It is understandable not much has been written about regarding this week’s Associated Students of Madison elections. Aside from a very small contingency of local political buffs, most of the study body doesn’t really care about the infertile clusterfuck that is our student government. However, ASM does still retain some semblance of power on matters concerning students, and thus students deserve some analysis on how the group of candidates for ASM positions in the For Accessibility, Community and Empowerment of Students slate could fundamentally alter the direction of that power.

From the two news articles published in this paper on the FACES slate, details about the slates respective candidate’s platforms and purposes have been sketchy and in some cases completely wrong. So, here are the facts from organizer and member of the slate, Kyle Szarzynski. First, the slate consists of 14 Student Council and two Student Service and Finance Committee candidates (this includes a couple write-in candidacies). Second, the slate grew out of former members of the successful Vote No Coalition. And third, they want to do a better job on issues covered in every viable ASM candidate’s platform — the environment, campus diversity, monetary accessibility, etc.

So, what is the slate and what makes them different from other ASM candidates promising to produce results on run-of-the-mill progressive issues? From what I could gather, the difference lies in the methods FACES proposes going about doing so.

There are two facets to the slate’s proposed methods of getting results. First, they would place a greater focus on grassroots campaigns that borders on obsession. Szarzynski gave two differences as to what the focus entails. First, it means working to “get students involved in campaigns that matter,” and two, it means adjusting ASMs role to be more of a “channel of student activism.”

As far as the idea of getting “students involved in campaigns that matter” goes, it seems no matter what ASM does, the amount of students who will be getting involved in their campaigns or even caring about ASM in general will not grow significantly. I am very skeptical this slate of candidates will be able to bring in a new cohort of students eager to get involved with ASM campaigns. I also doubt rational members of FACES would generally disagree with that assessment. So, it must be activists that this slate is looking to in order to ensure grassroots victories. And what about ASM as a “channel of student activism”?

This, of course, begs the question: What kind of activism? The kind of activism undertaken by groups supplying the resources and votes to get members of the slate into their desired positions on ASM. As Szarzynski put it, these are “your usual leftist orgs.”

So, while the slate promises grassroots victories on progressive issues accepted by most of campus, it seems what this means operationally is victories for leftist organizations with certain goals and views which are in no way representative of the student body here. Though they may insist otherwise, I question whether a group who is looking to encourage victories for organizations on the fringe of the student population will be true to the issues that matter most to the entirety of the student body.

The second facet which differentiates the candidates on the FACES slate is their promise of more aggressive tactics of negotiation with the UW administration. These tactics have certainly been successful in the past. One could cite the 1999 tuition-freeze as a direct result of more hard-line methods of negotiation with administration on the part of student leaders. With a student body as uninformed and uninvolved in student government matters as our own, we probably do need more active and aggressive leaders to fight for student interests. On that point, the FACES slate seems right on.

However, the student body would be better off with aggressive leaders whose underlying views and motivations are more representative of their own. By electing candidates running as members of the FACES slate, we risk having whatever room for persuasion ASM representatives have with UW administrators potentially squandered on issues or aspects of issues that are not as important or vital to the entire student body. One could easily see the slate’s uncompromising view on the need for increases in financial aid with rising tuition as an example of relative radicalism getting in the way of progress on the greater issue of increased accessibility to the university.

Alas, due to a lack of alternatives (only 19 people are running for 12 seats), it appears a number of the members of the slate will find open seats on the council no matter what. The most voters can do is limit the influence this slate has by limiting the number of their victories this week and hope they actually follow through on their campaign promises. I remain skeptical.

Alec Slocum ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in philosophy and legal studies.