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 ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in nuclear engineering.
