From time to time, the Undergraduate Council of Students discusses and sometimes passes a resolution relating to a national political issue. Featuring topics like the Iraq war, embryonic stem-cell research and, most recently, the Patriot Act, the minutes of UCS meetings sometimes reflect the sort of discussion more commonly found at a Presidential debate or a bad dinner party.
I'm not writing this to belittle UCS. I have respect for the work they do and appreciate the effort they expend to help the student body. Normally, UCS and I get along fine: I vote every year, and other than that UCS doesn't bother me and I don't bother it. But last Wednesday morning I got an email from UCS about a meeting that night that said, "We will be discussing a resolution against the Patriot Act. If you are a lover or hater of freedom, come debate the merits of this resolution." I was not only surprised at the somewhat offensive tongue-in-cheek remark, but that UCS thinks the Patriot Act is its business. I know it's more fun to debate national issues than kegs on campus, but I wish the UCS would leave the pointless political rambling to us opinions columnists and stick to business.
Imagine it's a week from now in the Oval Office. A senior White House staffer comes running in, interrupting President Bush in the middle of a photo-op with some third graders. "Mr. President - bad news!" says the staffer. "The Brown Undergraduate Council of Students, the student-government organization at an extremely liberal Ivy League university, has passed a resolution condemning the Patriot Act!"
"Damn it!" shouts the President, and pounds his desk, "I really wanted them behind me on this one." Frightened nine year olds run for cover. Flash bulbs light the room. By six o'clock, CNN has come up with an exciting "UCS v Bush" graphic and UCS Vice President Charley Cummings '06 is in a shouting match with Donald Rumsfeld on Larry King Live. Later that night, Bush announces he's axing the Patriot Act. "I just didn't realize the liberal college students that UCS speaks for felt this way," he says.
UCS resolutions on national political issues are impotent, but that is not my only problem with them. UCS shouldn't discuss national political issues for two other reasons: it's not their job and it's a waste of time. I've heard the "Student Advocacy" clause invoked, which gives UCS the ability to "support" student advocacy groups. But endorsing a group by providing them with funds, space or even a declaration of support is not the same as passing a resolution on the political issue itself. We don't elect our UCS representatives to "speak for us" on national politics, but on University matters. The UCS constitution specifically states, "The Council shall represent students and the interests of students in all matters of University life and all areas of University operations." Although you might be able to argue that some national issues affect college students in particular and therefore UCS has a responsibility to weigh in on these matters, it's hard to make the case that national issues such as the Patriot Act or the stem cell debate really affect us as a matter of university life.
It's also obvious that UCS resolutions on political matters don't really do anything. I think most students recognize this. Nevertheless, there are some who argue that the resolutions do have an effect - usually special-interest groups looking to get their own issues discussed. These same groups argue that such resolutions are, by some stretch of the UCS constitution, UCS's responsibility. These groups, and the UCS members that support them, would disagree with me when I say that UCS resolutions on political issues are irrelevant and outside their jurisdiction.
I'm not intimately acquainted with the inner workings of UCS, and maybe my common sense is wrong - maybe it is their job. But if I'm dead wrong (or you think I am) and it is within the responsibility of UCS to make resolutions on national political issues, then why aren't national politics a consideration in UCS elections? I've voted every year, and the biographies and statements of those running for office mention their political beliefs only in passing, if at all. If UCS wants to claim to represent my voice on national politics, my voting priorities will have to change: Instead of evaluating the devotion, achievements, competence and leadership ability of a representative, I would be interested in their politics - are they pro-choice? Pro-affirmative action? What do they think about Israel and Palestine?
If UCS members disagree with me, I urge them not to leave their political discussions in their meetings, but to bring them into the upcoming elections too. That way we can make an educated choice about the people who claim to represent us, whether we like it or not, on national issues.
Matt Lawrence '06 thinks the UCS should pass a resolution calling for Fox to start airing "News Radio" reruns and for Taco Bell to open a location on Thayer Street.
