|
|
|||
Adopting a new approach for a new political era In 1970, students gathered at Bowdoin to protest the Vietnam War. The May 6, 1970 Bowdoin Orient* outlines the reasons that students decided to strike: "students and faculty were incensed at the invasion of Cambodia and at the killing of four Kent State University students." On Tuesday night, a coalition of Bowdoin students presented a petition to the Bowdoin Student Government opposing President Bush's decision to seek preemptive war in Iraq. After a thorough and civil debate, BSG voted 14 to11 not to approve the petition on the question of war with Iraq. To have accepted the petition could have set a dangerous precedent in that it would overly politicize the BSG election process. Though activism is commendable, it is prudent for BSG to represent a new approach to issues surrounding war from that which our parents used. Supporters of the resolution argued that Bowdoin Student Government is constitutionally permitted to take stances on political matters of national or international concern. I am not a scholar of the BSG constitution, so I cannot textually speak to the issue. However, though both sides have legitimate arguments, it is best that BSG not take stances on national issues and it remains non-partisan. Resolution supporters suggest that being a member of BSG is a leadership position that requires one to take a stance on national issues. This is an understandable perspective. Many people who seek to run for BSG may see it as a precursor to higher political office. However, I think this presupposition is incomplete. As a member of BSG said at the meeting, he ran for BSG so that he could correct problems on the campus: bring about late night dining, make laundry machines "ID card accessible," bring back the Portland-Freeport shuttle, etc. He did not run to express his opinion on national political matters. More importantly, neither did his constituents elect him, nor likely any other member of BSG, because of his opinion on a particular national issue. BSG candidates do not distribute brochures explaining their opinions on abortion, taxes, foreign policy, etc. as do candidates for local or national legislative offices. They fail to "pamphleteer" because until this week, it was presumed that BSG would not address issues of national political importance. As some BSG members themselves discussed at Tuesday's meeting, BSG is a non-partisan body. I believe this "non-partisan" condition is important because it helps attract committed and unpretentious people to the body. BSG has no power over national policy on issues such as abortion, taxes, and foreign policy. In addition, as a BSG member said, is it fair to expect first-years, or anyone really, to campaign through their dorms and have to explain their political opinions to everyone he or she encounters? There is a reason many people do not like discussing political matters. They are inherently contentious and, especially when personal relations are still embryonic, these issues can hinder if not shatter developing friendships. BSG usually only deals with local matters, thus to turn the campaign into a debate on national and international issues would defeat the purpose of BSG and likely prevent qualified individuals, who are not preoccupied with national matters, from applying. Just as students did thirty years ago, Bowdoin students came together to discuss their opinions on a war. It is a testament to our engagement in national issues that we came together actively and courteously. Activism is not defeated because our student government decided to force the resolution supporters to bring it to the campus as a referendum. This decision enhances people's opportunities to educate themselves about the issue while also respecting limits on BSG purview and its non-partisan status. Our campus is indeed more restrained than our parents' was. However, today's war is different and the issues surrounding it are different. It commands a new approach for a new era.
|
|||