Jeff Millman: The UA: comfortable in mediocrity

The Undergraduate Assembly hasn't accomplished anything this year, aside from a minor achievement in study abroad grading.

Yes, most people are aware of this. But maybe by repeating the obvious, the next slate of elective representatives will be embarrassed enough to actually deliver a single significant contribution for our wide and diverse student body.

As UA members run for re-election this week, their vague candidate statements claim credit for what could barely be called incremental improvements. The most commonly mentioned triumph was, in the words of one candidate, to "completely revamp dining." But dining changes were spurred more by Aramark's own marketing analysis, a project called MarketMatch, than the UA's effort in making a survey and talking with Dining Services. And just how "revamped" is dining?

Next year, there will be a Chick-fil-A. The dining plans will supposedly be more flexible, especially for incoming freshmen, who will be required to pay exactly $3,512 (ha! They don't vote!). But it doesn't seem more flexible than what was offered two years ago when students could choose to dine at Stouffer. And for years, students have clamored for real flexibility to redeem Dining Dollars and PennCash at local restaurants: perhaps the UA has determined that this is not feasible, despite its proven success at many other universities.

It's odd that nobody claimed credit for the most sweeping UA action: to create off-campus block captains. Perhaps it's unwise to call something an accomplishment if it's disliked by everybody.

However, it would be nice for the thousands of off-campus residents who disagree with the program to deny re-election to the 19 who voted to pass it. Ha! The UA didn't record the roll-call vote for this proposal.

See, the UA will never uphold its theoretical mandate because the organization doesn't feel accountable to the greater student population. Of course, given the miserable track record of our elective body, it's easy to understand why the UA has no interest in accountability.

The UA used to send everyone newsletters to inform us of its leadership and achievements. Now, this method of constituent outreach, a stalwart communications tactic of U.S. congressmen, has been replaced by a UA Web site, which, besides being cumbersome, hasn't been updated since December. The problem with a Web site is that its reach is completely dependent on students' initiative, which is famously unreliable.

Yes, it's humiliating to learn that 70 percent of undergraduates cannot name the UA chairman, 80 percent don't vote in UA elections and five of 33 UA members have quit. But it's not so sad for UA members who, without scrutiny or expectations, are comfortable to toil in mediocrity.

It's easy to believe the UA is just a petty debating society of trivial consequence when few members actually know how to make budget requests. To distract from its meager contributions to campus life, the UA has recently transformed into the Oxford Union, dabbling in national issues so we will think they're a serious bunch. Oops! These same parliamentarians currently campaign under platforms such as, "Now that I'm 21, it's all about BOOZE."

Nevertheless, these people spend their Sunday evenings debating resolutions to support the University's amicus curiae brief on affirmative action or to demand an easing of the federal government's SEVIS immigration database. How likely is it that the Supreme Court or INS will consider the UA's resolutions? Or that minority and foreign students will feel sheltered by the will and power of the UA?

Conor Daly writes that the UA still has potential to fulfill its mission. But apathy is better than constant disappointment, so fewer students care about the UA anyway. That's a problem because administrators will not take our elected representatives seriously if they realize that we don't take them seriously. The potential may already be gone.

Conor also agrees that the main power of the UA is its ultimate control over the student activities budget. However, after allocating funds for certain broad purposes each spring, it punts actual appropriating power to the Student Activities Council. SAC has become the critical body of student interest because its power of the purse directly impacts our clubs, teams and troupes. The UA seems to fund a few Management 100 projects, though -- its other funding decisions are just as sporadic and inconsequential.

One member running for re-election wrote, "This past year on the UA has taught me about teamwork, persistence and democracy." That's great! See, the UA has proven to be a valuable learning tool for Penn students. We have persistently looked to the UA for action and accountability. But looking to the UA for democracy is a mistake we've made for far too long.

Jeff Millman is a senior Philosophy, Politics, and Economics major from Los Angeles, Calif.

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