Today, we will know if the Washington University student body endorsed using part of the student activities fee to endorse Student Union’s executive officers.

The idea of paying the executives is not revolutionary. As Student Union points out, executive officers of other student governments are paid for their work. It is worth noting that, yes, CS40′s executives are compensated, but in the form of free housing-a sort of voucher from Residential Life-not cash, as SU proposes for its executives. And I have no doubt that the Student Union executive officers do invest a substantial amount of time in their positions-time that may, in fact, detract from their ability to hold paid on-campus jobs (though the notion that “working” for SU 9 to 5 ends all chances of holding an on-campus job is false-a few departments, especially the Libraries, hire students in the evening).

But, as the Student Life editorial board (of which I am an UNpaid member, to clarify an issue raised in the letter to the editor from the executives published Monday-I write these weekly rants free of charge!), did not endorse compensating executives, I too am against compensating the executive officers on our campus.

The executives have been smart politicians indeed. After nearly complete silence on executive compensation, including no press release to Student Life, campaign week has featured a campus firestorm in which the executives used the sensitive issue of financial aid to justify spending potentially thousands of dollars on compensating four students. They claim that financially needy students are discouraged from running for executive positions because of the lack of compensation. Thus, the lack of payment-rather than the widespread student sentiment that SU is an irrelevant, popularity-driven, high-school StuCo run amock-must be the reason why two executive positions were unopposed.

There is, perhaps, some truth to the financial argument, but the issue runs far deeper. The very notion that the Student Union executives feel they deserve compensation is an example of Student Union’s shameless self-promotion and overly-inflated opinion of itself. Evidence of that phenomenon is everywhere: in the editorial board’s candidate interviews this weekend, over half of the candidates were, when asked, unable to identify any weakness (though they made sure to tell us lots about “Free Food Thursday” and the new party bus). Rather than immediately presenting information about commencement or Senior Week, the Senior Class website (2004.wustl.edu) opens with an enormous picture of the senior class officers, suggesting that what is best remembered about senior year is their attractiveness. And on Monday, the “above the fold” portion of SU’s regular back page ad of Student Life featured not information about campus issues, a notice that candidate statements were inside, or an urge for students to vote, but a full-color picture of the departing, lame-duck executives. What, exactly, was the purpose of spending several hundred dollars of the student activities fee for that photograph (besides self-aggrandizement?) Next thing you know, we’ll have a shrine outside the Women’s Building. Could all of this self-promotion be, er, compensating for SU’s tarnished image?

The fact of the matter is that while, yes, Student Union’s executives do invest several hours per week in their “jobs,” hundreds of students on this campus do exactly the same with their activities (notice the semantic difference) and never ask for payment: the organizers of Diwali, CNYF, and Carnaval are not asking for compensation; the musical directors of a cappella groups are not asking for compensation; the stars of PAD’s productions are not asking for compensation. These students are equally committed to their activities as the SU executives. They likewise forgo extra hours at their campus jobs to participate. To say that the SU executives deserve payment simply because they have offices in the Women’s Building while other students pursue their activities in classrooms and theaters is, frankly, narcissistic. When combined with Wednesday’s full-page ad about executive compensation, again funded by a few hundred dollars of the student activities fee spent by the whim of the executives (while individual candidates and groups asking for block funding win votes by hanging flyers and shaking hands), the arrogance is alarming.

Student Union is an activity, not a job. Students who hold on-campus jobs are paid by departments, not the student activities fee, and they are compensated hourly for tangible production. Students do not deserve compensation for extra-curricular activities, and to offer it in the case of SU executives begins a slippery slope toward a mentality that students deserve some sort of reward (credit or cash) for anything and everything but their partying. That’s not what college is about.

Popularity: 1% [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, April 2nd, 2004 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.