Monday, March 19, 2007
The stuff about changing the laws for convenience actually illustrates a deep philosophical problem with the ASUC.
The purpose of rules in a democratic government is to impose limits on what the government can and cannot do. However, many ASUC folks see rules as an inconvenience that gets in their way.
It comes down to a difference in what could be called a "sense of duty." ASUC folks see the government as their personal tool for accomplishing their goals, so to them, the government has the duty to accomodate their desires.
This is different from the view that ASUC officials are themselves the tools, and have a duty to the students.
This goes beyond following or breaking rules. This is a fundamental world view, and it shows in their legislative priorities, too. A sense of fairness and duty would prevent, for instance, the Student Life Referenda which lets well-connected groups avoid competition for funds. But if you just see the government as a tool to accomplish your desires, that's fine.
It's illustrated so clearly in this case, where the question is "What do you do if your desired actions come into conflict with the rules?" The answer from those with a sense of duty is "Clearly, those actions were not meant to be allowed in this governmental system, so we won't take them." The answer from those with a sense of entitlement is "These rules are in our way, so clearly, we need to break, bend, or change them to allow our actions."
Which action did the ASUC take this time? What does that say about ASUC folks?
. . .
. . .