How do you tell someone that he should vote against democratic process?
It is a hard thing to do.
We are writing today, however, because we believe, as do many others, that the problems with the recent Undergraduate Assembly chairman reform are too significant to go overlooked. Moreover, we are writing today as both your elected UA representatives and as fellow members of the student body.
Inevitably, the discussion of changes of this nature is subject to innuendo and polemic. We hope to raise factual objections to the proposed changes.
Allowing a direct election of the UA President and Vice President will lead to less substantive elections and process, weaken an established and effective system, divide and hinder Penn student government, and reduce the overall effectiveness of the UA.
We feel these changes will weaken the substance and experience necessary for elections. At present no prior UA experience, or even the approval of current members, is required to compete for a position whose role is effectively to “lead” the UA. As a result, few checks and balances exist on the candidate’s ability to run. While reformers hope that their reform will raise the level of the debate surrounding the UA president, more likely we can expect the slogan-heavy, policy-light tactics that often characterize Penn student elections.
Furthermore, these changes will create confusion about the election process. Adding “UA President” and “Vice President” to a ballot that already boasts candidates for three class boards and 30-some UA candidates is a surefire recipe for even more election-time confusion. We can expect more misconceptions about the role of the UA, as well as more false hopes about what the role of President can actually accomplish.
In contrast, we feel the UA’s current structure correctly serves its dual role: to act as the voice of undergraduates, and work with Penn administrators on internal reforms.
The current internal debate to elect the heads of the UA is both thorough and policy-oriented. Not all members enter with their minds made up, and not all members’ minds remain made up after thorough deliberation. Generally, though, UA members do enter these elections as very discerning voters. Historically, this ensures that the chairman must remain closely accountable to the body that elected him or her.
Should the chairman be elected directly, as the new reform proposes, we as students will have limited information on which to decide who is best suited to represent the entire student body fairly and effectively. It is also possible that special interest groups on campus will mobilize their resources to propel one of their own members into office to pursue one-sided policy objects that are not in the best interest of the entire student body they are supposed to represent.
The effectiveness of the UA will also be diminished by a direct election. Few community members are in a position to fully appreciate the internal duties of the UA. Additionally, the direction of the body is often set by the leadership: weakening the knowledge of the Penn administration that UA experience often builds will accordingly weaken the policy reforms the UA is capable of carrying out.
Finally, we believe that these changes will divide Penn student government as a whole. Many reformers, almost all of whom are seniors, have publicly stated that these adjustments will take a few years to “get right,” leaving it to underclassmen to grapple with and implement these drastic changes. In the meantime, our six-branch student government will be mired by confusion over new expectations and shared responsibilities between class boards, the new UA president and remaining other branches.
The Undergraduate Assembly has effectively fulfilled its mission under the current structure for over forty years. In contrast, those proposing direct election have spent only a handful of weeks designing and championing a radically new system. Before you vote, we hope you consider its negative impact on a body that has long fought for your interests — and give this initiative the time it deserves.
Daniel Sanchez and Hunter Horsley are members of the UA. Sanchez is an Engineering senior. Horsley is a Wharton freshman.
Comments