Jonathan Margulies: Without problems, apathy reigns

When Penn's student government leaders speak, most people just don't listen.

It's a simple and unavoidable truism of undergraduate life. And it's reached such universal acceptance, unfortunately, that most students who even bother to discuss their elected officials often mix a touch of snide laughter or biting sarcasm into the conversation.

But who could blame them? It's awfully tough to keep from mocking the grown men and women who parade through the halls of Congress under the pretense of "serving the community." It's even more challenging to consider your classmate's hyper-political pledge to "work on behalf of the students" when you last saw him nodding off in history class or suffering the debilitating effects of 12 Yuenglings outside Smoke's last night.

Besides, sometimes it just seems pointless to put much thought into some of the proposals that stem from our peer advocates. Last year, for example, undergraduate e-mail inboxes were filled with exciting updates about an outdoor basketball court that few students would ultimately use. At other times, it was news about the coming of the latest 24-hour diner or the results of yet another dining hall survey.

Not exactly the stuff that makes for great political drama. So isn't it just easier to let out a little chuckle, accept the futility of student government and move on?

Maybe. But the lack of respect accorded our peers is more likely reflective of the inherently weak nature of student government, as well as the generally meager issues confronting today's undergraduate population.

As such, responsibility for dealing with the problem once and for all -- by either identifying issues for advocacy or writing off student government altogether -- ultimately rests with us, the students who are so put off by the seemingly one-dimensional approach of those we elect to office.

Lately, the leaders of Penn's six student government branches have been doing a lot of talking about just those issues. Thanks in part to a Daily Pennsylvanian survey that revealed how little most freshman Undergraduate Assembly candidates knew about the organization they wished to join, the groups have banded together to inform the community, share information and offer solutions for improving their collective success.

The concept, spearheaded by the Nominations and Elections Committee, is a noble attempt to address a fundamental problem. But by putting the focus squarely on communication, the groups have misunderstood the two fundamental issues crippling their ability to work for significant change.

One problem is not particularly unique to this university or this student body.

"The place of student government and the student body's attitudes toward it is no different here than at any other institution," said Office of Student Life Director Fran Walker, a veteran adviser to the University's governmental boards.

"One of the problems is that a lot of people come to college -- specifically to Penn -- having already held [student government] positions in high school, and they bring attitudes about student government being maybe not the most exciting or effective forms of student involvement."

Walker's thoughts touch on the most basic issue confronting the UA and its five sister councils. But besides that natural challenge -- student apathy -- only one other major hurdle stands between the student leaders and the success they so clearly desire. And it's a hurdle that rarely gets any attention:

There may not be anything worth fighting for.

Penn, after all, is a well-to-do private university with a community of generally well-off students. Tuition rates jump at incremental rates every year, with virtually no response from an expectant student body. Decisions on crucial issues are reached by administrative bodies that are directly answerable to neither students nor other constituents.

In short, few major problems plague today's student body. We escape the bureaucratic red tape that confronts our counterparts at state universities. And even past issues that raised student ire -- like the investment of endowment funds in Apartheid-torn South Africa, or the hasty change in University alcohol policy after the death of a College alumnus -- have now faded into a distant collective memory.

Walker, for one, isn't convinced that dealing with more substantial issues would fundamentally change the public relations crisis facing the UA and its sister bodies.

"Did the UA have a better reputation when it dealt with [more substantive issues]?" she asked. "The answer is no, because there were just as many people who looked at it and said 'Why are you wasting my time?'"

Realistically, though, it seems apparent that in order to develop any semblance of real legitimacy with their constituents, Penn's student leaders must work to develop an agenda that is both attainable and pertinent.

Perhaps that means addressing the string of annual tuition hikes. And perhaps it's as simple as bringing controversial discussions -- like the battle over sports club funding -- out into a more public arena.

Whatever the case, student leaders must recognize that their fundamental problem rests not with internal communication nor the general apathy of the students they serve. Rather, it's a lack of tangible issues that has driven the students away.

Brining them back, at whatever the cost, should be the challenge ahead.

Jonathan Margulies is a senior Management concentrator from North Bellmore, N.Y. and editorial page editor of The Daily Pennsylvanian.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.