Implore and ye shall receive, Corey Testa ’10.
Allow me the opportunity to clarify a few things and reiterate some of the main points of Lilah’s article, because I feel that your frustration is partially due to a misreading of her piece.
First, it is not a “ludicrous assertion” that SGA is not doing their job, particularly with regards to Public Relations and those responsible for tapping into the talent of the student body at large.
In the real world, simply performing the basic tasks set out in a charter or constitution or job description does not constitute a “job well done.”
As adults, we are measured against the results that we produce. SGA PR will have done their job when students are informed, with or without their direct participation. Do I care that Apple now “has an app for that” if I have no iPhone to take advantage of it with? Not necessarily, but I am certainly made aware because Apple’s public outreach manages to shove it down my throat. SGA should be working with The Voice to produce a basic, informative rundown of SGA proceedings to accompany the SGA on the Can, many of which currently reside, waterlogged, on the floor of my bathroom. It’s obviously a different approach than Apple’s, but potentially useful nonetheless.
This article is no way an assault on the credentials or efforts of those currently holding these positions on SGA. This problem has existed for years and begs for a thorough examination and subsequent revamp according to a new results-based paradigm at Conn Coll. We are currently working hard to improve upon every aspect of the Voice’s production in hopes of attaining larger readership and more student participation.
It is an ongoing process, but we’ve already seen some informal positive feedback. Our job is not simply to produce the paper, but to make sure that our readers are active and engaged.
Pardon this digression, but there exist potential ways for both SGA and The Voice to demand more participation from the student body. For instance, demanding low level participation (one or two semesters on a committee, two weeks of editing as a contributing writer) prior to achieving any level of leadership (senator, exec board, staff writing, editorial staff) will force students who are considering extracurricular involvement to experience all aspects of the process as a means of having them be better informed and thus more effective. Having served on SGA as the Senator of Larrabee, I can tell you that all incoming Senators are not necessarily more well versed in student governmental policies, i.e. more capable of affecting change, than the average student. To me, apathy is leaving in place the masochistic tradition of subjecting SGA to three or four hour meetings on Thursday nights, which dissuade the average student from getting involved at all [side note: I ran unopposed in Larrabee].
Most importantly, you state that it is easy to “complain and criticize about something you choose to not be educated about.”
However, your response suggests a cursory, even negligent reading of Lilah’s article.
The point of her article is just that – to educate yourself fully before lodging a complaint in an important and meaningful forum rather than just running your mouth at the opening of the new privately-funded AC or the disappearance of the gifts from the Simmons Fund.
Lilah, who mentions the “unnecessary disconnect” that is created by not “thinking, perhaps consulting” with those in the know has created the very same problems you mention in your letter. At the Voice, we in no way think of any member of SGA as “failures.” We are just offering our perspective in hopes of improving the process that they are responsible for.
The testiness and defensiveness of your letter is indicative of another of Conn’s afflictions.
The different branches of Conn’s leadership (which often overlap, uncomfortably, due to students’ busy schedules rather than apathy) are constantly expressing frustration with each other rather than working together. While you may have been offended by her direct mention of SGA and their role as liaisons between the administration and the student body, try to keep your cool and understand that we are trying to open a constructive dialogue that will help you guys to inform the public and help the public to inform you of their gripes – on their own time – via The Voice.
I sincerely appreciate the time you took to continue this conversation in the last issue, and hope that the executive members of SGA, as well as Senators, will use The Voice to communicate with the student body. The part of your response that I’d like to dispute the most is that “Opinion articles and Conn Coll Confessional tirades are not constructive avenues towards ‘dual communication.’”
After all, I consider this a potentially productive conversation and I hope the good folks at SGA do as well.
