In the ever-tumultuous arena of student government, Amendment III to the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Constitution has stirred up passionate emotions among members of the student body. The arguments of those who oppose this amendment have been reduced to hurling words like "racist" and "homophobic," and many inaccuracies have been presented. I would like to correct some of these inaccuracies by explaining to you, the student body, exactly how Amendment III works and why you should support it.
Amendment III will do three things: level the playing field, restore democracy, and get students involved.
As it currently stands, there are five culture representatives to the TCU Senate. These culture reps are elected by five specific organizations: the Off Hill Council, the Pan African Alliance (PAA), the Association of Latino Students (ALAS), the Asian Community at Tufts (ACT), and the Tufts Transgendered, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Collective (TTLGBC) - though the Off Hill Council has not chosen to have an active rep for a while. These representatives are currently allowed to speak at all times and vote on all matters (including monetary) in the TCU Senate, although they are selected by the members of each group through an in-house election process.
A system of government in which certain constituents have more votes than others is not a level playing field. Currently, members of the five aforementioned organizations get one more say than anyone else through their culture rep in the Senate.
Opponents of Amendment III have argued that since anyone may become a member of any group, it is not discriminatory for culture reps to vote. Yet would the groups with culture reps really want everyone to join them? The uniqueness of these groups would be washed away in a tide of middle class white-ness if their voter rolls were truly open. Additionally, why should I, a straight white female who does not feel represented by any of these communities, vote in their elections?
It is valuable to have minority voices in student government, but not at the expense of a fair democracy. Many have argued that culture reps' voting power is legitimate because the student body voted on it. However, a pure democracy is not necessarily a fair one. America's own Founding Fathers understood the dangers of the tyranny of the majority, and so created a constitutional republic.
That the student body voted to grant culture reps voting power is then no more a defense of its fairness than to argue that laws such as those against miscegenation were fair because the people voted on them. Amendment III will restore democracy to student government, whereby each student votes for seven, and exactly seven, representatives.
Finally, Amendment III will get students involved in their government. It is no doubt helpful for the Senate to have input from groups, but why only five groups? There are numerous groups, such as Hillel and the Women's Union, who are not represented by the culture reps.
Opponents of Amendment III have said that the current system allows for the addition of more voting culture reps. Yet the only way this can be done under the current system is through a constitutional referendum, which requires at least a 20 percent voter turnout - a turnout found only once a year during the presidential elections. Should groups have to wait a full year before being granted a voice? Amendment III will allow any student group to be granted a voice in student government in a reasonable amount of time.
Furthermore, the opposition claims that the amendment could cause a "logistical nightmare" of over 150 lobbyists and nowhere to hold the meeting. Apparently, Tufts does not have a room big enough for democracy. However, the problem of logistics is one that exists under the current system as well, because (as they say themselves) any group can referendum for a culture rep. Their own arguments against Amendment III are contradictory to their assertion that they would support adding more culture reps.
Opponents of the Amendment play on the emotions when they allege racism. For example, current culture reps have cited the number of recent hate crimes as a reason why they should have voting power. Yet clearly the number of hate crimes didn't go down since they got the vote, so why would the number increase if they lost it? Furthermore, they cite the historical marginalization of certain groups as another reason why the vote is necessary. However, the only time this entire year when culture reps' votes changed the course of action was to give Radix over $5,000 in buffer funding. Is Radix the extent of minorities' concerns?
Amendment III is a fair proposal that will create a level playing field for all student groups. It will not silence anyone's views, only be more inclusive of views that are not represented to the Senate. If you don't feel that your student government represents you, you can do something about it: vote yes on III.
Rachel Hoff is a sophomore majoring in political science.
