Each year, presidential candidates have risen to the podium with promises to energize Student Council. Each year, they endorse different types of change, calling on revised day student parking, appealing for discounts at downtown stores or promising improved internet speeds. And each year, the student body bemoans the inaction and triviality of the organization. What is unclear is whether that lack of active change derives from apathetic leadership or an inherent fault in the system of student governance. Could the issue be the limited powers and influence the organization has under the jurisdiction of the administration? Perhaps, and if this were the case, the insufficient activities of Student Council cannot be entirely blamed on its student leaders. Instead, such leaders could faulter because of system flaws such as poor transparency concerning negotiations between Student Council and the administration. As such, next year’s leaders should work towards fixing the system so as to actually give the students a voice in administrative decisions. But the council’s inaction could also be blamed on its members’ own inaction. Was the enthusiasm displayed by all candidates during the campaign season a reflection of a genuine passion to reform the school or a desire for personal gain? Judging from past records of broken campaign promises and apparent inaction, candidates seem more concerned with getting the position rather than reforming the council. The campaign rhetoric is simply a means to a far less admirable end. However, recent achievements by Student Council have proven that progress is possible. The best and most recent example of this action is the institution of the BlueCard system. It is a genuine effort in easing student life by combining identification cards and ATM cards. However, even this change was limited by its lack of effectiveness. It served as a mild convenience, but nothing more. It is vital that Student Council effect more drastic change if it wishes to repair its reputation. Ideas presented by our recent candidates represent a chance for this type of change. Among the usual proposals for more drink machines and better internet speeds, two ideas showed serious potential: parietal reform and changing testing schedules. These proposals address the major campus issues of room visits and weekly workload, and have the ability to significantly improve the quality of life on campus. Phillips Academy is not a perfect institution. In fact, if you were to look at the State of the Academy survey every year, take a peak into the sleeping room at Isham and witness the dozens of DC meetings that happen each year behind closed doors, you’d start seeing the cracks. To all the elected representatives of Student Council, you have the opportunity to not only change the lackluster image of Student Council, but to actually give the students a voice in administrative decisions that directly and sometimes negatively affect our lives. The strength of an organization depends on its ability to effect significant change. It if fails to do so, its existence is insignificant. But if the BlueCard was the crowning achievement of Student Council over the past three years, are changes of a greater magnitude a viable possibility? While only time will tell, we truly hope they are. Good luck. This editorial represents the views of Editorial Board CXXXIII.
