We're writing in response to Johanna Costa's column (Feb. 20). While Johanna certainly has a few valid points (a campaign worker commenting that "it's about getting drunk" is certainly out of line), she is way off base in her assessment of student government and, in particular, Jen Daum. Her column does bring four specific points to mind.
First, characterizing the entirety of student government as "schwarmy" and ineffective is unfair and simply untrue. At UNC-Chapel Hill, students have an unparalleled opportunity for involvement in the decisions that affect their lives. From serving on one of the over 100 university committees to sitting as a full voting member of the Board of Trustees, students can have an impact. In the 1999-2000 school year, a proposed tuition increase initially set as high $2,000 was eventually whittled down to $600 (and came within three votes of being decreased to $200). This was the direct result of action taken by a broad coalition of students, including student government. Just because student leaders' efforts do not result in a dramatic overturning of policy every time does not undermine the significance of those efforts. Does the columnist suggest that students would be better off not availing themselves of those opportunities to affect change?
Second, the assertion that Jen was "playing the female card" to get elected is a cheap shot. From an outsider's point of view, someone is not "playing a card" by stating a fact. The fact is that women have been severely underrepresented in student government for years, and we believe that women and men on campus should be excited to elevate a voice that comes from a different perspective. Don't forget that on a campus that has a majority of female students, there have only been three female student body presidents, including Jen, in its history. Many of the men who have served as student body president have worked to address women's issues, but there is certainly something to be said for having a woman in a position to address women's issues. It seems to me that Jen's point was not "let's look at women's issues, all other groups be damned," but instead "let's look at campus issues from a different perspective." Third, it seems to be a bit of a reach to accuse Jen of stealing other candidate's issues. Each of us has had the pleasure of knowing and working with Jen since she was a freshman, and her passion for students and student issues is overwhelming. From her experience both inside and outside student government, she was able to create a thoughtful, articulate platform that addressed student concerns. And if, in the course of her administration, she borrows good ideas from other good candidates, good for her! Wouldn't it be a bit arrogant to stroll into office thinking, "Gosh, no one on this campus is as smart as I am, so I'll just roll with my ideas?" It is refreshing to see a student leader willing to listen to other, qualified voices.
Finally, it's a low blow to crack on Jen's "feminine" traits as examples of bad leadership. There exists a troubling double standard concerning men and women in positions of leadership. A man who is firm is a strong leader, while a woman who is firm is a bitch. We're confident that if a man "jumped over tables" and got teary-eyed in public, people would say that he was passionate. But when a woman does it, she's a blubbering, emotional girl. If a man were to crack a joke after a strenuous campaign, people would say he was witty. But a woman is flaky. We, and many others, believe the students got a pretty damn good president, one who is witty, passionate, and a strong leader. We wish her the best.
Nic Heinke
SBP 1999-2000
Jeff Nieman
ASG President 1998-2000
