The “Co” of my Co-Chairmanship came from that old system, when my original election to the position was clouded in an alleged violation of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act .  With a narrow win of 11-10, and with one voter thinking his ballot was counted despite leaving early (making it 11-11), Matt led a group of green freshmen who pushed us into an eternal tie, despite some people promising to flip their vote.   It was all done in the spirit of compromise.  The result was that my competitor and I served one semester each.

What did this accomplish? Matt will argue that we were more effective, more peaceful, and the like.  I argue that it made it a lot less fun. I say that because I am not without sin in the game; I perpetuated much of this politicking by taking on these old roles, finding my place and taking up arms from there, and it was a good time.

So why was there infighting in the past, and why will there be infighting again?  It is Sayre’s Law: “In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue,” and particularly, “academic politics” are the most bitter.  Even among friends, no longer rivals, argument envelops most every meeting.

The only real power

The reality is that no matter what was done to try to improve the situation, our efforts were futile.  SA has no power except to spend the students’ money, hopefully for good.  Resolutions that stated we were speaking on behalf of the student body fell on deaf ears.  These opinion statements carried no weight whatsoever.

As a junior, when it was expected that I would be running for SA President, I realized that to effect change at William and Mary I was better off serving as Editor in Chief at our Collegiate Network newspaper, The Virginia Informer.

And when the only effective power is the spending of funds, that is all that will be done, and that is when the danger arises.  “Viewpoint neutrality” is not as neutral as you think.  It is all in one’s perception of the starting point of the debate.  For example, at William and Mary, we have been dealing with the funding of the Sex Workers’ Art Show for many years.  For those in the SA, the “neutral” starting point does not include the simple fact that public nudity is illegal.  It is not simply a lecture on the plight of sex workers.  The SA’s “neutral” stand on the issue allows the show to call itself “art” and therefore be given a pass on these legal issues.  Student government representatives are not equipped to handle these issues and consider them fairly.

The solution?

The solution is to eliminate student fees for clubs and events. Why should universities subsidize these at all?  I don’t think William and Mary should be administering money to the Harry Potter Club to play their version of Quidditch and to continue to strengthen the College’s reputation for being filled with socially awkward smart, sheltered kids with infantile sensibilities as a wasteful-spending public institution. The time has come to stop babying students and giving them buckets of money to play with.  Make student groups raise the funds themselves from outside groups, as all Collegiate Network papers do.  Encourage entrepreneurship, not skills to jockey for handouts.

Where does that leave student government? It depends on the university.  At William and Mary, it would have little function, unless the administration came to respect its opinion.  Student government at the College and elsewhere would be better served if its resolutions for policy changes could be directly fast-tracked, as written, to the appropriate administrator to agree to or veto.  That should be the only function of student government, and it would be the most effective.