Licensed to Lead

One question posed during the General Assembly of Student Councils (GASC) in the deliberations of our proposed amendment regarding academic qualifications was:

If we are to choose between a student who has excellent leadership qualities and a student who fulfils his academic requirement, whom would we choose?

The College of Social Sciences and Philosophy Student Council maintains with the highest conviction that our Student Regent must possess both of the aforementioned qualities. In fact, what we see is the logical fallacy of false dilemma--a dichotomy should not have been pondered in the first place. A student leader, specifically our Student Regent must demonstrate competence in both leadership AND academics as he is both a student and a leader, therefore, a separation of the two functions must not be made. The duality of the ontological sense of the function must always be realized and should not falter. The need for the recognition of the fact is strengthened further given the context that we are in the primary academic institution of the country.

Clearly, this sense of genuine representation was undermined by muddling the issue of subjectivity and administrative intervention. We maintain that it is the students who determine their own grades through their performance. Furthermore, if the "student leader" can't fight for his or her own grades, how will he or she lead the studentry in pursuit of the sector's rights and welfare? The proposal is also safeguarded from intervention by making the semester prior to the nomination the basis for academic standing. Since the selection would take place in the second semester, how could there be administrative intervention considering that the basis for good academic standing will be from the first semester while it is yet to be demanded in the proceeding semester?

The recent GASC was a manifestation of how reform could triumph even with the most spirited attempt to hijack it. Councils united have culminated the years of struggle to introduce reforms into the Student Regent selection process. Finally, we could have a selection process that is truly democratic and representative.

We could only wonder aloud.

What is wrong with requiring our Student Regent to maintain the MINIMUM academic requirement? What is wrong in empowering local college councils in selecting a Student Regent? What is wrong in opening the Student Regent selection process to all, by removing a partisan network of ideologues?

This is the essence of reforming the Student Regent selection process, nothing more and nothing less. Trying to hijack reform is a disservice to students. No amount of feigned good intentions can ever mask it. No amount of bitter rhetoric can ever discredit our gains. No amount of name-calling can ever distract our efforts to make a Student Regent, OUR Student Regent, truly representative of our interests.