Hopkins students: We can care when it matters
By Francesca Hansen · The Johns Hopkins News-Letter · April 29, 2004
Apathy is simply not the Hopkins standard after the events of 2003-2004. Hopkins students may be indifferent, but the winds are changing. Students are finally learning from their mistakes. At points during the year, some things looked vaguely familiar: Student Council (StuCo) was restructured, Student Activities Commission (SAC) was broke, Board of Elections (BoE) was volatile, and we ran and ran and ran StuCo elections again.
Hopkins is a continual cycle of drama and scandal, as fresh and timeless as each entering Freshman class. But as timeless as these controversies may have been, this school year has shown that things can change when they matter: Hopkins kids can learn.
"Apathy" is not an innate quality of Hopkins students, but an ingrained laziness that comes after a self-fulfilling prophecy of lowered expectations.
Not only has the senseless death of Christopher Elser shown us what matters, it's helped disprove that Hopkins kids are apathetic. The community has rallied, first to grieve and remember Elser, and then to fundraise and support. In this time of crisis, the Hopkins community has shown through. The community has an invisible bond, and therefore, it has a hope.
As the Commission on Undergraduate Education improvement process continues, we can look forward to a number of measures that should help support this unseen support group.
For example, people may complain about their respective student groups, but it sure hurts when their finances are misappropriated. The SAC has rallied from the "red zone" crisis and averted disaster for the upcoming year. The SAC has audited and re-examined its policies. They learned.
'No one cares about StuCo' either, many may have said. But we saw one man, one freshman, overthrow the council. Like it or not, we saw someone who did care about the workings of the Student Government. Why? Most of the members of StuCo are still scratching their heads and looking to figure it out themselves.
Perhaps the biggest mystery is why one student cared so much. Time will tell as to what this "democratization" of our governing student body will hold for us. In the meantime, much of the student body is wondering what the StuCo is for. Regime change, in Iraq and on StuCo leads to questions of legitimacy.
Either way, one man named Jered Ede was enough to mobilize students to look at what StuCo does and hope to change it. Lesson #2 learned from the Ede overthrow: Hopkins students vote.
Or, they can vote. Ede was able to mobilize enough freshmen and sophomores to chuck out the StuCo. The BoE had to respond in turn: they stepped up advertising for the spring StuCo officer elections, and gave an unprecedented turnout: 1,041 votes were received, amounting to a 35.1 percent turnout among the three voting classes.
And then, In keeping with a long and glorious tradition of election mistakes, many of them were not counted, with the disqualification of candidates. And the campaign was run again. After years of BoE mishandling, we held our breath and the third round of elections was held.
The Class elections and second round of StuCo presidential elections were, notably flawless. The ushering in of new BoE co-Chair Mike Seibert has resulted in well-run and relatively prompt elections.
The only complaint that one can hold against the BoE as of now is that one person didn't vote.
Finally, democracy in action! One vote does make a difference, and that single vote would've decided between junior Soren Gandrud and sophomore Hyder Syed, the two StuCo presidential candidates in a hotly contested race, tied at 397 votes each. This is a beautiful dilemma, a dilemma not dissimilar to real presidential elections, and a sign of progress.
Whether Gandrud or Syed wins, all that matters is that it seems the BoE has learned. We received endless emails and notifications. Students knew, shock of all shocks, ahead of time about elections. People who wanted to vote knew where and when and how.
Although we are still without our promised BoE blimp, publicity is up, and the BoE has kept it up at a normal rate. Elections were run relatively normally, and even progression towards 'normal' is a grand progression.
While we can rue the students that disappoint, and slander, Hopkins is no better or worse than a microcosm of the real world. Life, most especially political life, is a magnet for stupidity and anger. StuCo candidates should expect the shocks of political reality. People will mudsling under the comfortable anonymity of the Daily Jolt.
It is not a standard Hopkins should set, but it happens. Moreover, such infantile cowardice should not detract from the overall progression of the year: most of us, SAC, StuCo and the BoE included, are learning.
However, with the progress of the year has come an indescribable grief. Christopher Elser's death has left a dark hole in the lives of so many on campus, and will affect most all of us forever. In this grief, we have gathered and rallied.
The Hopkins Greek community has raised thousands for Elser's family in his memory. A scholarship may be started from the profits. With this loss comes a new hope. The effort made after Elser's passing on behalf of the students far surpasses the standards that would be set for an "apathetic" community.
Hopkins students rally where it matters. This is the standard that we've set for 2004. The "apathy" that is said to pervade this campus is a continuous disappointment to the quality that Hopkins kids have set. Hopkins deserves more and should get more than expecting them to not care.
With the breaking of ground for the Charles Commons, we're now looking at the creation of a physical manifestation of the invisible Hopkins community. It comes and goes, but it's there, and we've seen it peeking through: the 100th Maryland/Hopkins lacrosse game, Michael Moore, Guster.
Create good events, and Hopkins kids will come out of the cracks. BoE, StuCo, SAC: point out the mistakes, and most of them will be fixed. There is room for improvement on Homewood, and Hopkins is moving towards it.
It may be hampered by those who live up to the low standards which have been set for them, as apathetic, immature and uninterested Hopkins students. For the rest of us, we are looking to change.
With a new angle from the administration and a new set of resources with the Charles Village Project, Hopkins has the possibility to grow into a viable community, a true community supported by resources and infrastructure.
Hopkins students deserve the best, and they want it.