To the Editor:
If I may reference an earlier letter to the editor originally published on March 1, “A powerful silence hangs over the student body.” Ever since the start of the 2013 Co-Presidential campaign, this “silence” has grown to a point where I can no longer hold my tongue. The gender equality for which many fellow students have fought risks being tarnished due to the targeted persecution of the male-male candidate pair in the upcoming election.
The entire debate on gender equality was triggered by the January 19 vote by student council to elect future Co-Presidents. Although I ultimately voted in favor of the co-presidential model, I had several reservations concerning support for this proposal. First, the proposal had just been formulated, and as a result, there was no definite plan for how the election would proceed. Second, in a hasty and unpublicized move by the students on the committee and their faculty supporters, the vote was scheduled just days after its proposal, denying discussion and debate among the student body. In addition, I felt that having two Co-Presidents might not actually address the main underlying problem with student council, which is its inherent inability to accomplish much.
At a dean table’s meeting, I listened to people present numerous arguments, one of which addressed the gender disparity representation in student council, which is indeed an issue. However, the main rationale that resonated with me was that the co-presidential system would almost wholly ensure that the two representatives would work together, as opposed to past years when the executive board was divided. While persuasive, I was not convinced. I had the ability to oppose and block this proposal, along with other members of the student council who harbored similar reservations. The votes were almost certainly in place to defeat the proposal.
In the early hours of January 19, I was convinced by some friends that the change could potentially usher in a new era of efficiency in student council. Therefore, I reasoned with myself that if I voted against this potentially meaningful change, I would have prevented a change that could offer a solution to the inefficiencies of student council. I contemplated the possible creation of a better meritocracy where the Co-Presidents would be more inclined to give their best efforts in student council, and those elected would not win based on their level of popularity or most entertaining, humorous speech. Moreover, in the long run, I also reasoned that the gender disparity would eventually be eliminated through this new election system, as in the long run, female-male pairs would have an increased chance of being elected based on their merits.
However, the true reason for the change, the one that swayed me to vote for the proposal, has completely disappeared. Instead, the change has been misconstrued almost entirely as a gender issue. To be clear, the debates and discussions that have occurred to get a better understanding of gender issues on campus are excellent. It has brought to light to the biases against females in our community that have been shrouded for too long. Yet, we cannot let these conversations place a particular candidate pair at a disadvantage because of their sex. Many proponents for the change believe that now we have more of a meritocracy because of the increased probability of a female being one of the Co-Presidents.
This might be true, but if the most qualified pair is male-male, would it make sense to elect the female-male pair just because a girl is on the ticket? If what we are striving for is a meritocracy I would disagree. At the same time, if those fighting for elimination of the disparity believe that it would be better to elect a less qualified female-male candidate pair over a more qualified male-male pair simply to eliminate the disparity, maybe the proposal did not go far enough. Maybe a 50/50 quota should have been established to guarantee females equal representation in student council (which was discussed).
If I could have looked into the future, I would have voted against this proposal. I wanted to help create a true meritocracy, but two very distinct issues have been blurred together. Solving the gender issue, important as it is, is not the same as achieving efficiency in student council. Once again, while a valid concern, the gender issue was not the primary reason for the change in the structure of student council, as we, or at least I, sought to amend the actual inefficiencies in the council. I hope my fellow students reflect on these thoughts prior to voting.
Sincerely,
Rolando Bonachea ‘13
Student Body Vice President
