It is refreshing to know that optimism isn’t dead.
Unfortunately, the kind of positive attitude prevailing in student government at Cal State Long Beach has no connection to reality.
Perusing through the cute, small booklet provided by the Associated Students Inc. (ASI), a few major flaws stand out – mainly the promises being made by presidential candidates for each office are completely beyond the control of student representatives.
Incumbent ASI President Shefali Mistry in the ASI voting guide says she has “made textbooks affordable for students, without having to rely on teachers to turn in book orders on time,” has “worked with the university to implement security cameras, increased [sic] campus lighting and increase escort services” and has “demonstrated responsible leadership.”
Mark Andrews, the other presidential candidate in the run-off election, promises to create a “Lobby Corp to ensure student interests such as tuition, affordable housing, and minimum wage increases are heard by local, state and federal officials.”
The one thing both of these candidates have in common is that neither of them have their feet on the ground. Mistry takes credit for the increase in security on campus, while CSULB President F. King Alexander had been discussing an increase in security since before coming to CSULB (before the attacks in the fall ever occurred).
Textbook prices also continue to reach into the pockets of CSULB students, prices that are seemingly unfazed by the efforts Mistry has made in her year in office. Andrews implies (yet is careful not to claim) that he would be able to somehow limit increases on housing and tuition – two things that are completely beyond the control of student government.
In speaking with the Daily Forty-Niner, Andrews has said that he would plan on working with the city of Long Beach to create legislation that would allow for more affordable housing for students, as was done in a bill on the September municipal ballot.
So, then, is Andrews saying if elected he will lobby BayCrest or Beverly Plaza, two nearby apartment complexes many students live in?
The fact is, housing prices will not be affected by student petitioning or lobbying because off-campus renters are affected by market forces. If the standard cost of an apartment is set at a certain price, it’s very unlikely that out of the goodness of their hearts, landlords will feel compelled to lower the rates of their rentals due to student objections.
Another thing ASI presidential candidates shouldn’t be saying they have an effect on is tuition.
Tuition increases are the result of the board of trustees of the CSU system, which has 23 campuses, more than 400,000 students and 46,000 staff. The student government, no matter how hard it may try, will not be able to control the statewide market forces or strongly influence the CSU system.
Sorry.
Another common feature between the two candidates is the funny language they use in true political form. Mistry uses phrases that have ambiguous meanings like “maintained statewide advocacy efforts including lobbying legislators,” “‘climate neutral'” to describe our campus and “self advising” to describe the new advising program. Many actions qualify for the first claim she makes and isn’t specific as to what Mistry has really done to lobby our legislators. Even simple things as writing letters to state and federal legislators qualify as “lobbying legislators” – something that any student could do, ASI president or not.
Andrews claims that if elected to the position, he will “appoint and elect student leaders to grow in their areas of interest.” What does that mean? What positions would he elect new leaders for and what areas of interest is he talking about? The campus needs some real answers.
Realistically, however, each candidate was confined to a small amount of space in which where he or she could express a vision of how to change the campus, and, when confined to such a small amount of space, it would be hard to discuss specific aspects of the ideas of each of the candidates.
Andrews, though, does have some realistic expectations in getting students involved in campus government, suggesting that ASI reinstate its “Beach Team” program where ASI used SOAR to encourage students to pair up senators up with incoming freshmen to introduce them to the campus political system.
He said he also believes a system should be put in place to reduce rush orders on textbooks where ASI would call professors to make sure they have submitted their requisition forms, saying that although the current “open-source” program being used, while a good idea, needs to be put into actual practice.
But until it is, calling professors, for Andrews, is the answer to high textbook prices.
Mistry wasn’t available for comment.
For a campus where only six percent of the population is voting, candidates need to be specific and not too idealistic with promises of changing things completely beyond their control. They need to let students know what their plans are for our campus to help students feel some kind of connection to the candidates.
Instead, they are using student government as a platform to exercise and practice doublespeak and slick-sounding platitudes that they will certainly need for their possible careers in politics later in life.
