Opinions writers become opinions writers because they want to be heard, regardless if it's interesting or not. Student Union officials join the SU because they want to affect the school, whether it's possible to do so or not. Spectator staff writers, editors and contributing writers have had a rather inconsistent attitude toward the SU over the past four years, at times praising its efforts, and at others criticizing its actions. Nevertheless, The Spectator opinions page is often where the two groups come together to impart their influence on the student body.

Elections

Of all the issues concerning Stuy's student government in the past four years, the election process has sparked the most interest and controversy. The Spectator has discussed everything from candidates' platforms to voting procedures, and running mates to voter apathy. In many cases they also offered suggestions to make elections more efficient, with the greatest impact toward the student body. The words of The Spectator, in combination with yearly internal changes in the Student Union have brought the Elections processes and the new Board of Elections to its current state.

The freshman election for the class of 2002 established a trend for the tumult that would follow in later years. Former opinions editor Ling Wu Kong described the situation in which elected caucus Amreeta Mathai and Mohammad Haque "were accused of putting up posters not approved by the Elections Committee," in his October 1999 article. Similar accusations were made later that year during the junior caucus elections for the class of 2001. This time, the results were thrown out, and a new election was held in the fall of 1999. Kong made it clear that Stuy's election process was seriously flawed and plagued with uncertainty. "The Student Union, and we, the student body should honor the results of an election, and not be swayed by arguments sometimes embittered by jealousy," Kong wrote. He proposed that "the elections charter should not only define the rules of an election clearly, but also be flexible enough to deal with its realities."

Since that time, The Spectator put forth numerous other proposals regarding the elections process, yet the policies of the Elections Committee were repeatedly disputed. In a staff editorial entitled "SU Elections: Why bother voting?" The Spectator criticized the EC for withholding vote counts for the fall 2000 freshman and sophomore elections: "It is the right of every student who voted in the election to have access to the results. By refusing to publish, much less reveal how many votes each ticket received, the Elections Committee and the SU undermine their own credibility and their claim to act as student representatives." The article also touched upon the makeup of the EC, claiming that it was an inherently biased body because two of its three members were appointed SU officials.

By the next elections in the spring of 2001, neither of these problems had been amended, and yet another editorial was published in hope of effecting some change. "We cannot fathom that any government would even entertain the thought of running an election and not informing the public of the results. It just is not done in a democracy." The SU and EC simply were not living up to their obligations in terms of running fair elections.

The voice of the student body was finally heard that spring, during which almost every ticket up for election was accused of committing campaign infractions. At the end of the year, then Coordinator of Student Affairs Frank Mazzetti chose three seniors to be in charge of conducting the interviews for the creation of a new Board of Elections, according to an article by Isaac Botier. In the fall of 2001 the committee members, none affiliated with the SU, wrote a charter that outlined the board's mission and defined rules by which elections and campaigns are to be run.

This new committee, though widely agreed to have run its first election smoothly, also came under scrutiny by some Spectator opinion writers. Business editor turned columnist Isaac Botier explored SU politics this year in "Inside the SU." In the fall, he accused the Board of being "sanctimonious and power-hungry," for actions such as interviewing candidates and writing up its own campaign literature to distribute to students on election day. "This gives them the power to interpret the candidates' platforms, instead of using their actual words. In response to opposition to their policy, the BOE decided to let the candidates see and approve the literature before it was to be sent out," wrote Botier. He also cited meetings between the BOE and SU earlier that year in which he said the BOE would not discuss what had occurred. "What the BOE has failed to realize since its inception at the beginning of this year, is that it is in fact an open committee…. The members of the Board of Elections tried to prove that they are a strong and autonomous committee by not letting anyone else have any knowledge of election proceedings. They did both the candidates and the elections a major injustice."

Nevertheless, students and Spectator members alike noticed the major improvements that developed since the current Board of Elections was formed. "The creation of a Board of Elections independent from the Executive Council earlier this year was important, because it means that the incumbents, or students already on the Executive Council, won't have an unfair advantage against their neophyte opponents in the upcoming election," a May 31, 2002 editorial stated. The article also lauded the BOE's measures to improve elections: "For the first time, the Board of Elections has a codified set of rules, so violators will be punished uniformly. Another significant change is that only letter-sized pamphlets are allowed, so wealthier candidates can't "buy" the election." The first election for SU, Senior and Junior Caucuses under these guidelines took place in June of 2002.

Freshman year: "The Stupid Union"

Still, elections are merely the beginning of the Student Union politics. Once officials are elected or appointed to their positions, their every action, or inaction, for that matter, comes into the focus of the student body and The Spectator. Four years ago, the opinions were almost all negative. Stuyvesant community was tired of a Student Union that seemed to exist only for itself. Two articles in the November 23, 1998 issue exemplify this mindset. In "The Stupid Union: Changes Need to be made in the SU," Ike Young wrote, "The Student Union has failed to be effective in its role as an advocate for students." He described the low voter turnout in SU elections as representative of student apathy toward the organization, and recommended that the SU take a more active role in listening to students' concerns and protecting their rights with regard to teachers, administrators, or even the program office. The article was published in conjunction with a staff editorial that stated, "With each passing year, the SU goes through the same motions with little change." The piece suggested that SU officials often get involved "not for altruistic or community-minded reasons, but rather for some small sliver of the power pie at Stuyvesant High School."

Backlash ensued. The Spectator received a letter scrutinizing its opinions in the previous issue. An SU official argued that although the SU has its shortcomings, its accomplishments, such as funding the hundreds of school clubs and publications, were overlooked. Another letter, by then Budget Director Renuka Nayak, expressed the opinion that many in the SU truly care about the community, and need student support to accomplish their goals. She wrote, "You must communicate your vision or grievance and work with them to realize your goal…. The only way to ensure change is for the masses to complain. But if you're going to complain, offer solutions."

The real issues seemed to be the fact that many were misinformed about the SU's inner workings, which The Spectator did not always fully shed light on (one letter called The Spectator's SU coverage biased), and the stagnation and bureaucracy involved in student government during the 1998-1999 school year. When it came time to endorse candidates that year, David Gringer and Isha Sheth received The Spectator's support because the ticket showed strong intent to support students' rights and cater to their needs. The Spectator's endorsment of then-Chief Financial Officer Gringer said, "He not only presents a clear agenda of reasonable goals, he is also able to articulate how to put them into practice." Gringer and Sheth went on to win the election.

The Gringer Age

As it turned out, the Gringer-Sheth administration was one of the most pro-active of the past four years. Gringer started off the year with his own opinion piece which described changes he and his colleagues hoped to make within the SU; it also outlined the goals for the coming year, such as initiating mandatory computer science into the curriculum, and moving to block scheduling.

During the 1999-2000 school year, the Student Union proposed many changes to the School Leadership Team (formerly the School Based Planning Committee) and the Accreditation Committee, regarding course and curriculum changes. The Spectator's editorial board usually agreed with the SU's intentions and ideas, such as changing Stuy's graduation requirements to only six periods of science per week, and getting rid of one term of drafting, both of which would free up space for electives and advanced courses. But the same bureaucracy that plagued the SU and the SLT in previous years still existed. A December 20, 1999 editorial claimed that at meetings of the SLT, which is the body responsible for creating the Comprehensive Educational Plan for the school year, "time is wasted on discussions regarding the definition of consensus. Unless the team starts tackling the issues that truly affect the school…it might as well not meet at all." This problem had not been resolved by May when "Clock Runs Out for School Leaders" was published. Much of the article's criticism seemed to be directed toward voting and meeting procedures, as well as opposition to student initiatives: "Major logistical reconstruction, like limiting individual debate and reverting back to a simple majority voting system, is necessary." Despite the procedural roadblocks, several measures were in fact, passed through the SLT and incorporated into Stuy's CEP.

Many believed it was the leadership of President David Gringer that helped the SU pass student objectives through the SLT and into the CEP. Ling Wu Kong wrote in March 2000, "Gringer and the SU have not stopped striving for changes, regardless of faculty approval…he knows what changes the student body seeks, and never ceases to push for them." Others did not find Gringer's actions to be so laudable. A piece by Tim Von Hollweg went so far as to call Gringer a dictator who "has over stepped the boundaries of his position as Student Union President." Von Hollweg argued that no one person, especially not a high school senior, should have the power to act upon the behalf of 3,000 students. Naturally, Von Hollweg was met with resentment on the part at least one SU official, then Senior Class Vice-President Kieran Krug-Meadows, who found his piece to be poorly researched and blatantly unfounded, being that "Other elected Student Union officials, including myself, have spent a hell of a lot of time working on and discussing issues concerning Stuyvesant (not just about prom or where the vending machines should go.)" Regardless of whether or not one felt Gringer worked within the bounds of his position, it is undeniable that he and his administration effected change. The challenge would come for those responsible for upholding Gringer's legacy.

Back to Normal, an Ineffectual SU

In "The SU without Gringer" published in October of 2000, The Spectator explored the burden of the new SU President Matt Kelly in fulfilling and extending Gringer's initiatives. According to the editorial, "Among [Gringer's] accomplishments were allowing students to double up on English, fighting to keep Elective Day, and bringing about a trial period for block scheduling, which will be implemented this November…If the new Student Union does not continue with as much or more force as Gringer did, they will be forgotten, especially in a school whose memory seldom outlasts four years." But Kelly was not able, or perhaps willing, to fight for the agenda that Gringer had passed. For example, the trial period of block scheduling was never enacted, and Kelly's SU did little to nothing to make sure it happened as exemplified in the editorial "What Ever Happened to Block Scheduling?" in February 2001.

But Kelly and others in his administration were also unsuccessful in passing their own initiatives. "Broken Promises" by outgoing Editor-in-Chief Mike Kwon outlined the shortcomings of the SU Caucus, Senior Class Representatives, and SLT in making changes in the school. For example, Kelly had aimed at diversifying the SU, yet under his direction, the makeup of its officials changed little from previous years. The article states, "In terms of maintaining the skewed racial status quo, mission accomplished." Likewise, the Senior Class officers, whose goal was to decrease the cost of senior dues and prom, managed to do exactly the opposite, raising the total cost $9. Perhaps most unsuccessful were the SLT's attempts to carry out the aims of the CEP. Kwon wrote, "The CEP is merely a plan to make other plans... What the SLT should have done is outline procedures by which their objectives can be met." In the fall, columnist Steven Blau called for the SLT to "Fully Implement Our CEP!" As of June that call was still unheard.

Hsu and Huri Meet Difficulties in Attempt to Transform SU

Needless to say, when SU Elections were held that spring, students were looking for representatives who could effect lasting change. An editorial in the June 12, 2001 issue called upon Jukay Hsu and Himanshu Suri, the SU President and Vice President-elect, to do just that: "With a platform aimed at revitalizing the SU, we expect results." The Spectator pointed out the previous two administrations' unsuccessful approaches to creating a permanent difference in the school. With his confrontational style, Gringer pushed his goals through the SU and SLT, yet the administration seemed only to appease him without following through, being that many of his proposals were never carried out. On the other hand, Kelly was not even able to enact temporal change in the school. The paper, on behalf of the student body, challenged the new SU representatives to set "specific goals and deadlines for which those goals must be met," and to create "an agenda for the SU that students know about." The Class of 2002 had one final opportunity to make an impact on the school.

Hsu and Suri began their term in office with great enthusiasm and fervor. They conducted interviews for appointed officials over the summer, and most were in place before the school year even began. Then, in the aftermath of September 11, the SU was instrumental in supporting the student body and relaying information. After a two-week stay at Brooklyn Tech, the SU was ready to work on other student aims. In his column, Isaac Botier acknowledged the SU's perseverance in fighting for students to be allowed to go out to lunch, and to remove the restrictions that had been placed on eating in the building. In February 2002, Botier wrote, "Throughout the term, the SU fought for us to be allowed to linger in the halls without being disturbed or restricted to the lunchroom, library and theater. The ridiculous policy that forbade students from leaving the cafeteria in the middle of their lunch period was quickly repealed due to pressure from the SU." It took longer for the SU to convince Principal Stanley Teitel to allow students to go out for lunch once again; taking into account student and parental concerns, he eventually decided to do so at the beginning of the spring term.

The SU's other priority in the fall was the implementation of a student honor code, which was already the objective of English teacher Walter Gern and a student committee established the previous year. Initially, The Spectator supported the SU's proposal for a student Judiciary Committee in addition to an honor code. Our first staff editorial of the year stated, "There must be a consciousness that honor is taken upon oneself, not imposed form above…. For practical implementation, the newly envisioned Judiciary Committee of the Student Union will do nicely as a means of enforcement."

However, when the SU drafted its own version of an honor code, The Spectator seemed to withdraw its support completely. "The honor code proposed by the Student Union extends beyond academic integrity to include an overly broad and unenforceable list of both 'Academic Responsibilities and Social Responsibilities,' ranging from 'punctuality to class' to 'respect to all races, ethnicities, and religion [sic].'" The Spectator even changed its position on the idea of a Judiciary Committee. A November 20 editorial states, "Considering how widespread cheating in Stuyvesant actually is, it would be nearly impossible for a seven-student committee to fairly arbitrate the offenses of all accused students. Tremendous pressure would be placed on these "justices" to remain unprejudiced in their decisions, as well as to maintain utmost academic integrity in their own studies." The piece went on to suggest "the establishment of a school-wide honor code that would set appropriate standard disciplinary actions for various forms of academic dishonesty." But he issue was not easily resolved.

It was not until December that the underlying problem of the SU's involvement in the honor policy was brought to light--that it failed to fulfill its intention to properly communicate with the student body and other school members. In "Communications Breakdown" the paper maintained that "During the process of creating and attempting to implement an honor policy, the SU showed an unconscionable disregard for the need for communication between its members and the students, faculty, and the Academic Honesty Committee…. Many of the major problems that surfaced regarding the policy itself could have been avoided. Making its plans known to Mr. Gern could have allowed for cooperation between the SU and AHC, or at least avoided the confusion and bitterness that resulted from it." This lack of communication resulted in the SU's failure to implement its Honor Code (Gern's version was adopted), and would prove to be the basis for much negative opinion about the 2001-2002 Student Union.

Several articles highlight Hsu and his administration's incompetence in fulfilling one of his major campaign objectives, communication within the SU and the Stuyvesant community. In "Student Union Antics," Frankie Chen presented an incident in which Junior Class Vice President Danny Krinsky and SU President Hsu had a disagreement in the student lounge, resulting in Krinsky breaking the glass panel on a door, as demonstrative of a lack of internal communication among SU members. He then turned to another case in which "senior Gary He impersonated freshman Vice President Max Ohsawa" on a Video Homeroom segment while "freshman president Meredith Gringer sat there nonchalantly." Chen's argument was that "The SU, instead of informing, created confusion. The Communication Committee acted contrary to its purpose, and dealt a serious blow to its own professionalism." This would not be the only time in which Video Homeroom came under fire for irresponsible broadcasting.

In April of 2002, the Video Homeroom crew (minus the guidance of sick Communications Director Oliver Horovitz,) in conjunction with the publishers of The Broken Escalator, a humor magazine, aired what was a segment that was by turns humorous and controversial. It featured the students sneaking into a baseball park, and redeeming arcade tickets for a cross and asking the question, "what would Jesus do?" At the end of the segment, The Broken Escalator staff was seemingly blown up by an atomic bomb by the Video Homeroom crew. Many in the school found the piece to be offensive and inappropriate.

The Spectator maintains that the Video Homeroom Crew was losing sight of its original purpose in creating segments: to inform. "Video Homeroom, originally used for broadcasting Stuyvesant news has become a variety showcase for Stuyvesant's admittedly talented video artists," an April 18 editorial said. "The Video Homeroom staff must meet the challenge of producing segments that are original and entertaining, but that also inform. If this is done, the program could become one of the most effective tools of the SU." Yet so late in to the year, there was little that the current SU administration could do to prove themselves to the student body.

The spring of 2002 saw the final Student Union election that the class of 2002 would witness, though they couldn't vote, and most were more interested in the Crush Lists that plastered the wall adjacent to the voting table. It's likely that the new elected and appointed officials will once again change the face of the SU and the school, just enough for the graduating seniors to feel that "everything is different" when they visit next year. What will last, of course, is the assurance that The Spectator will report and comment on its student government. Thank goodness for free speech.