Nearly a year after culture representatives to the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate were given the right to vote, the legitimacy of the change remains a topic of internal and external debate. Proponents say the representative serve necessary roles as defenders of interests often ignored, while some insist that voting rights be restricted to senators elected by the student body.
TCU president Eric Greenberg acknowledged that a sizeable number - though not a majority - of senators are disconcerted with the institution of voting rights for the four culture reps and one commuter representative.
Some senators, like sophomore Ed Schwehm, are vehemently opposed to the process.
"The fact that they have a vote is wrong, plain and simple," said Schwehm, who feels there are several other senators who share his sentiments.
That feeling, Greenberg said, likely hastened the resignation of culture representatives from the Asian Community at Tufts (ACT) and the Pan-African Alliance (PAA) last semester. Both groups have since appointed new reps.
Representatives sense a lack of respect from senators and become disillusioned, according to Greenberg. "Some senators who don't like the idea of culture reps make the reps uncomfortable at meetings," he said.
There are representatives for the Tufts Transgendered Lesbian Gay Bisexal Collective (TTLGBC), the Association of Latin American Students (ALAS), the ACT, the PAA, and a representative for commuter students.
It's a position that some see as vitally important. TTLGBG representative Kelly Sanborn said the reps fill a glaring hole in the Senate's representation of the Tufts community. "I feel if the Senate is going to represent the entire student body, it needs to give minority populations a voice, which is the purpose of culture reps," she said.
Sanborn recently raised her group's desire to make all bathrooms transgender so people do not feel castigated. The effort is an example of an issue that might otherwise not have been raised.
But Schwehm says there were existing outlets for all issues before culture reps could vote. "If you want something done, talk to your senator, run for Senate or do it yourself," he said. If members of a culture group wanted to enact change, Schwehm said, they should go through the proper channels other students use to get their opinions heard. For example, sophomore Pritesh Gandhi, who announced his resigned from the Senate on Sunday, intends to work to effect change without a vote.
At issue is the rights granted to senators and culture representatives; under the current system, they are nearly identical, though reps cannot serve on the executive and allocation boards. Critics like Schwehm say that culture reps serve important roles on campus, but are essentially lobbyists who should not have formal policymaking roles.
That the reps have a duty to their specific group is not disputed. Sanborn said that her responsibilities are to the group that elected her (the TTLGBC) to the Senate. Senator Randall Newsom said that some groups "use their reps very effectively to further their group's agenda."
The future of culture representatives is likely safe, Greenberg said. Recently, a group of senators considered lobbying for a referendum to abolish culture reps' voting privileges. Greenberg said those senators had abandoned their plans but that a referendum could conceivably take place in the future.
Smaller problems do exist. Some senators say that culture reps do not have the best attendance records, and Greenberg acknowledged this was the case. Since the new ACT and PAA appointments, though, he said attendance has been better. He added that the effects of culture rep voting have not largely been felt, whether positively or negatively.
"The feeling is that it changes what it means to be a democracy, but it hasn't provided a major change" in practice, he said.
