On Wednesday, April 24, the student body will vote on an amendment to strip the vote from the culture representatives who currently sit on the Senate. The Daily has been flooded with Viewpoints and articles in support of this backward amendment, and I wanted to clarify some of the misinformation which has been presented.
Culture reps were implemented in the early 1990s. The Asian American, African American, and Latino communities were given Senate representation through three groups: the Asian Community at Tufts (ACT), the Pan African Alliance (PAA), and the Association of Latin American Students (ALAS). The purpose of culture reps was and continues to be to give these historically marginalized groups a means through which to access the oh-so-inaccessible student government. (The Tufts Transgendered Lesbian Gay Bisexual Collective, or TTLGBC, got their culture rep in 1996.)
Do not be fooled. Amendment III is a racist and homophobic piece of legislation disguised as an attempt to make student government more fair and accessible to all students. The motivation behind this amendment is blatantly fueled by prejudice against gays and people of color.
Though they have existed for quite some time, culture reps were just provided with voting privileges this year. The commuter representative has had a vote for at least five years, but has not been attacked in the way the culture reps have been. Yet less than one year later, people have mobilized to completely do away with culture reps. Funny how people only find the system undemocratic when groups that they want to silence start speaking up.
Something equally disturbing is the semantics employed by the drafters of the amendment. The letter that originally accompanied the amendment read, "Culture groups have too much power...their voting has led to the disenfranchisement of other student groups." Disenfranchisement is the same word used to describe the situation when blacks could not vote in the South during the 1960s. The fact that the No Homers Club does not have a vote cannot even begin to compare to the injustices committed prior to the Civil Rights Movement.
Proponents of the amendment say that culture reps are unnecessary. They say that culture reps serve no real purpose on the Senate, because senators are elected to represent everyone. This argument could not be further from the truth.
Senators make lofty promises to get elected, but they do not represent their entire constituencies. There is virtually no outreach on the part of the Senate to culture groups. Never has an amendment supporter on the Senate brought up an issue of cultural awareness. Nor have I ever seen a supporter of this amendment at a cultural center, event, or meeting sponsored by the communities that have culture reps.
Furthermore, Senate races go uncontested, providing no competition or alternatives for voters. How are you supposed to choose the best candidate when there aren't even enough people to fill the seats?
The argument has been made that the current system is undemocratic since only a small segment of the community votes for culture reps. However, when this system was implemented, voters entrusted groups to elect their own culture reps. Voters also knew that they too (regardless of their race or ethnicity) could vote on the ALAS, TTLGBC, ACT, and PAA reps if they so chose, just by attending club meetings.
Are culture reps unnecessary? Look at the surge in hate crimes over the past year. Which groups were targeted? Gays, Latinos, African Americans, Lesbians, Asian Americans. When did you hear of a person being egged because they were white? Or because they were straight?
Supporters of Amendment III will tell you that their intent is to "level the playing field" by allowing more groups representation. But if the amendment passes, what it will really do is silence minority groups. The amendment merely enumerates rights that each student already possesses, and the terms under which a group can obtain a lobbyist position are patently absurd.
Amendment III will nullify the existence of culture reps and replace them with a non-voting member: the TCU lobbyist. Under the proposed system, any recognized student group, from the orchestra to the Primary Source, can obtain the title of "TCU lobbyist" once "a delegate has shown sufficient commitment to promoting the views of their respective groups." However, the amendment does not say what constitutes a "sufficient commitment." It does not say how many meetings a person has to attend or how many projects he/she has to undertake before his/her group obtains a seat. Apparently, deciding whether or not a commitment is "sufficient" is at the senate's discretion.
But let's say someone fulfills this supposed "sufficient commitment." Before this "sufficiently committed" group can be given a seat, a senator must make a motion to endorse the group. A vote is taken that determines whether or not the group is worthy to receive the lobbyist position, and if there is a two-thirds majority, that group will gain the seat of TCU lobbyist.
This system gives the Senate far too much control. A personal conflict between a potential lobbyist (the person representing a given group) and one or more senators can prevent an entire group from getting a vote. And let's not forget that giving every group a seat is not logistically possible. What happens when there's no more room? Groups get shut out, and priority is given to one over another. How democratic is that?
The queer, African American, Asian American and Latino communities have been historically marginalized, targeted, and ignored on the Tufts campus. Culture representatives serve to voice their otherwise unheard concerns. I urge everyone to vote against Amendment III to help put an end to the institutionalized racism on this campus.
Ariana Flores is a sophomore majoring in political science
