Reflections of a Failed MSA Candidate

by Jacob F.M. Oslick

A normal day: waking up five minutes before class, you threw on some clothes, and rushed out the door. Suddenly, as you unsuspectingly entered Angel Hall you were bombarded by a host of grossly disfiguring images. Then you realized - it was not a normal day, for the MSA elections were near. For a full week, students couldn't walk, talk, or breathe without seeing a "Vote for ---" or a "Please Support ---". In large part, you can blame me. You see, I was a candidate for MSA. Even worse, I chaired a party, the now almost-defunct New Frontier Party (NFP). With the elections now behind us, I thought I'd enlighten you, our faithful readers, about the real MSA. I also will attempt to correct some misconceptions students possess about those annoying yellow flyers.

First, many students mistakenly believe that MSA campaigns are issue-less popularity contests. Although this statement contains an element of truth, it cannot account for the sweeping success of the Defend Affirmative Action Party (DAAP). Although I find their views to be noxious, neo-Trotskyite, and blatantly unconstitutional (more on that later), I cannot deny that they ran a strictly issue-based campaign. They succeeded in energizing a vocal minority of students to hit the polls, and reaped the rewards of their hard work. They succeeded, despite using only bland, information-based posters (no stupid slogans or tricks). This truth is especially painful to me, considering the walloping my dear NFP received. We put forth a concrete quasi-libertarian message centering on sweeping economic reforms: privatizing the residence hall meal program, breaking the residence hall telephone monopoly, etc. (although all in an advisory role). Unfortunately, the student body either turned us off or rejected us (i.e. libertarianism) outright. In the end, despite hard campaigning, we got crushed by some candidates who did little or none. Issues did matter this campaign, as testified by the DAAP victory, and the severity of the NFP defeat.

Secondly, many students incorrectly assert that MSA never does anything. Although I'll agree that MSA President Trent Thompson's power does not equate with Bill Clinton's (or for that matter, George Clinton's), MSA serves two important functions. First, it serves an advisory role, acting as the voice of the student body by preparing a series of resolutions on policy and campus topics. Second, as its primary mission MSA dispenses funds to student groups. These disbursements come from the mandatory $5.69 fee MSA assesses on every student. Here, the aftormentioned constitutional problems come into play. Among the many student groups MSA supports are those with specifically political objectives (i.e. BAMN), and those with a religious slant. As the U of M is a public institution, this mandatory fee arguably amounts to forced speech, because it funds groups that students may oppose on political and/or religious grounds. Thus, despite all the various slogans and promises presented by the various parties, MSA elections are essentially about who controls the money tap. Effectively, the DAAP victory turns MSA into nothing more than a money launder, transforming mandatory student fees into financial support for BAMN objectives.

A third misconception stems from the previous two: the flyers and parties get people elected. Not true. Some candidates flyered their rear off, and still trailed at the bottom of the pack. In the past, others have been elected despite being out of the country, and putting up no flyers whatsoever. Similarly, the magical Students' Party name couldn't help several of their candidates. As mentioned earlier, the DAAP got elected due to student support for their core issues, and despite unappealing posters. The remainder of the successful candidates gained support through incredible amounts of personal campaigning. For example, Engineering candidate Alok Agrawal won, despite his ties to the NFP, by going door-to-door, meeting hundreds of potential voters.

Although I personally did not try to win (which would have distracted from my growing responsibilities here at the Review), I ran to advance ideas on campus. The results prove that my attempt was a dismal failure. Still, I recommend that you all give a run at student government a go. Or if you don't run, make an effort to vote in the next election. Take this advice especially to heart if you, like myself, are an individual disgusted by BAMN's politics. For although many of us might wish student government were a joke, the fact remains that it has power over our money. If we don't vote, the DAAP will rule, ushering in a frightening reign of leftism. Vote especially if you care about us here at the Review. After all, DAAP leader Jessica Curtain, in her X.500 entry, lists "liquefied Michigan Review reporter" as her favourite beverage. Please, please do not give her the power (your money, from mandatory fees) to market her vile concoction. MR

This article was published in the 9 December 1998 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 17, Number 5).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.