From 12 midnight tonight, the Tufts campus will start deciding the future of the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate's community representative system, which exists in order to give minority constituencies a voice on the body. Students have a choice of passing either Referendum 3 or 4 or rejecting both of them altogether — an option that has largely been neglected in the extensive debate on the matter.
Under the present community representatives system, student groups can petition for a position. Groups with representatives, including the Association of Latin American Students, the Asian Students Union, the Pan−African Alliance and the Queer Straight Alliance, elect an individual member to sit on the Senate and its Culture, Ethnicity and Community Affairs Committee.
Much of the discussion has centered on the issue of voting rights. Under the current system, community representatives do not have the right to vote on fiscal matters, which some have said diminishes their role on the Senate.
It is on this matter that the two referenda most sharply differ, with Referendum 3 proposing to grant them the same full voting rights afforded to senators and Referendum 4 continuing the status quo in this regard.
Both referenda propose the creation of a new Senate Executive Board position: a diversity and community affairs officer (DCA) charged with spearheading the Senate's diversity and minority outreach initiatives. Under Referendum 3, the DCA will be elected from among the TCU senators and thus has full voting rights. Under Referendum 4, the DCA would come from outside student government and be selected by the community representatives and the TCU president; the officer would have full voting rights.
Referendum 4 even goes one step further to allow for associate and assistant DCA positions if the number of community representatives rise to certain levels.
The Daily agrees with many criticisms of Referendum 3, particularly that granting community representatives full voting rights would violate the fundamental principle of equal representation. Regardless of one's views on affirmative action, any diversity−promotion measures should never infringe upon the basic tenet of fair, democratic representation.
Referendum 4, however, is also undemocratic in granting an unelected official — its version of the DCA — a vote on a representative government body.
Neither of the proposals are in accordance with the principles of a fair and democratic electoral system and thus do not offer a meaningful reform of the Senate's diversity representation.
We at the Daily support revamping the community representative system so that the concerns of minority constituencies are adequately accounted for in the Senate's deliberations. But neither referendum on tomorrow's ballot proposes a workable and appropriate reform of the system.
We urge the student body to reject both referenda, and framers of the referenda to return to the drawing board.
The ideal solution is one that combines elements of the two proposals: Referendum 3's proposal that the DCA come from within the Senate body and Referendum 4's requirement that community representatives not have full voting rights.
We envision a system where the DCA leads the Senate's diversity outreach, working closely with the community representatives to both actively engage in dialogue with minority groups and present their concerns to the Senate.
But the challenge of ensuring that the Senate effectively serves minority needs will not be met through altering electoral and voting procedures. Rather, achieving this goal depends largely on whether our Senators make an active and concerted effort to connect and engage with those they represent — including the minority groups on this campus.
