Usually, college government is supposed to be a joke, seen as unimportant, incapable of representing the student body and unable to enact significant policies or changes on the campus. Over the past several years, however, I have watched and admired how Macalester's own student government has struggled to become a powerful voice for the students, serving as a formal body which represents the opinions and the concerns of the student body for the college. Given MCSG's commitment to increased representation, I was deeply dismayed to see the tables of power turned the other way last week, when the action of the Legislative Body (LB) strongly suppressed students' desires to have their voices heard.

On October 15, members of the college anti-war coalition presented the LB with a resolution, signed by nearly 15 percent of the student body, stating they wanted MCSG to hold a campus-wide poll to determine whether or not students supported military action against Iraq and publicize the results. After much debate, MCSG hesitantly approved a referendum, based on the understanding that they would be obligated to do so by the constitution when the anti-war coalition obtained the last 20 or so signatures that would place the total count at 15 percent. But on October 22, when it was clarified that MCSG would not be constitutionally obligated to approve a referendum, they revoked their decision, and after two hours of debate, decided instead not to pass the proposed opinion poll along to the student body.

In doing so, MCSG grossly overstepped their boundaries and denied the chance for the voices of students to be expressed. "I think [their decision] is ridiculous because they're supposed to be the voice of the student body," said Federico Helfgott '03, one of the organizers of the proposal. He stated that although one member charged the LB with acting cowardly, imploring them to recognize that students working on the anti-war effort needed the help of the student government, few were supportive of his group's efforts. The majority of the LB argued that they did not consider it their job to get involved in outside political events and that they did not want to marginalize people on campus with views that differ from what a poll might show the majority believes.

But the LB painfully misunderstands democracy and its role in student governance on both counts. First, the organizers of the proposal had no interest in silencing the voices of dissenting students on campus. "Any time there is a vote, a majority opinion is reached," explained Helfgott. "I'm in favor of differing viewpoints, but because we have only a limited amount of energy, we can't be responsible for bringing the pro-war movement to campus. I don't believe a referendum would marginalize the opportunity for others to do so in any way."

Second, MSCG missed the crucial point that they were not, in fact, being asked to make a decision on or involve themselves in outside political events. They were rather being asked to allow the student body to simply express its opinion. This is an entirely reasonable request. Students approached MCSG to simply bring a referendum before the entire student body about Iraq—not to make a decision on behalf of the students on the issue. But MCSG made a decision for the student body anyway, rather than passing the vote along to the rest of us, as the organizers requested. (Thankfully, these organizers, working with Mac Peace and Justice, Mac Greens, Mac Democrats and Mac Republicans, drafted another resolution against the war which was proposed to the student body on Wednesday, outside of MCSG's jurisdiction.)

Indeed, it is not the role of the members of MCSG to take a stand on a political issue for the campus—but as a supposedly representative organization, MSCG is the means through which the student body is able to officially make its voice heard. This is what MCSG President Haris Aqeel (who voted for the resolution) has repeatedly stated—that MCSG should be a representative voice for the students. To vote against a campus opinion poll about political events not only misuses power, it also limits our ability as a student body to formally express ourselves about issues that matter to us. It moves our student government from being a potential model for participatory democracy to one that is oligarchic, characteristically marked by bureaucracy, and controlled by concentrated power that does not act on behalf of its constituency. It creates a mirror reflection on our campus of problems that are so dominant in the rest of the world, encouraging the inaction, silence, and lack of conviction that is so dangerous in the world we face.

To be entirely honest, the more that I reflect on MCSG's decision, the more I am disheartened and outright saddened by the implications of its vote. The possible war with Iraq has drastic ramifications for human rights violations and political instability on a time frame that cannot even be imagined. With the current U.S. administration, peace is such a distant and abstract concept, and our ability to act for peace so severely limited, that I find it takes great strength to maintain hope in the face of such opposition. Our institutions are either against peace or are saying nothing in favor of it. If we, too, become silent to the past, present, and likely future atrocities in Iraq, then how can we expect to see positive political nonconformity elsewhere in the world? There is so little we can do to act out of conscience in this context that to see a proposal thwarted at the very level we have the most opportunity to create change is seriously troubling.

Rather than supporting students who are working against this tide of injustice, backing a resolution with the signatures of nearly 15 percent of the student body, the LB has decided not to give our voice a chance to be heard. Instead of realizing our responsibility to acknowledge and bear witness to the suffering in the world—to simply put forth a vote on the issue—the LB has decided that Macalester should not be a link in the chain for humanity. It acted out of fear, instead of the conscience, courage, and commitment that is so desperately needed instead.

Normally, my concerns for the present global situation have been countered by a general hope for the future; however, there is little room to hope for a better world with the leaders of tomorrow if these leaders are already reflecting the same faults as the leaders of today. If my voice cannot even be recognized at Macalester, the smallest sphere where I would hope to be able to express myself, then I do not think it unreasonable to worry that the voice of opposition will soon mean almost nothing at all.