Free-speech Friday

Reflections on ASUW election

My worry is not about whether the persons elected will do a good job. I am sure they will. Rather, my worry is concerned with whether we can really say this election respected the principles of democracy we all value. Was this a democratic election? Let me rephrase the question: Was the will of the voters reflected in the outcome of the election? I think there is reason to worry that it was not.

None of these persons can claim a mandate from the voters, since none of the persons elected got a majority of the votes. Each was elected by a minority. With the exception of Hillary Madsen, who received 47 percent of the votes, each of the winners won with only about a third of the votes. How can we claim, with a straight face, that the will of the voters was expressed in the outcome of this election when two-thirds of the voters wanted someone other than the persons who were declared the winners?

So what went wrong? The answer is not hard to find. The ASUW does not require winners to be elected by a majority. To win, a candidate has merely to get more votes than any other candidates. In cases where there are more than two candidates for a particular office, someone can thus win with much less than a majority, potentially disenfranchising a large majority of the voters.

In this year's elections, this effect was exacerbated by the fact that two of the "teams" -- the Dream Team and Team Fusion -- had many similarities and appealed to similar constituencies. Thus, their supporters' votes were likely split, making it even less likely that very many in either team would be elected.

What is the solution? The ASUW senate already had decided upon a solution. It passed a resolution demanding that ASUW Board of Directors elections require winners to be elected by a majority. In the case that there were more than two candidates for a particular office, Instant run-off voting (IRV) would be used. IRV is a way of having a run-off election without requiring the voters to go back to the polls a second time. (You simply have voters indicate who they would vote for in a run-off election if one were needed.) This prevents "vote-splitting" and guarantees that majority rules. There was nothing preventing this resolution from being acted upon. Yet here we are.

Anyone who values the idea of a democratic election ought to be aghast at the thoroughly undemocratic way that ASUW elections are carried out.

-- David Nixon

GPSS president

Maintain value, ambience of Terry Cafe

Turn Terry Cafe into 8? Perhaps Regent Dan Evans should have actually eaten at 8 or the Husky Den before gouging still deeper into residents' room-and-board budgets.

As a resident of Terry Hall, I dearly appreciate the perks at "T-Caf." The food is reasonably cheap, delicious and varied during the day, and the choices from 8 to 11 p.m. have sustained many a Terry-Lander resident the night before an exam. From 55-cent teriyaki bowls to smoothies and giant Belgian waffles, the food is already better than expected, and only Ian's Domain in McCarty Hall has better operating hours.

8 is hardly worth it. The food is no better than at T-Caf, no matter how attractive the marble countertop it is displayed on. Moreover, it is outrageously expensive: a Mongolian Grill-style meal costs more than $6, while I can get the same thing -- only better prepared, half the price and double the portion size -- on the Ave. And its hours are a running joke on north campus. Pagliacci is the only area open later than 8 p.m., as though residents desire nothing but pizza later at night. 8 touts its leather seating and restaurant-style lighting, but the ambiance in Terry Cafe is hardly oppressive. (T-Caf is at least cleaner.) Finally, it looks like a restaurant, but the service is still cafeteria-style. So what, exactly, is so great about 8?

T-Caf is unmistakably a college cafeteria, and we like it just fine. If we residents wanted (or could afford) to eat at restaurants every day, we would. Maybe Regent (Dan) Evans cannot imagine life without leather booths and snazzy lighting fixtures, but he isn't paying room and board -- or getting hungry while studying for midterms at 10:30 at night.

-- Amelia Lacenski

sophomore, art

Web master, The Daily

Defining attackers

With everyone throwing insults at each other regarding David Owens and his election to the position of director of diversity efforts, something important has been forgotten. In (Jason) Chambers' column ("A different kind of diversity") Wednesday, the people who approached Owens after the election were labeled attackers. While this term seems a bit over-exaggerated, I think it should be applied to more than one incident.

Last Tuesday, the ASUW student senate debated a resolution that would grant more commuter seats to the senate, an act that for many was a first step toward senate reform. However, it became clear to many Tuesday night that the issue was not about granting equal representation. ASUW present-elect Brittany Goodnight, the sponsor of the resolution, met hostile opposition when she tried to speak in response to statements that were being made. Others in the room were quickly granted the opportunity to speak in a very disrespectful manner toward commuters and even to Goodnight herself. One might even say that in the eyes of some, Goodnight was "attacked." This may be a bit harsh, but the reality is that some in student senate have been showing just as much disrespect as those would-be "attackers," if that is what they really were. The only difference is that senate hides behind a process and a formality that many believe grants them power over others. It amazes me how some hold on so tightly to their power. And power to do what? To draft student opinion? True student opinion was expressed when Anthony Rose and more than 40 students walked into Gerberding Hall and expressed their disapproval of the lack of diversity on campus. True student opinion is seen and heard through action and through the mobilization of students, not through petty squabbles.

I was disappointed with many of my fellow senators in how they behaved Tuesday and hope they, and everyone for that matter, can find some way to remain respectful. Part of the beauty of senate is we can agree to disagree without attacking each other. If that cannot happen, then we can kiss democracy good bye.

-- Enrique Gonzalez

junior, American ethnic studies,

commuter senator

When should journalists print?

As a former writer and current copy editor of The Daily, journalism major and sorority member, I believe that certain information in the articles "Holding back helps no one" (May 19) and "No charges filed in sexual assault" (May 22) was biased, unnecessary and should not have been printed.

I will no longer defend The Daily when someone says to me "The Daily is biased against the Greek system." I ask the Editorial Board how it came to the conclusion that some members of the Greek system "would rather stay silent than sully their reputation." I do not believe that "some Greeks" told this to the Editorial Board.

The first article mentioned also read, "Those who know what happened have an obligation to report." No one has an obligation to report anything. Those who know something are most likely connected to the individuals involved, and have a right to avoid publishing material that would only increase the pain already present.

"Increasing the pain already present" -- I can assure you that the May 22 article ended up doing this.

What purpose was served by quoting the woman as saying she described herself as "really drunk?" I believe the first piece of information given, that she had been drinking at the party, was sufficient. The quote only demeaned the woman and the assault. It also reinforced present stereotypes about the Greek system and enabled readers to come to quick assumptions about the situation.

The fact that the "two undressed" was only distasteful and was not needed to give readers an idea of how the sexual activity played out.

Who is The Daily to quote the woman as saying that "she was a virgin and wanted to wait for 'someone she loved?'" Who are reporters to use this type of personal information when they do not have this woman's consent? Anything in a police report can be used in the media, but at the time of assault, a victim should not have to be concerned that what she says may turn up in the paper.

The house in which this activity occurred was not named -- directly, that is. I believe The Daily is liable for describing the house involved by printing that it was "the house next door to the party."

When should journalists print and when should they not print? News needs to be reported, but only news that helps the community. These articles did more harm than good. If The Daily wanted to raise issues such as date rape, an in-depth features article would have served this purpose better. I am embarrassed and ashamed to be represented -- as an employee and a student -- by The Daily.

-- Erin Driscoll

junior, journalism

copy editor, The Daily

Respecting privacy

I believe the primary job of The Daily is to report on issues that are pertinent to our campus and our student body; obviously, as a student newspaper, this is the ideal means to reach our campus. However, it is my opinion that The Daily has invaded the privacy of a particular student on campus last week. A student was sexually assaulted last weekend. While this is not a new concept, The Daily has unnecessarily exploited this incident for front-page material value. Rape is not a new thing to our campus or to any other; one in four women will be involved in a rape or an attempted rape by the time they graduate from college.

Rape in itself is devastating. Rape rocks the personal foundation of the victim and creates a scar that will be carried for a lifetime. Rape is a deeply personal issue. Rape is only a public issue when the victim chooses to press changes and make it a public issue.

This being said, I am overwhelmingly offended The Daily would not only pursue last weekend's attacks three out of the past four days, but would add insult to injury by shaking its finger at people for not discussing the surrounding circumstances. There should be no obligation to The Daily nor to anyone else for a person to come forward and divulge information as deeply rooted in privacy as rape.

Furthermore, I believe The Daily has done a huge disservice to our campus community. You have made it evidently clear that if a woman is sexually assaulted on our campus and chooses to call the police, she had better be ready for front-page exposure the following week. If anything, The Daily's actions will only sway women against seeking police action against such violence.

This week, my suspicions about The Daily having a lack of regard for professionalism and sensitivity were confirmed. I wish nothing but fast healing for the victim and her family, and a heightened awareness about sexual assault. As unfortunate as it may be, rape is prevalent in our age group. Instead of printing the articles The Daily chose to last week, it would have been more constructive to print information on sexual assault, how to receive help or how to cope with such tragic incidents. This form of news journalism would have served more of a purpose to our campus community. It would have respected the privacy of this University student while at the same time allowed The Daily to retain some sense of its journalistic integrity.

-- Abby Rogers

junior, communication

vice president, Panhellenic Association

The diversity debate

Who gets to define the meaning of the word "diversity?"

Two articles in the May 21 Daily brought this crucial question into sharp focus by presenting two long-standing and conflicting ideas about how "diversity" should be defined in terms of campus climate.

First, Jason Chambers' "A different kind of diversity" provided a classic example of the sort of disingenuous whitewashing (pun intended) by which "diversity" comes to mean all things to all people. Even privileged white male conservatives, to whom "ideological diversity" (translation: conservative hegemony in liberal drag) apparently trumps all notions of ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic background as a basis for defining "diversity."

Meanwhile, The Daily's front-page story on the student commemoration of the Black Student Union's May 1968 administration-building occupation served to remind us of another definition of "diversity": the one employed by social-justice activists who have long fought to make ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic diversity a reality in higher education.

The continuing struggle between these two conflicting definitions clearly calls for a constructive dialogue between the groups involved in this struggle. An opportunity for all concerned to participate in such a dialogue began earlier this month, at the first meeting of the 2003 UW Diversity Forum, held May 9-10 at the Ethnic Cultural Center.

This event, sponsored by MOSAIC, GO-MAP and the GPSS, began new and encouraging efforts to revive a meaningful, goal-oriented discussion of diversity at the UW.

Campus conservatives, liberals and radicals all should take note: This effort will continue throughout the summer, with the next meeting set to take place June 24 at 5:30 p.m. at the Ethnic Cultural Center. All UW community members -- of all ethnicities, cultures, social strata and, yes, ideologies -- concerned about the future of diversity at the UW are hereby invited to attend and participate.

Mark your calendars for June 24. The battle for the soul of the word "diversity" is clearly just beginning.

-- Jeff Stevens

graduate student, linguistics