The Student Government elections three weeks ago were the most lopsided election I’ve ever witnessed as an undergraduate student. A single party won all 50 seats while minority opposition had an internal breakdown. But the election’s absurdity was exceeded by that of the Alligator’s endorsement letter of Feb. 18.
The editorial endorsed the executive ticket of Swamp Party and, in the same letter, endorsed the Senate candidates from the opposing parties. Instead of helping students overcome the cynical nature of student politics, the Alligator added to the confusion.
Let’s analyze the endorsement letter from the beginning. In the first paragraph the editorial states, “We have serious reservations about encouraging the growth of a one-party system — especially when that one party has a history of corruption.”
And yet despite all the Alligator published in the weeks leading up to the elections lamenting about the monopoly of Swamp Party — and its past iterations — and that party’s history of corruption, the Alligator’s “reservations” didn’t seem to be “serious” enough when it came to facilitating to the strengthening of the one-party system.
Can you denounce one-party rule and the corruption that exists in that one party that rules, and then endorse that party you just accused of corruption and unfair domination for the highest offices of SG? Sure you can. But was it sane? Hell no. And yet the Alligator had the gall to state later in the article, “The state of SG is disheartening. It’s overwhelmingly run by Swamp, and the only way to start fixing that is to make Student Senate more diverse. For that reason, the Alligator also endorses all of the Students and Taco Libre candidates for Senate.”
Has a more bizarre editorial appeared in the pages of this distinguished newspaper?
The wisest decision would’ve been to endorse no party at all. It’s incomprehensible as to why the Alligator would endorse a party’s executive ticket with the idea that its “members are qualified.” My dear editorial board, have you thought of why Swamp’s candidates are more “qualified”? Has it crossed your mind that it’s because of their singular domination of campus politics and their nepotism which prevents other students from joining SG and eventually becoming “qualified”?
Endorsing executive office candidates running unopposed appears meaningless to me. Of course the Alligator can be against one-party rule while also endorsing that same party. The Alligator can do whatever it wants. But it’s not a question of “can or cannot.” It’s a matter of whether the Alligator can live up its name of being “independent” — not swayed by the tides of absurdity that our campus politics appears to be drowning in.
[Umair Asghar is a former College of Engineering SG senator. A version of this column ran on page 7 on 3/14/2014 under the headline "Alligator’s SG elections endorsement editorial was contradictory"]
