With all the criticisms Student Life receives, its influence on the student body is undeniable. It endorsed every winner for block funding and Student Union positions this year, and all but one last year. I asked many of the recent candidates several questions regarding their thoughts on the Student Life endorsement process. I’ve pooled and selected from their responses, incorporating their ideas and opinions with my own reform suggestions to make next year’s SU endorsements as non-controversial as possible. I also included ideas regarding candidates running as slates, rather than individuals.

Neil Patel, Marius Johnson, Brittany Perez and Rebecca Forman all felt that the Student Life endorsements helped their respective campaigns. Perez also stated that the endorsement “helped to legitimize [her] candidacy.” There is no doubt that the endorsement is valuable. The endorsement interview and announcement process, however, are far from perfect.

My first majorly needed change is that Student Life needs to cover SU throughout the year, keeping the student body informed about both controversial and non-controversial decisions, and about why and how they are made. Patel elaborated, “Although ambitious, I would really like to see constant coverage of the Executive, Treasury and Senate throughout the year. I don’t care if it is positive coverage or critical coverage. I think Student Life could get a lot more students interested in Student Union (and campus issues in general) by covering Treasury appeals, Senate resolutions and Executive decisions more in-depth.” Currently, Student Life includes little to no information on how SU actually operates at any time during the year. The student body was told when Treasury ran out of money (which was actually not even true), but we are never told how Treasury operates. Even though Patel won in a landslide, when asked if there was something he wanted Student Life to cover more, he simply stated, “I wish they had more coverage throughout the year.” In 2005, Student Life advocated write-in candidates for SU Executive positions so that students would start to take the elections more seriously. If Student Life, the independent on-campus news-source, does not describe how and why SU operates, no one will take it seriously. The student body should not be to blame for voter apathy-Student Life needs to lead by example and tell us why we should care enough to vote.

Second, we need to be made aware of the actual endorsement process. Our student body is relatively small. How do we know the editorial board interviewing the candidates will be both challenging and fair to each candidate, equally? While Neil Patel is incredibly qualified to head SU, he admits that he knew the individuals that interviewed him for the endorsements. “Wash. U. is a small place and it’s very easy to know a lot of people in different organizations.” Student Life ought to admit possible conflicts-of-interest. In future endorsement issues, possible personal conflicts of interest should be stated up-front alongside basic information about the endorsement process. Marius Johnson clarifies, “I think it would be good to publish what the endorsement process is like and what criteria was used in analyzing candidates. This would help people know if they agree with the method of evaluation.”

My third suggested reform is that the endorsements allow enough time for responses. Student Life has not done all it could to ensure fair endorsements. Endorsements need to be made at least one issue before the elections begin, preferably two. This could mean more than three issues per week. A special “Elections” issue including comprehensive election information about the positions available could be followed up by a “Final Thoughts: Elections” issue which would include endorsements. These two issues should run a week before the election, allowing at least two days before the final special issue of elections “The Reponses” is issued. This would (1) inform students about the positions available and what those positions mean for the student body at large (essentially saying why it is important that people vote); (2) provide endorsements as always; and (3) allow time for candidate responses and discussion about the Student Life endorsement prior to the elections beginning.

Fourth, the endorsements ought to be as accurate as possible. Particularly in examining the recent SU Executive Secretary race, I question the lengths to which Student Life examined the two candidates. The staff wrote, “Our decision was difficult considering that both students have served in the SU Budget committee, of which Alimi is co-chair, as well as SU Treasury. This experience has provided Forman and Alimi with a good working knowledge of what kind of improvements they could implement as secretary.” This analysis did not reveal that Alimi had over a year more of active Treasury and Budget Committee experience than Forman. In addition, it addressed none of Alimi’s ideas. If the paper felt she had no specific ideas, this could have been better articulated. One of Forman’s ideas, “informational workshops that would train the treasurers of every student group on campus” is already in place, as far as I know-they’re actually called Treasurer’s Training workshops and they’re mandatory for all student group treasurers. Misinformation can be corrected by better research into the candidates. Perez “would like to see a little bit more research go into the interviews and endorsements,” and Johnson “would like to see the focus of the article [be] more on the qualifications and merits of all candidates.” Student Life now complains in an editorial about the lack of funding allotted to Executive Committees. Asking the right questions ahead of time (and corroborating those facts) would have revealed the funding intentions of the candidates. Student Life needs to ask tough questions and put more than a little research time and energy into endorsements.

Finally, I am concerned about the issue of candidates running on slates. There are both pros and cons to choosing to run as a slate. Slates as a whole are good because they provide a united front of people familiar with one another, ready to make change. Student Life errs in splitting slates apart and endorsing individuals rather than entire slates. This would be fine if Student Life interviewed slates as a whole, which I thought they did. In fact, as Johnson reveals, they only conduct individual interviews. While he disagreed with me that Student Life should be limited to choosing one slate over another, he does “feel there would be value in having interviews with whole slates as well as individual interviews. Often, groups can accomplish much more because they complement one another’s strengths and weaknesses and that cannot be portrayed through individual interviews.” There is a reason candidates run as a slate. If they wanted to run as individuals, they would. Perez concurs and noted that, “selecting candidates to endorse from different slates may lead to a conflict of goals if those candidates are elected. Usually candidates choose people they work well with, have the same goals and trust to run together on a slate. Breaking up that cohesiveness could cause unnecessary delay to the transitioning and installation of the new officers.” She also cautioned, however, that if Student Life feels students could work cross-slates, they ought to have the right to endorse candidates as such. I conditionally agree with that last sentiment. If Student Life does not conduct whole-slate interviews, they should not be able to verify the individuals capable of working cross-slate. If whole-slate interviews are not conducted, candidates should no longer run as slates and Student Life should no longer identify candidates as being part of a slate. The solution is clear: conduct whole-slate interviews and work from there.

Every candidate I asked agreed that Student Life should have its own opinion on endorsements. I hope they consider the reforms I offer when making future endorsements.

Dave is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected]

Popularity: 1% [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 25th, 2007 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.