Spring Break
Democracy In Action...
or Inaction?
Avelino Maestas
Issue date: 10/28/04 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Last Tuesday was Diversity Day at WNMU, and the Board of Regents chose to celebrate by ignoring the contributions made to this institution and this country by Cesar Chavez and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Our personal views on the name of the building aside, we feel it is incumbent to state the obvious: the students had no true voice in this process.
The Board cited recommendations from community members, alumni, and university President Dr. John Counts in their decision to rename the building after Thomas B. McDonald. They also pointed to last week's election, where a mere 8% of students cast a ballot. The Board simply ignored the fifteen student supporters of the Chavez/King proposal who attended the Regents' meeting (no students who supported the Thomas B. McDonald proposal were in attendance.)
Ursula Doll, ASWNMU Secretary, should be commended for her efforts in trying to present the student voice to the Board of Regents. She was placed in a most difficult position, and it is our impression that she felt used by the Board after the conclusion of their meeting. Meanwhile, Student Regent Sharon Miller chose to abstain from the vote. Her inaction showed an inability to stand for her own opinion or the opinion of the students she represents.
Regardless, since this process began several months ago it has been apparent that it was not an exercise in democracy, but a lesson. At the first meeting of the Building Naming Committee Regent President Stephen Janos said that even if a student vote were conducted, the Regents would be the ones making the final decision. He also said that he would ignore a student vote that went against university policy. Giving the students a 'vote' was a simple pander to us.
This whole time supporters of the Chavez/King proposal have expressed to us that they knew it was a lost cause. We feel it was a cause worth fighting for. But in reality, it provided one shining example of the lengths to which this university will go to feign support of the students. It is simply a matter of fact that the Regents ignored the Chavez/King proposal in 1997, and that only later was the policy changed to require a 'substantial contribution' to the university.
The Board cited recommendations from community members, alumni, and university President Dr. John Counts in their decision to rename the building after Thomas B. McDonald. They also pointed to last week's election, where a mere 8% of students cast a ballot. The Board simply ignored the fifteen student supporters of the Chavez/King proposal who attended the Regents' meeting (no students who supported the Thomas B. McDonald proposal were in attendance.)
Ursula Doll, ASWNMU Secretary, should be commended for her efforts in trying to present the student voice to the Board of Regents. She was placed in a most difficult position, and it is our impression that she felt used by the Board after the conclusion of their meeting. Meanwhile, Student Regent Sharon Miller chose to abstain from the vote. Her inaction showed an inability to stand for her own opinion or the opinion of the students she represents.
Regardless, since this process began several months ago it has been apparent that it was not an exercise in democracy, but a lesson. At the first meeting of the Building Naming Committee Regent President Stephen Janos said that even if a student vote were conducted, the Regents would be the ones making the final decision. He also said that he would ignore a student vote that went against university policy. Giving the students a 'vote' was a simple pander to us.
This whole time supporters of the Chavez/King proposal have expressed to us that they knew it was a lost cause. We feel it was a cause worth fighting for. But in reality, it provided one shining example of the lengths to which this university will go to feign support of the students. It is simply a matter of fact that the Regents ignored the Chavez/King proposal in 1997, and that only later was the policy changed to require a 'substantial contribution' to the university.
