After a nearly year−and−a−half−long effort to obtain more power for community representatives in the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate, individuals elected to the position finally are on par with senators in their voting rights. Referendum 3, following a year's worth of debate, passed by a single vote this fall. Now that the contention is over and the Senate has spent this semester working to codify the process, it is disappointing that two of the four seats open for community representatives remain unfilled. Blame has been pointed at various organizations, but it seems that the real problem goes far beyond one or two student groups not pulling their weight in advertising and instead highlights a case of unrealized potential across student government.
Several have cited the large time commitment as a possible reason for why people chose not to run for community representative positions. Yet a weekly four−hour meeting does not seem to be a sufficient reason to walk away from an opportunity to represent one's community. Moreover, it is doubtful that the addition of full voting rights to the position's responsibilities would increase the time commitment significantly. Considering the amount of work that was put into establishing the community representative position, we do not sympathize with those who complain about the time commitment involved with serving.
Others, with note TCU President−elect Tomas Garcia, a junior, have said that a lack of advertising is to blame for low interest in the position. We agree that the TCU Election Commission, which is responsible for the official advertisement of elections and open positions, has continued its regrettable pattern of late of shirking its duties. But we also believe that some fault lies with the four of six cultural centers that currently have a community representative in the Senate. The directors of the centers have, in the past, expressed understandable reticence to become involved in what is a student issue. Nonetheless, it is their communities that benefit from the existence of the community representative position. The centers did not do a satisfactory job of advertising the availability of these positions.
There is clearly plenty of blame to go around. But the main problem here seems to stem from a general apathy about student government among the student body. In last month's election, only 17 students showed interest in the 21 open senator seats on the body; the four remaining will hopefully be filled next fall. Likewise, many students were incredibly passionate about granting community representatives more of a voice on the Senate, but when it came time to put this vision into action, few have been willing to step up. This ardor for change was, once some changes were made, dead on arrival. Being a community representative is no easy task, especially with the new responsibility to vote on fiscal matters, but simply wanting change to happen is not enough. Tufts students need be the vehicles of change if they want to see it come to fruition.
The Senate garners a wealth of criticism each and every year from the student body and even from these pages of the Daily. Yet it is not enough to highlight errors made or ineffectiveness by the body. A push for change requires follow up, follow up that was not realized in the selection of the community representatives, nor in last month's election for the Senate seats.
Tufts prides itself on its global active citizenship. Let's not let that global perspective mean turning a blind eye to issues closer to home.
--
