatives..." Those who did vote for their culture representative and ELBO know very well that these culture representatives have gone through election processes unlike many senators. Elections are open to the active members of these cultural groups, meaning those students who set time aside and attend meetings. This by no means excludes other students on this campus. It is possible for a non-Latino student to attend an Association of Latin American Students (ALAS) meeting. For those students whose minds and ideas are in sync with that of the editorial, I encourage you to attend these meetings, to prove to yourself about the democratic process that they go through. So to clarify, the culture representatives are also qualified elected members, and often hold contested seats.
The movement of a culture representative to a lobbyist is retroactive. It is obvious the Senate is taking a step backwards rather than forwards. Lobbying gets nothing done. One vote does. Senators have selective hearing. If anyone attended the Senate meeting this past Sunday, you probably were disappointed when you saw a female senator, yawn, roll her eyes, and start laughing when students approached the Senate with statements at an open forum. If anything, these "qualified senators" should show some respect for the class members, whom they represent.
It was very disappointing and discouraging to see this one individual give dirty looks and be unprofessional in front of many students. When reading the statements from different groups, these students (including myself) took on the role of "lobbyists", except one minor thing, ...I forgot to mention that lobbyist will be forced into attending about eleven hours worth of meetings, in one week. Members of the "elected" Senate, "elected" Committee on Student Life and "elected" Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ), have nothing comparable
It is bad enough students have difficulty managing time, but to hold someone accountable for all these meetings and then not give them a vote is absurd. For those of you who do not know the intricacies of the amendment, the proposal gives senators the power to deem who is "qualified" to be inducted into a pool of lobbyists. Unfortunately, the proposal of amendment III to the TCU constitution has evolved from people that think one vote poses such a threat and influence that minorities will eventually take over.
As I left the large conference room, I felt sorry for those who stayed during the "Good and Welfare" section of the Senate meeting, not only because it can go on for a long time, but also because that's the part where the bashing starts. The potential name-calling, finger-pointing and the criticizing of the lobbyists, since they will not be allowed in at this point, no doubt commenced. I left feeling sorry for the current representatives because even after having the full support of peers that attended the open forum, I knew that nothing was accomplished and that the proposal would still stand.
A senator's job is to represent his or her class' ideas and concerns. If there happens to be a Latino person on the Senate, this doesn't in anyway guarantee the Latino community a voice that is guaranteed by the current system [vote]. It hasn't even been a year since last year's senate worked so hard to get this accomplished, so it is too young to make conclusions about the outcomes.
Those who proposed the amendment are not listening to the students who have already voted. Will senators continue to contest current amendments because they do not wish to go through the same legislative process for other groups? What is wrong with having other groups have culture representatives? Absolutely nothing. However, with only four culture reps, senators' lives are less tedious and meetings are shorter.
A senator's job is to represent the ideas and concerns of his or her class. Those who proposed this amendment are not listening to the students who have already voted, but are instead trying to make their own lives easier. Will senators continue to contest current amendments just because they do not wish to go through the same legislative process to add other groups? What is wrong with having other groups having culture representatives? Absolutely nothing.
I encourage all culture groups to vote against the stripping away of the voting "privileges" and to propose your own culture representatives. Even if you are not part of a culture group, you should learn about them. I repeat, a senator's job is to represent his or her class and their broad array of concerns, but he or she does not speak for the individual groups. Even though many see this as a window of opportunity for minority students to take over, the reality is that we are just one voice that will be silenced if this proposal goes through.
Noris Chavarria is a sophomore majoring in Spanish and American Studies.
