Poll Dancing

Last semester’s NROTC activism may not have been the most elegant affair on campus, but it certainly got us thinking over at Shock and Awe headquarters. Even though the vote carried no real weight, the mere fact of polling the student body had demonstrable benefits. If polling were institutionalized on campus by Columbia College Student Council, student groups would reap several rewards which would greatly increase the effectiveness of their campaigns.

Most politically active groups on campus operate in basically the same way. They meet at the beginning of the semester, choose an agenda, then meet regularly with each other and with the relevant campus decision-makers—administrators, student councils, governing boards—to push for policy change. Interactions run the gamut from Eco-Reps, who help craft environmental policy, to Columbia University College Democrats, who nudge Health Services into lowering birth control costs, to a student coalition that resorted to a hunger strike after years of futile meetings with, and broken promises from, administrators. These disconnected efforts leave much to be desired. Instead of student groups plastering Hamilton or lobbying campus media, a regular voting procedure would necessitate a centralized place where upcoming initiatives could be explained. Think of it as a “democratic clearing house,” perhaps an online portal where anyone could propose an issue for vote. CCSC could then gauge enthusiasm for initiatives and present 5-10 of them for a vote each year. Students, faculty, staff, and administrators alike would have an equal vote.

If just a few student-group agenda items were actually up for a full University vote, groups would have something concrete to unite behind, and they could gain easier access to policymakers. Advertising and garnering support would also be easier, because students wouldn’t have to devote all their waking hours to a cause in order to contribute something. Finally, with a successful vote in their pockets, groups would gain leverage through proof of support on campus. When the University ignores the efforts of Students for Environmental and Economic Justice to buy wind power, no one notices. But when the University ignores a vote of support for the measure, SEEJ has something to bring to policymakers.

Imagine how the hunger-strike demands might have been handled if they were put up for a vote. The coalition could have authored a series of initiatives, one for each of its demands. Right away, students who felt alienated by the grab bag of problems listed by the hunger strikers would be given the chance to support or oppose each demand on its own merit. If the initiatives passed, demonstrable support would pressure or perhaps even force change. Lobbying would suddenly be part of a legitimate system of decision making, rather than the current system of cold-calling folks on the bureaucratic flow chart whose titles seem possibly relevant. It would legitimize students’ right to a seat at the table when decisions are being made. Should the support be ignored, drastic actions like a hunger strike would be correctly interpreted as a last resort.

Student council is the perfect forum for this program. While it’s unlikely that the University would agree to give student votes any automatic force, the student councils could agree to pursue approved proposals. In fact, something like this would probably restore some appreciation for the councils, as they would be clearly responding to student desires. Let’s face it, CCSC is full of passionate and hardworking students, but once council members are elected, the student body opinion has little effect on their actions. This, we argue, is a problem of structure rather than personnel.

Democracy also necessitates education. One complaint we’ve heard over and over (and muttered ourselves) is that student groups feel isolated in their projects because the student body as a whole is so difficult to communicate with. There is no centralized hangout space on campus, the closest approximations being the dining halls for freshmen and the steps of Low. Instead we have small meeting spaces and a ramp-strewn echo chamber called Lerner. No wonder so many groups demanded lounges! Forget the lack of safe spaces for subsegments of our population—there is no unrestricted safe space for students in general! There is no indoor hangout area, no area that doesn’t need to be specially reserved and doesn’t close on evenings and weekends.

Creating institutions like the one we’re recommending would help counteract our physical obstacles to unity. By establishing a regular-issue vote, we’d have to communicate better, and we’d have to cooperate to help each other even if it means momentarily putting our pet projects on the back burner. Civic engagement would mean that we’d all need to know about the endeavors of our next-door neighbors. By the same token, if groups wanted voting to go their way, they would have to put out intelligible literature explaining the issues. This could be collected and could contribute greatly to the institutional memory that four-year university student bodies are prone to lack. Suddenly the private struggles that led to the hunger strike would become public knowledge.

Perhaps the greatest advantage to this system is the space it would open within campus politics for students who are interested in the issues but have chosen to devote their college time to other endeavors. Just as our national democratic system has many levels of engagement, we can create new levels of engagement on campus which allow those students to express their educated opinions without demanding their presence at meetings. Who knows, this might be the direction we need to get more creative ideas into the campus discourse.

Sarah Leonard is a Columbia College junior majoring in history. Kate Redburn is a Columbia College junior majoring in history and African studies. Shock and Awe runs alternate Fridays. Opinion@columbiaspectator.com