IFC Wants Diverse Representation
I read “UA Tables Motion for Direct Election of Councillors” on April 25 with some bewilderment. Although some of the IFC representatives were reluctant to pass the legislation, we did not all feel that way, and for those of us who did, it was not for reasons implied by your article.
The UA has residential-based (dormitories) and IFC councillors. Unfortunately it is not realistic to have a representative from every FSILG. Therefore, it is essential that the nine IFC representatives reflect the IFC as best as is possible -- meaning that they be diverse in type of house (fraternity, sorority, or ILG) as well as where that house is located geographically.
The only real way to ensure this diversity is to appoint these nine people as we do now. With 75 percent of the FSILG community living in fraternities, it is quite possible that the IFC would end up with nine fraternity members being its representatives to the UA were a popular election to take place -- not exactly a cross section of our community.
Also, the proposed legislation does not allow for non-residential FSILG members to be representatives for the IFC. These people are a part of our community and restricting their ability to represent it is not justifiable.
Since the representatives to the UA are supposed to represent their living groups (be they dorms or IFC houses), it should be up to the living groups how they would like to choose their councillors so as to reflect best their culture.
So, although we feel that appointing councillors is justified, it is not because we are “reluctant to give up this power,” but because we do not want to jeopardize the diversity of the IFC representation to the UA.
Rebecca Grochow ’01
IFC Vice President of Activity Organization