Penn must foster a political culture

Congratulations -- we did it. Young voters turned out to vote in record numbers on Election Day. Despite exit polls showing that the youth vote made up the same percentage of the electorate as in 2000, there were still 4.6 million more under-30 Americans at the polls, a 9.3 percentage increase according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Battleground states like Pennsylvania, where the youth vote was heavily targeted, did even better, with 64.4 percent turnout. On campus, we did better still -- voter turnout increased 280 percent.

The question now is how to keep it going.

The political process certainly doesn't stop when winners are declared, and neither therefore does the need for vibrant political discourse on campus. However, without an election around which to center campus efforts over the next year -- and without such a contentious election likely for some time to come -- it will be all too easy to let the progress made through recent efforts slip way, forcing a start from scratch for the next elections in 2006.

In order to avoid this very real possibility, in the short term Penn should lower the barriers to political activity that student groups currently face, and it should move to institutionalize this newfound culture of political participation for the long run.

The Student Activities Council Executive Committee's funding guidelines stifle political discourse by refusing to fund groups that conduct a range of political activities. These guidelines read, "A student activity or program that is designed to support or oppose a particular party or candidate or to influence legislation will not be funded." This keeps groups from taking political positions and thereby contributing to the discourse of a deliberative democracy.

Now, SAC likely has these rules not out of a malicious intent, but from fear of violating tax and campaign finance laws that prohibit the use of University nonprofit dollars for certain types of political activity. But cutting off all funding to groups that engage in campaigning scares groups away from contributing to a campus political culture, and it is not the only option. Rather, SAC could fund the non-campaign activity of political groups -- for example, issue education, panel discussions and club newsletters.

Inasmuch as the University seeks to foster political engagement, this is the type of activity that it should support, whether the groups are partisan or non-partisan, issue-focused or broad-based, as long as this funding is distributed equally across the ideological spectrum. Either SAC or the Undergraduate Assembly, which holds SAC's purse strings, should act to implement these changes, as such funding is a critical step in fostering a broader campus political culture.

However, this is only a temporary fix. To preserve and promote this culture, we need to institutionalize it in the form of a resource center.

Truth be told, there are great political resources at Penn, but they are not generally directed at Penn students. The Annenberg Public Policy Center is one prime example. Among other endeavors, the APPC produces a nationally syndicated radio show, the National Annenberg Election Survey, FactCheck.org and Student Voices, a nationwide civic education program for high school students. While these programs are very worthwhile, they primarily serve those outside of the Penn community.

The APPC also just announced the construction of a new building on campus. I'm told that this $30 million facility will have everything short of a petting zoo -- although that really would be a nice touch. However, if such substantial resources are available for parallel efforts, couldn't the resources be found for building a political community here on campus?

Specifically, I propose that the University create a political resource center based on the "house" model used to promote other such communities -- for example, Civic House, Carriage House and the Greenfield Intercultural Center. This resource center could provide offices and meeting rooms for campus groups. It could host a library of political books and films. It could provide a separate funding mechanism for political groups. It could even be a student-faculty think tank.

It could take many forms, but most important is its very existence as a permanent body. This would cement recent gains in building a politicized campus culture by both helping to mobilize student voters during elections and encouraging civic engagement between them.

Students interested in encouraging political participation shouldn't have to start new groups or reinvent voter turnout strategies every few years. However, because elections are infrequent and students graduate, this is the problem we now face. By funding political discourse between elections and institutionalizing this civic spirit in a permanent campus resource center specifically designed to encourage student political participation, Penn could help make this year's student engagement the rule instead of the exception.

With new proof that students will participate in the political process with the right encouragement, and with a new University president whose own academic work has emphasized the importance of deliberative democracy, now is the time and Penn is the place for this enterprise. By serving as a proving ground for these technologies of democracy, Penn can encourage sustained and substantive political participation on our campus and beyond.Kevin Collins is a junior Political Science major from Milwaukee. ...And Justice For All appears on Tuesdays.

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