Quick, rush to the polls! Each time there is an election for anything, we are inundated with announcements.
Last week, the Entertainment Board had an election. Fantastic, I thought when I first got the e-mails; finally I can really have some input into what musical acts visit the school.
Yes, yes, we are given input in the autumn. Being allowed to pick which of seemingly dozens of obscure and almost unknown bands we have a dim recollection of hearing were good from a friend of a friend is nice, but getting to elect the people who make the real decisions is even better.
So happily, I clicked the link and opened up the ballot form, expecting to feel the rush of power of a citizen who gets to decide and vote. But wait—who are these people? Only three names? And none of them are the people I know on the E-Board?
We cannot, as it turns out, actually elect the E-board, despite the fact that they do far more of what most people care about than Bowdoin Student Government (BSG).
Only the BSG representatives for the E-Board are up for election, even though the difference in roles between them and a normal E-Board member is unclear.
Bowdoin's democratic pretensions are reserved for BSG, and while a college is not a democratic environment, it seems rather odd that we deal in half-measures.
If they are lucky, most students will once in a while remember that BSG exists. On the other hand, everyone knows about the E-Board, or at least they do at one point, even if the memory fades with their intoxication after Ivies.
Likewise with the Judicial Board (J-Board)—rarely is any organization on campus so criticized and misunderstood as the J-Board, but so far, the administration has completely failed to give students insight into the way it is run.
In light of the ridiculously limited E-Board election, a solution is clear. The student body should elect the members of both the E-Board and the J-Board.
The school likes to say how important BSG is to the campus, and the student body elects BSG. If BSG really is that important, why are the E-Board and J-Board treated differently?
The standard line from BSG and the administration is that all three organizations are significant presences on campus, and all three of them allow students to take on valuable leadership roles. But how can a position where one wins tenure really be a leadership position over other students, at least as the term is usually understood in the outside world?
For two such disparate organizations, it is interesting that the most common complaints are strikingly similar: both are accused of being out of touch with students' needs and desires and appear to many as heavy-handed. This, however, is no surprise.
As the revolts in non-democratic countries across the world demonstrate, citizens living in systems where they have no choice of whom has power over them are dissatisfied with their lives.
Given the state of the E-Board and J-Board, it is clear that we are dealing with a microcosm of the same dissatisfaction. The J-Board even selects its own members; it would be hard to design a group more susceptible to homogenization and lack of accountability than that.
That is the main issue at hand: the E-Board and J-Board have zero accountability for their actions. They can do what they want, and the student body has no say in the process.
How do we rectify the situation? The easy answer is just to throw open the doors and let the people have their say. I, though, would agree with those of you (perhaps the majority) who do not want elections for important campus organizations turned into popularity contests.
Luckily, there already exists a system that could ensure that the E-Board and J-Board are not populated by the "who's who" of the Bowdoin social scene.
In order to be considered for the J-Board, one has to be nominated. Currently, almost anyone can nominate a candidate.
If the system were restricted so that only members of the faculty and staff could nominate students for the positions, there would be an automatic vetting process that would only allow serious students to proceed.
In fact, keep the entire interview structure; just give the student body the final say on who gets the positions. This, along with the elimination of tenure, would go a long way in making students more confident in the E-Board and J-Board.
The only real arguments against the direct election of board members rely on assumptions that they would not get re-elected. Yes, we need people on the E-Board and J-Board who know how the system works, and there has to be some continuity, so we cannot have the boards' membership churning every year.
But if the students were perceived to be doing a good job, this would not be an issue: just look at BSG. Members are held accountable for their actions, but many representatives have long tenures. The membership of student government is remarkably stable, despite members' regular campaigns for re-election.
If the E-Board brings bands the campus likes, and if the J-Board members were seen as engaged, fair and not aloof, then their members would almost certainly hold their chairs for the duration of their Bowdoin careers.
The members of the E-Board and J-Board should not even be afraid of such changes: If they truly believe they are doing a good job, then what do they have to fear from the democratic process?