To the Editors:
Last week the Pioneer published the board editorial entitled “ASWC must always be mindful when allocating student dollars.” We in ASWC are thrilled to participate in discussion about ASWC’s role in serving the student body.
As a former Finance Senator myself, I experienced the difficult process of balancing students well-intentioned proposals with the need for a tangible, contractually-binding plan to bring their experiences back to campus. To a certain extent, ASWC must trust in the good faith attempts of students to fulfill contractual agreements and to give their experiences legacies. Fortunately, Whitman students are exceptionally bright, passionate, and motivated students and that is reflected in the confidence that ASWC has in requesting students as we approve and disperse funds. We look for requests which demonstrate a commitment to enriching the Whitman experience. Under the current Finance Chair Matt Dittrich and the Finance Committee, we have seen higher expectations for the impact initiatives and trips will have on campus. The basic contract and the process of including contingencies were implemented during Matt’s first term and marked a huge improvement in accountability.
The three students requesting funds to attend the Jon Stewart Rally to Restore Sanity presented a strong and well-prepared presentation which put forth several different ideas about sharing their experience upon their return. When senators had suggestions for how to better bring the experience and knowledge back to campus in an accessible and visible way–which included holding an additional event for the broader Walla Walla community, applying to present at the undergraduate conference, and going through the process of starting an ASWC club–the requesting students were open and enthusiastic about the suggestions. Furthermore, the discussion that took place prior to the vote to allocate funds was originally expected to take no more than fifteen minutes, however ultimately took forty-five minutes–illustrating how in-depth and critical the Senate was in making their decision.
Any opportunity Whitman College has to send students to a national forum in Washington D.C. to talk about political issues, even in the context of a comedic rally, is one that we should seize. We believe that valuable political discourse can take many forms. What will unify this group of people attending the rally is an interest in the issues that are currently being debated. These students are going into the rally with a demonstrated interest in American political rhetoric and discourse and are seeking to explore what this means during their time in D.C. Even if the worst happens and these students find that the rally features Jon Stewart’s celebrity more than the underlying political debate, the rally will in and of itself typify the problem of conflating popular culture and politics. This will not be lost on our students.
ASWC applauds the Pioneer in calling students to be critically and actively involved in ASWC. Our paramount duty is to represent the student body, enhancing student life on campus. The best way we can do this is with an engaged student body. All members of the Executive Committee have office hours to talk with students, biweekly Senate meetings are open to all students, and your senators primary function is to be in dialogue with their constituents. Students are encouraged to email ASWC at [email protected] or visit www.GoASWC.org.
Sincerely,
Geni Venable
ASWC Communications Director on behalf of ASWC
Wayne Lichty • Oct 31, 2010 at 4:08 pm
“To a certain extent, ASWC must trust in the good faith attempts of students to fulfill contractual agreements and to give their experiences legacies.”
I don’t think there was ever an argument made in the editor’s article that the students didn’t intend to fulfill their “contractual obligations,” but rather that contractual obligations such as “sharing their experience through Facebook photos and by live-Tweeting during the event” are insufficiently beneficial to the Walla Walla community.
“Fortunately, Whitman students are exceptionally bright, passionate, and motivated students and that is reflected in the confidence that ASWC has in requesting students as we approve and disperse funds.”
This sentence asserts that because Whitman students are Whitman students their projects are presumed worthy of funding. Shouldn’t the content of the proposal itself be the criteria for approval, and not an assumed belief that all whitman students are somehow great? This claim seems analogous to a politician reminding their constituents that americans are all rational and good people, and thus their ideas have additional validity.
“We look for requests which demonstrate a commitment to enriching the Whitman experience.”
Isn’t this the issue at hand? “While we acknowledge that students should have access to student dollars for purposes that they choose, and that students should never be deterred from seeking such money, this in no way absolves ASWC of critically questioning and judging if student requests have the clear possibility of benefiting more than just the students who request the funding.” The issue is not so much the individual requests, but rather the judgement of ASWC officials. This statement talks passed what the board editorial intended to address, which is the critical thinking of ASWC members themselves.
“The three students requesting funds to attend the Jon Stewart Rally to Restore Sanity presented a strong and well-prepared presentation which put forth several different ideas about sharing their experience upon their return.”
It is alarming to me that a request could be considered strong without clearly stating who is to speak, what the agenda for the event is, and what the actual mission of the event is. This is especially true because after some searching, I discovered an interview between Jon Stewart and Larry King, where it was adamently stated that this is “not a political event, whatsoever.”
“[the students will be] going through the process of starting an ASWC club.”
This was a stipulation added to the students request because they admitted to not having contacted any currently established political clubs on campus, despite their “passion for the subject.”
“Furthermore, the discussion that took place prior to the vote to allocate funds was originally expected to take no more than fifteen minutes, however ultimately took forty-five minutes–illustrating how in-depth and critical the Senate was in making their decision.”
The matter extented 45 minutes because the minority of dissenters continued to voice their misgivings to the proposal.
“Any opportunity Whitman College has to send students to a national forum in Washington D.C. to talk about political issues, even in the context of a comedic rally, is one that we should seize.”
Does this mean that Whitman should “seize” the opportunity to send students across the country for any remotely political forum? This would be financially irresponsible and idealistically questionable.
“These students are going into the rally with a demonstrated interest in American political rhetoric and discourse and are seeking to explore what this means during their time in D.C.”
Did the students really demonstrate a “passion” for american political rhetoric? What would this actually look like? Would the students be able to explore this in a justifiable way at this particular (and ambiguously advertised) event?
“Even if the worst happens and these students find that the rally features Jon Stewart’s celebrity more than the underlying political debate, the rally will in and of itself typify the problem of conflating popular culture and politics. This will not be lost on our students.”
So in the worst case scenario, the $1200 is always justified? This seems like a dangerous assumption. Was the problem in question ever really the “conflation popular culture and politics?” My impression was that the problem was hyperbolic and misleading rhetoric in American visual media.
When I first heard about the rally to restore sanity, I joked with a couple friends that we should propose some kind of pretext to aswc such that they will pay for our trip so we don’t have to. This is why I am wary of proposals such as this, and by extension, senators’ judgement on all proposals.