PROVE ME WRONG, LEADERS

Is 94 percent not enough? Last week, the student body expressed its
overwhelming support for the adoption of a Good Samaritan policy
through the results of two referenda questions on the Student
Government Association ballot. What does the student vote really
mean? Is it merely "symbolic" as some administrators have suggested,
or are we going to demand that our democratic will be implemented? In
my three years here at the university, we have yet to see
student-governed bodies who will truly walk the walk and choose the
latter. Ninety-four percent of voters supported "the adoption of a
Good Samaritan Policy which would shield students from
university-based punishments if they called emergency services to
receive help as a result of drug and/or alcohol use." So what happens
now? It's the perfect opportunity for the newly elected SGA members
to prove wrong those who suggest that our student democracy is
superficial or lacking.

This should be conclusive evidence to the Senate Student Conduct
committee that this is a policy that students say they need and want
- - and Monday's Diamondback staff editorial correctly highlighted the
urgency of the current situation in addition to its widespread
student support. Yet the Senate Student Conduct Committee has
canceled its last three meetings, stating that because there are no
pending judicial appeals to handle, we have absolutely no business to
discuss. When I was notified of the first cancellation, I expressed
my strong preference that we continue to meet, which was met with a
few agitated responses from non-student committee members and a
standing decision to cancel the meetings.

Every student in the Residence Halls Association, SGA, University
Senate and all other elected representatives need to do something
about this to make sure that it actually happens. The efforts of
myself and others who have been trying to enact more sensible student
drug policies on this campus have been sincere and should be
recognized. And I have learned the hard way that this is something
that student representatives must fight for and be vehement in
holding the administration accountable for. This new crop of student
government officials had better step up to the plate to get things
done. The passionate attitude toward civic responsibility that we all
heard being championed by various SGA candidates has historically
seemed to disappear a couple weeks after the election hype has died
down. We've all heard the talk, now I challenge our student officials
to show us the walk - today.

I might remind the new SGA legislators and executives that they were
elected on the same ballot that expresses their policy preferences -
specifically a reduction in marijuana sanctions and the adoption of a
Good Samaritan policy. What makes these policy changes any less
salient than the SGA legislators? Something needs to be done
immediately and officially. They should be staunchly defending the
weight that SGA ballots hold, being that whatever power they believe
they have as legislators has been given to them by that same
mechanism that passed these referenda.

The other referendum question about raising student fees to provide
newspapers on the campus passed with 65 percent of the vote, and I
have little doubt that we will see The New York Times and The
Washington Post in additional locations next year. But will we see
the inclusion of a Good Samaritan policy in our Code of Conduct,
Residence Hall Rules or even mentioned as practice or protocol on the
university website?

I won't hold my breath. As a person who believes whole heartedly in
the democratic process and its ability to produce the most favorable
conditions for individuals in a society, it's actually quite
depressing to hold this cynical view about my own campus's democracy.
This is a loud and clear challenge to our new (and old, for that
matter) student leaders to please, please prove me wrong.