OPINION & EDITORIAL
Dangerous Liaisons
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Time for students to listen to ASM (November 14, 2002)
- Segregated fees benefit campus (March 15, 2007)
- Shhhhh .... ASM is meeting (November 14, 2001)
- ASM still wrong (January 22, 2002)
- Exposing the gravy train (October 31, 2007)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Monday, January 26, 2004
It is comforting to know some things will never change. Political bickering in our student government is one of them.
Once again, the Associated Students of Madison is wasting time squabbling over unrealistic ideas instead of bearing down to make a positive difference for the students who supply their paychecks with segregated fees.
At Wednesday’s meeting, the council sat down to vote on the internal ASM budget. Trouble began with the mention of the five liaisons ASM currently employs to represent traditionally underrepresented students: LGBTs, women, students of color, female students of color and LGBT students of color.
These liaisons act as the go-betweens for these constituencies and the student government. The council, in an attempt to ensure all voices are heard, pays for these liaisons at a cost of $3,579 per liaison.
After discussion about adding a sixth liaison for students with disabilities, some members of the council voiced their skepticism regarding the necessity of these positions in the first place. When this discussion came to an end, their protests did as well.
Or so we thought.
Instead of proceeding, Student Services Finance Committee members Peter McCabe and Lindsay Ourada sarcastically proposed adding 10 more such liaisons. This proposal came from the same two members who had previously questioned whether any liaisons were necessary at all.
Yet, instead of acting like the mature adult representatives of 40,000-plus students with the responsibility of millions of dollars, they offered a proposal to essentially snub their noses at ASM. Instead of offering a real alternative to an issue they recognized as important, they extended the legislative equivalent of the bird in protest to the initial five liaisons.
We can respect the fact that ASM represents a variety of perspectives on controversial issues. And, like any legislative body, heated arguments can ensue.
But this is not the answer. Offering up blatantly sarcastic proposals not only disrespects the legislative goals of other council members but also wastes the students’ time and money in the process. ASM constantly tries to fight student apathy, low voter turnout and a general sense on campus that they do little or nothing. After learning of Ourada and McCabe’s recent actions before ASM, we cannot help but begin to share the opinions of our fellow students.
In the end, ASM could serve as a model of respectful discourse and representation for the thousands of students on campus. They could work in positive ways toward student interests. Ourada and McCabe’s actions are just another in a long line of internal bickering among a group of students that seem more concerned with power and resum� building than accomplishing something worthwhile.
We encourage you to contact these members and voice your concerns:
Peter McCabe pjmccabe@optonline.net
Lindsey Ourada llourrada@wisc.edu
