Our student government is an unrepresentative, manipulative debacle. Unfortunately, it's difficult to get the student body to care about problems in our own government. The senate spends so much time griping among themselves and passing resolutions to limit the previous resolution to amend the ordinance that regulates the proposal that dictates procedures at their very own meetings that we, as students, get bored and forget to pay attention to what is going on. However, the recent actions of the Undergraduate Student Government Senate are completely unacceptable, and the student body must be aware of the circumstances.

Last month, the senate proposed legislation that would alter the way the University Park Allocation Committee (UPAC) funds the Distinguished Speaker Series (DSS). The DSS is a University committee responsible for organizing and bringing in speakers such as Janet Reno and Ben Stein. In order to schedule interesting, big-name speakers, DSS must make arrangements well before the beginning of the semester. Thus, UPAC allows DSS to lobby for funds before many other clubs and organizations that do not require such long-term planning. DSS is not the only committee that receives this privilege, but only one of many that must finalize events so early.

Now this is where things get interesting. The USG Senate proposed that DSS should not be allowed preferential treatment or early allocation of funds from UPAC. But why? Because the senate is promoting a selfish ultra-conservative agenda. The USG Senate is comprised of an astounding, disproportionate number of representatives who also affiliate themselves with conservative organizations such as the College Republicans, as well as an extremely ultra-conservative organization called the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). These senators, as representatives of the entire student body, have absolutely no right to be implementing the agenda of a tiny minority of students who comprise YAF and the College Republicans. The reason that a proposal to eliminate DSS's priority status in UPAC promotes a conservative agenda is that it would directly benefit groups such as YAF and College Republicans. DSS competes with campus organizations for university funds to bring in speakers.

Interestingly, the senate (led by its conservative members, of course) had at first proposed a complete elimination of the DSS, a proposal that was quickly killed. This sentiment, in my opinion, is a reflection of the conservative senate motive. Eliminate or restrain DSS and funds will potentially be available for groups like YAF and College Republicans to bring in more suitable speakers sympathetic to their ideologies.

Justin Zartman, president of USG, vetoed the proposal by the senate to reform UPAC, specifically concerning DSS funds. In order to override this veto, the Senate would need a two-thirds vote. Though the conservative voice in senate is ridiculously strong, it could not muster this support. So instead, the senate decided to censor Zartman. What? I know, it's pathetic. A censor means that Zartman can't speak on behalf of the USG with the mandate of the entire student body. This initiated a squabble between Zartman and the senate concerning who is more representative of the student body as a whole, the president or the senate.

OK, first of all, this is an absurd, irrelevant, childish question. The president is an elected official, and we thus give him our consent to represent our opinions. Same goes for the senate, though each senator represents a smaller portion of the student body. Fighting over which body is more representative of our opinions is completely impertinent. Don't you guys have better things to do?

In the last USG meeting, several of the senators who support the manipulative DSS proposal insisted that "they had spoken to the people and they are annoyed that UPAC channels to the DSS, blocking clubs from getting their own money." No one spoke to me! Granted, I am a lowly, humble, meager, insignificant Collegian columnist, but don't I get a say? Or do you guys only talk to YAF and the College Republicans and pretend that they represent the entire student body?

Justin Zartman should be applauded for vetoing the senate proposal. USG does influence our lives as students, and we should not allow the senate to pass legislation that benefits and supports their own ultra-conservative agendas. If you want to represent the student body, then work for our interests in a meaningful manner. If not, step down and let a genuine representative take your place.