The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student-run nonprofit.

Please support us by disabling your ad blocker on our site.

A small firestorm has erupted over the past few days regarding a slate of undergraduate nominees to the University Council. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail over the next few days as people realize that seats on the UC are largely symbolic. Even groups feeling slighted by the Nominations and Elections Committee admit that there are ways outside of the UC to influence policy and gain access to administrators at this university. And while boycotting meetings and refusing to open lines of communication are not appropriate tactics for remedying this problem, these groups raise a valid concern with the selection process as it now stands.

It is easy to understand their frustrations. To whom should they address their complaints? The structure of the NEC does not provide for open debate and discussion about the five UC seats it is charged with allocating. There is essentially no grievance arbitration process; alas, the issue is consigned to playing itself out in the sphere of public opinion.

The NEC made its selections for the UC based on what it believed to be sound principles and after hours of debate. And any time there are a limited number of positions for a greater number of applicants, some are going to be left out.

But the fact that this process is done in secret and then given a largely ceremonial vote of confidence by the Undergraduate Assembly is not in the spirit of democracy and open dialogue. This is tantamount to the president of the United States nominating his entire cabinet and then asking the Senate for a rubber stamp vote for the slate based not on candidates' merits, but solely on whether they deemed the selection process to be fair. That would lead to a national political crisis, and for good reason. So instead, the chief executive gets to make recommendations, which are each approved individually after a long process of open debate.

The fact that the NEC is not an elected body makes it and its process much less accountable to the student body. If students are not happy with the NEC's picks, they cannot simply vote them out the next year, as the American people have the opportunity to do with their elected officials.

Recognizing this, the UA and NEC should take a page from the Constitution and create a more democratic process for allocating all positions across the University. The NEC should still serve a purpose as an unbiased evaluator of candidates, but its role should be to simply make recommendations to the UA. Then, the elected representatives should publicly weigh the merits of each nominee individually and with much more scrutiny before casting a roll-call vote on each. This way, students who are upset with the selections will have the ultimate say at the ballot box come the next election. This is yet another way in which the UA can make itself relevant to the community as a whole.

In the short term, the current representation dispute can be easily resolved. Most of the groups feeling left out have representatives on the UA who could be selected for the remaining 10 UC seats. Further, the UA might consider giving these groups more of their seats if they can present a convincing argument to the general body.

One way or another, the nominations process is in need of review.

Comments powered by Disqus

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