You will be asked to vote next Monday on a couple of different proposals for changing the community representative system on the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate — the system that provides guaranteed representation to certain communities on campus. Currently, four minority communities, through certain student groups, have such representation.
Unfortunately, both proposals have concerning elements that will only result in more dithering over community reps. To address complaints against the current system, Referenda 3 and 4 should be voted down, as the underlying issue is a broader one — the larger Senate−student body disconnect.
Referendum 3 is unique in that it would allow the entire student body to vote for individuals to fill community rep seats. That's right — the majority−white campus will be asked which students should represent the views of minority communities. Referendum 3 will result in less substantive debate about minority issues, replaced with a rush to get candidates' friends to show up at the polls in droves.
Both referenda allow Senate to decide which groups receive and keep community rep seats. Currently, the student body votes to tell Senate which groups it is inadequately representing. If Senate represents certain groups so poorly that there need to be community reps, why entrust Senate with deciding who it does and does not represent well? The student body has consistently shown its support for the present reps, most recently in 2007 by a landslide vote. But if enough of the 33 voting members of a future Senate (both proposals add a 33rd voting member) think community reps aren't needed, out they go, regardless of what Tufts' 5,000 undergraduates think.
Both proposals also allow non−senators to vote on Senate Allocations Board (ALBO) recommendations to distribute the Student Activities Fee. Referendum 3 gives each community rep a fiscal vote, while Referendum 4 creates a labyrinth where a non−senator chosen by community reps has one fiscal vote, and more of these non−senators are added as the number of community reps increases.
Yet nobody has yet alleged that senators vote on ALBO recommendations in a manner that discriminates based on race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Keep in mind that only a couple of recommendations each year are even remotely controversial — most pass with nary an objection. Extending fiscal voting rights is a token gesture that won't strengthen the legitimacy of community reps, but will only serve as a lightning rod for those against community reps. (We've been here before: The forerunners to community reps got fiscal voting rights in 2001, resulting in two bitter referendum campaigns until the current system, a compromise, was put into place in 2003.)
However, the proposals have many positive changes that can strengthen the system. Fortunately, many of these can be implemented even if Referenda 3 and 4 do not pass.
To achieve greater voter eligibility numbers, student group constitutions can modify their voting procedures. The current TCU Constitution gives student groups complete control over how their reps are elected. Changing group constitutions avoids having to cede control over representation to Referendum 3's student body−wide popularity contest on WebCenter.
The referenda bolster the description of a community rep's role, and nothing prevents Senate from adopting it in its own bylaws. And if next year's executive board so choses, it could simply incorporate the Culture, Ethnicity and Community Affairs Committee (CECA) chair into more meetings with Senate officers and Tufts administrators. The CECA chair could then serve as a useful liaison and mentor for community reps who may not know the extent and powers of their role. Both TCU presidential candidates have told me that if the referenda don't pass, they pledge to invite the CECA chair to all executive board meetings.
Other parts of these referenda might require a constitutional change in the future. But there are enough downsides to the current proposals that we should work with the current system instead, making immediate changes through student group constitutions and Senate bylaws, while looking at the larger outreach problems that extend beyond community reps.
Recall that sophomore Matt Wittman called Senate "a paper tiger" back in February in an article on the Quad, while junior and TCU presidential candidate Sam Wallis says on his website that "Senate is in a bubble."
To address this, it requires a culture change on Senate along the lines of a Daily op−ed I wrote on March 4. It also requires a new approach to the open forum section of Senate meetings — right now, there's no accountability for anything that gets brought up as a concern, whether from a community rep or from anyone else who addresses Senate. It's addressed ad hoc, and Senate may never be asked to take a stand on the issue — making it look like Senate doesn't care.
Neither referendum resolves this issue. Vote no on Referenda 3 and 4 next Monday so that the underlying issues of representation will be addressed.
--
Christopher Snyder is a junior majoring in political science. He is the editor of The Quad, a campus blog.
