Opinion: Column
New constitution opportunity, not threat, for orgs
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Patrick McEwen:
- No, it's not racist: White view has definite place in dialogue (December 3, 2009)
- FACES members Left and leaving (November 18, 2009)
- Understanding nuclear issues facing our future (November 4, 2009)
- SSFC reps should all be appointed (October 20, 2009)
- Non-tech students want a degree? Take calculus first (October 6, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Ever since I’ve been on this campus, almost every Associated Students of Madison-related news story could seemingly be spun as a failure of the organization and was held up by critics — further evidence of the need for significant reform. Well, on Feb. 23 and 24, students will have the opportunity to approve or reject the culmination of reform efforts when they get to vote on the new ASM Constitution.
Not surprisingly, many are unhappy with the new constitution. There is a growing movement to reject this new governing document. While this opposition is certainly not limited to students whose politics fall on the far-left end of the spectrum, the “vote no” movement is being spearheaded by radically progressive groups and students.
A quick check of the Facebook group started to oppose the new constitution reveals it is led by Chynna Haas, Kyle Szarzynski and Student Progressive Dane, along with the support of many other of the
The major argument being advanced by the Vote No Coalition is the new constitution gives too much power to the executive position it creates, especially over the budgets of General Student Services Fund groups. Now, I don’t want to get into the details of the debate over the appropriate amount of power for a student government president, but one thing is agreed upon by both sides: The new president will certainly have more authority and control than any current ASM position.
Despite their opposition, this new executive power represents far more potential opportunity for campus radical progressives than it does a potential threat. When was the last time a conservative or even a libertarian student made a serious run at any kind of elected position on campus? You’d probably have to go back to David Lapidus’s failed candidacy for the
Thus, in a worst-case scenario for the campus far-left you’d see a moderate liberal holding ASM’s highest office. This situation would likely not represent a significant change in the status quo where ASM is neither an ally nor opponent of the agenda of radical progressive groups. The new constitution really represents a no-risk proposition for the radical left on campus. It’s not like the prominent support they currently are receiving from ASM is in jeopardy.
On the other hand, just imagine the potential for the radical progressive movement if they could succeed in getting one of their own elected president of ASM. This student would have, in essence, the power to speak for the majority of students, as this president would be the only public official of any kind directly elected by all students. We didn’t get to elect Biddy Martin chancellor, and Eli Judge’s district may be 98 percent students, but it still only encompasses a fraction of the total student body. Within the current structure of ASM, only Letters and Sciences students had even the opportunity to vote for Brittany Wiegand, the current chair, but even that was merely to elect her to Student Council.
A recent letter to the editor featured in this paper mentioned the past success of ASM in championing student issues. While this kind of action might be possible within the current system, the increased executive power represents a potential for radical progressive groups to utilize ASM as a means of student organization. If our student government is going to take a stance on these issues the only risk is that it falls in line with the agenda of the far-left. Can any one seriously say with a straight face that a popularly elected student leader would come out in favor of making more UW apparel with sweatshop labor or that they support the taking away of rights from immigrants?
The current constitution battle lines have been drawn with the most radically progressive groups opposed to the new constitution. But in terms of the potential for the new constitution to change the political leanings and in functionally the current purpose of ASM, those groups are fighting against their best interests.
Patrick McEwen (mcewen@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in nuclear engineering.
10 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Top Classified Ads (view all)
Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!
DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!
IP hash: 1cd153ed
Patrick, you really do a fine job of completely ignoring all the relevant details in order to paint your little story about all the “radical progressive groups” involved in the Vote No Coalition. In fact, it seems that you almost completely ignore any sort of substantive discussion about the new constitution and its potential effectiveness.
You conveniently decided to make this a story about all the “far-left” CAN and ISO people that are supposedly missing their big chance. But what you failed to realize is the diversity of groups and people involved. Groups endorsing the Vote No Coalition range from Sex Out Loud to CFACT from PAVE to TAA and from MEChA to Campus Women’s Center.
As far as the individuals involved, I’d say our social and political views are probably as diverse as they come on this campus. People from all sorts of backgrounds are stepping up to fight this constitution because they see the threat to student groups and to student organizing. This is no “far-left” scheme, but rather a constructive struggle to make the concerns of students on this campus heard. A new constitution should have been designed to address these concerns. Unfortunately, the authors must have not seen this as being very important.
So next time you want to write a ridiculous little op-ed piece supporting all your buddies in ASM and on the BH Editorial Board remember that not everything on this campus can be blamed on those “radical progressives” over at the Campus Antiwar Network. Get your facts straight, and smell the coffee buddy.
IP hash: a8adef08
Exactly. Waitta steal my column for Monday. Much of the Far Left’s concerns would be assuaged by being an active part of ASM. ASM is as grass roots as the people on it want it to be.
IP hash: 4a8b262f
I’m still not in favor of the new constitution, but still an interesting article. I wonder if the Vote No coalition will morph again if they lose and turn into a campaign for the next ASM president.
IP hash: c96dc3f0
Patrick, what you fail to note in your article is that the new structure would kill the bottom-up grassroots structure that has made ASM a success in the past. This is why people of all different ideologies oppose it. And like the above says, the Vote no coalition is made up of A LOT more groups than just far left ones. Unless you think PAVE and CFACT are far left.
IP hash: 399c794d
Those of you who think that the fact that people of all different political persuasions are opposed to the constitution undermines the point of my column might want to reread the last sentence of my second paragraph where I preempted that argument. Whether this is an exclusively “far left scheme” does not change the fact that almost the entirely of the far left is opposed to the constitution, which no one has disputed I might add. The piece is a critique of the involvement of the far left. Therefore the political view of others in the coalition are irrelevant. My argument is that the new constitution has the power to benefit those far left groups without posing any realistic threat to them. That is in fact the very reason why I am considering voting against the new constitution. As I’m pretty clearly in a minority on campus with regard my political views, I would rather that the far left not be able to utilize an effective ASM to accomplish their goals.
IP hash: dbcd7cb2
Patrick- This is a newspaper column, not a policy debate round.
IP hash: c7e92dd8
PAVE, TAA are pretty fucking left-wing.
IP hash: 9f311428
life is just one big fucking policy debate round.
IP hash: a7fa43d0
PAVE is left-wing???
Working to prevent sexual assault and dismantle myths about it is left wing?
Jesus H.
IP hash: e86dd236
(From an Outsider)
I’d say any coalition of that sort would have it’s work cut out for it (win or lose), given the state budget cuts that are happening everywhere. Personally, I’m proud that progressives are heading it up, if that is the case, but it really does seem counterproductive to try to use that fact and spin it to break the solidarity of this coalition, especially given that everyone’s funding probably in Jeopardy. That’s as true here in Toledo as it is anywhere else, especially at state schools. Just my thoughts.