Save the new constitution, kill the culture representative amendment

We might as well call Wednesday, April 25 "Tufts Election Day," as it appears to be the final chance for every undergraduate student on campus to make a decision about our future. Our TCU Senate race was uncontested, which I sincerely hope means that students are happy with the way things are going. I have tremendous faith in our future Senate, and I truly hope that the successes of this year will continue into the next. But don't look to the Senate alone to solve all of our problems on campus; you have to look to yourself and the communities to which you belong.

I have seen the strength that we as students and members of our cultural communities have to offer Tufts. Judging by the myriad of cultural clubs and communities, I wager that most of us cannot keep track of the multitude of cultural events that happen throughout the year. These communities must continue to exist and serve the important purpose of welcoming students to a community they can call home. However, the role that these communities play in terms of working with the TCU Senate must be more clearly defined.

Under our current system, culture representatives are present to act as liaisons between the Senate and the culture group, but not to assume any fiscal or executive board responsibilities. It would be very fair to equate culture representatives with political watchdogs and lobbyists, as they attend all Senate meetings and play an active roll in promoting their cultures' agendas. Historically, they also offset a predominantly white, male TCU Senate, and act as a constant reminder to address culture groups' needs.

Currently, we have four culture representatives on the TCU Senate, from the Association of Latino American Students (ALAS), the Pan-African Alliance (PAA), Tufts Transgendered, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Collective (TTLGBC), and the Asian Community at Tufts (ACT). Thirty years ago, these broad terms for organizations made sense and were more appropriate designations for the Tufts community (albeit groups such as TTLGBC have not been here for 30 years), but Tufts has changed dramatically. Student diversity has changed, but the Senate continues to function as though these are the only culture interests present on the Tufts campus. Where is our Arab Students Association culture representative? Where are our religious culture representatives? Where is our Tufts Association of South Asians culture representative? The Tufts application separates East Asian from South Asian, so why is TASA lumped under ACT, which clearly represents East Asian interests?

It should not be up to the Senate to decide which cultural groups warrant precious time at a Senate meeting; it should be up to the culture groups themselves. This is a dual responsibility: Culture groups should talk to their senators, talk to their Cultural Coordinating Committee and Committee on Ethnicity and Cultural Affairs members, and lobby their interests at Senate meetings. Senators should keep their eyes and ears open to issues and concerns of culture groups and then act upon them in Senate. We join our culture groups to have a home and a voice on campus. We join the Senate because we want to make the hard decisions on how we spend our student activities fee, as well as how to get what we want from the administration. If you feel that the needs of your culture group are constantly ignored, please petition the TCU Senate for the right to establish a culture representative position for your organization.

Then the argument arises that culture representatives do all the work of a senator, without recognition or the ability to vote. Instead of granting them equal power, I ask, "why do they go above and beyond their duties as culture representatives?" They know that they are going beyond the call of duty, but does that mean we should reward them with power? It is the same sort of argument as that which demands compensation for volunteer work. The definition of volunteer work is giving up your time to work on a project without monetary compensation; if a job is compensated with money, it is no longer volunteer work. If we call the power to vote on ALBO recommendations "money," then culture representatives are doing "volunteer" work in the Senate. With this definition, senators are performing paid labor. With the way the pre-amendment constitution reads, each culture representative has basically the same amount of power as your average student, but has chosen his/her time to volunteer for the Senate. The new constitution recognizes this flaw and would give our culture representatives procedural votes (i.e. the ability to make motions, call for recess, etc.). Culture representatives deserve some form of "employee benefits" that recognize the work they perform. However, with the passage of the amendment to grant culture representatives full voting rights, we are giving "monetary compensation" for "volunteer work."

If the actual constitution passes, many of its current flaws will be rectified and appease the complaints of senators and culture representatives alike. But if the constitutional amendment passes, the fundamental structure of the Senate will change. Culture representative will represent the issues of their culture and not the issues of the general student body. We should not have special interest groups control our money, especially if the people in power were able to bypass a campus-wide vote for office. There are TCU Senate election rules governing minimum required campus participation for any election or constitutional amendment.

In conclusion, please vote yes on the new constitution to give culture representatives the right they deserve. And vote no on the amendment to give full voting rights to culture representatives, as TCU budgetary matters are not part of their job. Please exercise your vote on this important decision.