Come on Mercerians, it's about time to answer the call to office
With a bewildered sense of irritation, I look across the fore of who is running for office on the Student Government Association (SGA) and the field is stunning. Both the Senator-at-Large and Junior Senator positions only have enough candidates to actually fill the seats.
Surely the lure of political office and responsibility calls more of our Mercerians to serve than this? SGA provides multiple opportunities for students to add to their experience at college while providing a position of stature among peers.
As I gaze out into the spectrum of undergraduates at Mercer, I wonder if Mercer is cultivating a student body of apathetic followers, clueless complainers, or ill-informed children?
Mercer deserves better than this. SGA is responsible for a budget that consists of an amount exceeding one hundred fifty thousand dollars to allocate for student activity among student organizations.
That means everything from Pilgrimage to Penfield to the small social gatherings put on by organizations like the Mercer International Affairs Organization are overseen and funded by SGA. Yet such responsibility bestowed upon those who benefit from the same responsibility appear reluctant to take up the mantle.
To give specificity to the situation, I know most, if not all, of the candidates running this year.
While I applaud those who are running as they, at least, demonstrate the courage to put their name in public view and invite criticism. I must say that some of the candidates who are running lack the competency to give an oral presentation in a one hundred level general education class; it is even more frightening that these same candidates will automatically have the platform to speak whatever is on their mind in front of the Dean of Students and the rest of the student body. These ill-fitted candidates will represent Mercer and will do so because they will have had no democratic process to vet them.
The Senator-at-Large field should disappoint even the casual Mercer student. While I appreciate the dedication of Senators Melissa Thompson and Eric Ennuson, the rest of the field deserves no seat as they will most likely become a burden upon the legislative process and potentially embarrass the student body.
Senator Hudgins undeniably ran for the Senator-at-large position only as a political move because he knows he could not compete in the sophomore class.
In fact, last year he ranked as the bottom vote receiver in his class. Now, he will represent the student body without a vetting system. Of all the freshmen senators, his performance was near the bottom. Current Senator Hendricks won election under the junior senator banner in a special election because three senators left office. She, for the same political reasons as Senator Hudgins, will also run with no vetting system because of such a small field of candidates.
Lastly, Javon Denson is running again for a senator-at-large senate seat.
After watching all of the YouTube videos and interviews he has posted on the Internet, I can only decipher one constant theme…he has no clue what he is talking about. The nonsensical statements that he is spewing about why students should select him as their representative on SGA mirrors the same thought patterns he expresses in his academic classes…statements that mirror utter confusion and jumbled up television catchphrases that one hears and attempts to rearticulate to appear intelligent. These premises are irrelevant, however, because he will not be properly vetted by a democratic system.
Then again, maybe I have this all wrong. Last year Freshman Senator Akeme Ubom was elected not only a Freshman Senator, but he received the most votes from his class to make him the Freshman Class President.
While Senator Ubom is assuredly a nice person, he has been more disruptive to the democratic process while contributing little if anything to SGA. Almost every senate I would cringe when he would begin to speak as seemingly nothing remotely digestible would exist in his statements.
His demeanor and decorum was even less appreciable as he would often completely disregard the rules in which SGA governs itself. SGA is a serious body and it requires serious students to participate within it.
I chuck these sorts of mishaps up to the fact that freshmen are at the greatest disadvantage when it comes to electing their representatives. Freshmen elect their classmate with only a month to meet many of them and then a week to decide which stranger is best. That election usually boils down to which candidates shook the most hands and gave out the best candy.
With all this loom and gloom for next year, great certainty appears that all of the students at Mercer will be encouraged to vote. The lack of student voter turnout may have little to do with the amount of time to vote or election place.
Pretty much any student can vote if they have access to a computer (All Mercer students have access to computers in the library), and now students will have an entire week to vote. Students at Mercer do not vote because there is nothing to encourage them to vote.
Comments, questions or concerns about this opinion can be sent to [email protected]
It must be easy to patronize students that are almost a
decade younger than you… Also, pump the breaks on running every other word
through a thesaurus. It most certainly does not make you sound more
intelligent.
Two points: I am always amused when critiques do not use their names. I am honored to put my name on any opinion piece I write, but it appears those who disagree with me do not for lack of courage. Second, I have yet to say who I support in the presidential race. Both Mollie and Dalton have asked for my advice, opinion, and support. I have given but two of the three to each of the candidates, and both candidates were glad to accept my advice and opinion. As far as the question of “ease” to critique fellow students due to age is absurd. Lastly, my sincerest apologies for words that require “reality flavored kool-aid” drinkers to make inquisitions about the definitions of such words in question. In the future, I will use language more suitable for the “apathetic followers, clueless complainers, or ill-informed children” to read so they can understand what the grown up are talking about.
It’s sad to see Gene Mitchell is writing articles bashing his fellow Senators instead of actually trying to make a difference in the lives of his fellow students. It’s also unfortunate that his support of Mollie Davis has probably hurt her, given that she deserves to win the next election.
Ditto to to what I said to the spineless respondent below.
But he HAS made a difference! This piece and the also clueless op-ed from Garret Mcdowell a few weeks back has proved that students do care. More than ever before, students are talking about SGA and showing they actually care. It might not have been tactful, but it has continued a rather rudimentary discussion on SGA and student involvement for a while now.
The intent of the article is not to bash particular senators. The intent of the article is a call to arms to address the lack of enthusiasm the student body has regarding Student Government and leadership in general. I’m appalled to see that only five students have decided to run for Senator-At-Large. As a former Senator-At-Large, I ran against a field of at least nine or ten candidates. Candidates usually avoid running for Senator-At-Large BECAUSE of the threat of competition. The lack of a decent candidate field shows how apathetic Mercer students have become since I have left Mercer.
Bash Gene all you want for “personal” attacks, but I’m disappointed to see that people have resorted to running for Senator-At-Large due to the fact that no one has signed up to run for those slots. The only reason I’m writing is because I still care about the University and the students and am fearful for what may happen to the future of student organizations at Mercer. SGA must be comprised of students who will actually take into consideration the issues and problems that are at hand, not students who are going to take up seats just because there is no one else to take them.
I agree that it is a problem that more people are not running for student government positions but I don’t think this is the best way to communicate this problem. You are in student government and the fact that you would say this about the people you serve with makes the disunity and issues in student government evident. You are entitled to your opinion but the way you go about trying to get people to run is ineffective, to me. It seems like you are just angry and want to hurt people. Why would I want to be a part of a student government where the members so strongly dislike/ bash each other?
Also, were you elected or appointed?
Appointed. I hold an executive position.
**Held**
All of this would have been avoided if the student body had elected me Supreme Dictator of SGA. Just sayin’
I’m glad this article is causing students to care more about the upcoming election and to reconsider the role of SGA on this campus.
That being said, while I understand the need for some candidates and students to take SGA more seriously, (and I’m not referring to those mentioned in this article, as I do not know them well enough to pass any sort of judgement upon them, regardless of what this article states), I do not think that naming names and attaching insults in Mercer’s newspaper was necessary to make this point.
I am upset. SGA is important to Mercer University and deserves serious people with serious ideas. It is apparent the soft skin that breaks from criticism does not understand that you can publicly criticize someone while still liking them personally. I have had many pleasant conversations with all of the people referenced in this, but those personal relationships are separate from the public disagreements we have. I’m not suggesting any of the above mentioned people are “bad” people… In fact I applaud them for running. I hold the “apathetic” student body responsible for poor leadership. The only outcry is coming from those who actually concern me the least. We need the qualified to stand up and serve.
” Last week a very important piece of legislation regarding a new branch of government under our constitution came down the pike. Long story short the bill was one vote short for passage… As everyone knew the seriousness of the legislation, senators castes their vote except for Senator Hudgins. He abstained. Without giving a prolonged explanation of why someone chooses to abstain, I will simply say it is most used for conflicts of interests. Senator Hudgins had no such conflict. From that re gard I can only guess two possible reasons why he abstained… Either he was afraid of the reprecussion.”
Sorry Gene, there is no piece of legislation that is important enough to lose friends over. SGA is great and I loved taking it serious, but at the end of the day there are much bigger things to worry about, like apologizing and trying to rebuild all the relationships that you just ruined… Do yourself a favor and transfer.
Real friends stand beside you…even when you are wrong. As far as my transference. I will be transferring in May to the real world because I will be graduating. I’ll let you know how it goes. Thanks for the friendly advice!
This is wildly inappropriate. I understand, and can appreciate, the intent behind Mr. Mitchell’s opinion. I am running for Sophomore Senator because I am interested in being involved in the student organization most capable of making a difference in the lives of Mercer students. I believe that Mr. Mitchell has, however, overstepped serious boundaries, especially considering his own position with SGA as “Parliamentarian.”
Rather than use his position to guide the freshman senators toward acclimating to the rules of decorum inherent to a body such as SGA, Mr. Mitchell waited until campaigns began before he delivered and insulting and degrading commentary of certain senators. Having served as a model United Nations delegate at conferences on both the national and international level, I fully grasp the importance of maintaining decorum in such a setting as SGA. When the Parliamentarian, the enforcer of parliamentary procedure, finds fault with the way a senator conducts himself, I believe that the criticism should be directed toward the Parliamentarian. You cannot fault the student if the teacher did not teach.
Similarly, Mr. Mitchell would do well not to speculate on the motivations of certain candidates, namely Senator Hudgins. Senator Hudgins repeatedly URGED me to run for Sophomore Senator. He told me that our class desperately needed a female representative on SGA. Before Spring Break, Senator Hudgins also said that he would support me, especially since we would not be competing for the same position since he had decided to run as Senator-at-Large. I would ask Mr. Mitchell to kindly refrain from assuming that a fully competent and well-rounded individual such as Bentley Hudgins would make decisions in order to evade defeat. In fact, Bentley did more to inspire one of your “apathetic followers, clueless, complainers, or ill-informed children” to take part in SGA, I am sure, than your attempt at igniting some school spirit. I am not even running in hopes of gaining “a position of stature among peers.” I think Mercer would prefer to have student representatives that are not in it for the reputation.
If elected Ms. Ann, one of the first documents you will receive is the constitution. In that document you will find the duties of my position. My duty is solely an advisory position to the president and president alone. It is not my responsibility to inform elected senators on the documents that govern them or the customs that uniform SGA. I guess an example of such apparent disregard for the importance I will lend to you is this… Last week a very important piece of legislation regarding a new branch of government under our constitution came down the pike. Long story short the bill was one vote short for passage… As everyone knew the seriousness of the legislation, senators castes their vote except for Senator Hudgins. He abstained. Without giving a prolonged explanation of why someone chooses to abstain, I will simply say it is most used for conflicts of interests. Senator Hudgins had no such conflict. From that re gard I can only guess two possible reasons why he abstained… Either he was afraid of the reprecussion
Of either a yes or no vote or he was confused about what was going on (or a combination of both). In either case this is not an unusual situation for he and other senators like him. Thank you for your comment and concern.
Bentley was in my O-Group and he is always great to everybody. He’s genuine to everyone he meets and he always asks people about their concerns so he can work towards resolving them through SGA. Bentley is a great person. I don’t know Akeme as well, but I met him once when we were both at the first SHAPE meeting of the year and he had a lot of great ideas to offer to the group. I don’t know anyone in the rising sophomore class who shares your concerns about OUR classmates and representatives, so please don’t make it sound like you’re speaking for all of us when you call out our friends in such an insulting manner. They work hard at what they do. Sure, maybe more people should run for student government positions- or maybe we’re all just completely satisfied with the people who are already running.
I never led anyone to believe I spoke for anyone but myself. Agree or disagree with my it makes no difference to me. I also didn’t say I did not like or think Senator Hudgins was a bad or mean person. There is a tremendous difference being able and being likeable. I like my girlfriends cat and I think it is pleasent to be around. I dont think her cat, however, should be a SGA senator. Aside from the constant napping, it would not serve the body well. Lastly, why should opinions be silenced? Is it not of the utmost importance to voice opinions to foster discussion? Disagree with me ok. I encourage it. Do not, however, encourage silence. That’s how we got into the mess we got in already. As far “who knows what” more leaders on SGA agree with me than your opinion. Does not make it any more valid, but I wanted to point out the fallacy in your argument which is to say “the m
Majority” has the correct opinion. I will say I enjoy hearing the responses but am sad to see that the feeble ears of so many is allowing for complacency to continue over the issue I have addressed. I encourage the like to tuck in your lip and get to work on the issue at hand. If Senator Hudgins is as awesome as you say he is then my minuscule references to him will be of no great concern.
I don’t particularly care about the majority, and I certainly don’t care what your “leaders on SGA” agree with. I care about what the people who know Bentley and Akeme best think. The people who know them best are their classmates, who, like it or not, elected them into SGA positions last semester and are overall satisfied with their work. I don’t hear anyone in my class complaining. Oh, wait, right, we’re all “ill-informed children”. Forgive me.
While your cat example is really cute, I think it’s nonsense. Obviously you would not want a cat to be an SGA senator, but I don’t think a cat is really comparable to any of the people in this article.
I don’t think your opinion should be silenced. I’m responding to your opinion, which I think is wrong. You’re entitled to think and write whatever you want, of course, but there’s different and better ways to go about it. Finger pointing and personal attacks don’t really get you anywhere. I was actually really surprised when saw the author of this article, because I always enjoy your comments in class. I just feel that this type of writing does far more harm than good because it clouds the issues you hoped to address and makes both SGA and the MU student body look tacky and disunited.
SGA Is a catch-22 situation in my opinion.
Woa there guys, calm down. I know this article seems harsh, but it gets the point across: The Freshman class seems to not care as much about SGA. This could lead up to a whole tangle of problems in the not-so-distant future. As difficult as it is to comprehend, just because someone is “nice” does not mean they are going to actually get things done as Senator or President. I really hope that soon, people will feel this passionately about SGA as they did by responding to this article. It’s obvious everyone has the passion, we just need to spur it into action.
Gene, I respect your propensity to candidly express your strong opinions. However, with such a negative and dramatic tone, I don’t see how your purpose of writing this article will be achieved. I assume you intend to get more people to run for SGA’s positions through this op-ed, yet all I have seen so far are controversies, bad publicity, and negative reactions. These things are what should be avoided if we want more new students to be interested in SGA.
Yes, you do have support from a few past SGA members, however, I think you are actually trying to appeal to students who have great potentials but have little to no knowledge about SGA. I don’t think this op-ed will give them an ideal impression of who we are and what we do. Clearly it wouldn’t be the type of impression that will get them excited about SGA and motivate them to run for office. It would rather drive students away as this op-ed seemingly exemplifies the opposites of solidarity in an organization, not to mention the possibility of being humiliated on the school’s newspaper.
In short, why do something that costs so much (controversies, negativity, ugly comments from anonymous people, divisiveness, putting SGA in an unfavorable light, etc.) and benefits so little (except from the attention we get due to the “shock factor,” I honestly can’t think of any other benefits)?
First and foremost, it’s easy for me to say that you are one of the many senators who perform exemplory work on SGA. I think you know that already by me. As my article suggests, I did not write this as a representative of SGA but a student. While that may be a conflict for some, in such a small school setting I do not see how this could have been avoided. Khoi, we have to stop being polite and recognize we have a responsibility to our university. I never once said in my article that the people being mentioned were not good people or had the right to run. What I have written, however, has not been uttered by myself but many others who CURRENTLY sit in SGA. I know you feel friends and colleagues are not separate but I do. I wish no ill will towards anyone mentioned in my article, but I also do not want a system that allows sub-par politicians to run the most important organization on our campus. People prefer to be nice. I prefer to be honest. This way they know where I stand. Afterwards, we can all go out and be cordial, but in the public sphere we have no time for politeness.
I said I respected your candor. I do not have any problem with your honesty as long as that is exactly how you feel about those individuals.
Yet, again, the call for office could have been done in a much more effective way. We should never resort to controversy or “shock marketing” to get more people running. This piece succeeded in creating a buzz and getting people’s attention yet they aren’t the favorable kind of buzz and attention.
You could have written a piece about how much impact SGA has on campus, or how much valuable experiences and skills one would acquire from serving on SGA, or how it would help your future careers, etc. And it would have enticed a much higher numbers of new and competent students to run for office.
I would be very skeptical of the students who decide to run for SGA’s positions solely after reading this op-ed.
“Students at Mercer do not vote because there is nothing to encourage them to vote.”
I don’t know about other students at Mercer, but I won’t be voting simply because I:
1) don’t see why I should vote for one person that I hardly know over another person I hardly know, especially when their platforms consist of catch phrases like “Incentive programs” to get people to care more about sporting events (which shows that there is an apparent disconnect between our soon-to-be governors and the governed, because if they were truly in touch with those of us who do not attend sporting events they would know that they will never get us to attend sporting events)
2) question the legitimacy of the student government (which is ostensibly a bunch of children making financial decisions for extracurricular groups)
3) don’t give a damn.
If you want to encourage me to vote, either pay me or put a gun to my head.
You’re the reason that articles like this happen.
lol
I’m glad I’m that important.
This piece is tacky and unprofessional, particularly coming from an SGA member. Classless.
I suppose you are right. I should have put a bow on it and dressed my opinion in a white ballroom gown. I guess we can never be critical of anyone for the sake of politeness.
First of all Mr. Mitchell, you cannot simply except people who are new to the game to be familiar with all of the rules. If you are as disgusted by these freshmen senator’s actions in SGA, you should teach them how to properly conduct SGA business, not bash them for not following the rulebook you neglected to show them. On a second note, I was disappointed in how you disparaged these senators in such a ruthless manner. You say that Senator Hudgins ranked very lowly in his performance in SGA, but I am wondering if that ranking was officially made or merely your own opinion. With Senator Denson, I found your insult of his academic skills to be highly distasteful, as it lends little to your overall argument; the statement is both ineffective to yourargument and also very offensive to Mr. Denson. Your comment about his inability to perform academically in a public paper is improper. How would you react if I posted tha your performance in SGA was terrible and then added your propensity to use profanity as proif of tge fact? I doubt you would be very pleased if not enraged. Your comment of cringing every time Senator Ubom stands to speak during SGA meetings was also highly out of line. Such rude and insensitive comments are highly immature, and I am surprised that a man of your age would make such remarks, as you should be more of an adult.
This was my first year “to the game.” I’m pretty familiar with it.
I love when people complain about complainers, look down on others instead helping them out, seeks results with no incentive to create change, and judge others about there jobs when ones own is completely irrelevant with out them.
Nope wait I don’t.
You are part of a large community, Mercer. You are part of SGA and if you can’t make it better by putting your best forward and be loyal and respectful to those around you then don’t do it. If you really think more people voting will help then I will have to disagree. What’s the criteria for running and if its based solely on votes then maybe campaigning should change…
Opinion articles written with a condensing tone will only make you look like a douche bag.
One question, why didn’t you run for a position?
Well, because of the anger that is come about in response to this article…many of the people who appreciated my “condensing (I assume you meant condescending) tone” have opted to not openly express such favor due to the personal attacks I have received. I’ve been called fat, stupid, mean, classless, douche bag, etc, etc, all the while my critiques were performance based. Campaigning has changed btw, thanks to Senator Robinson (who is running for vp) and myself. We both extended the campaign season to one month, and let me tell you, the opposition was intense.
As far as not running, I am also involved in the Honor Council, President of both ODK, Mercer Veterans Association, PSA, a Mercer Service Scholar, A Fulbright scholar finalist, columnist for the Cluster, and I could name probably a dozen other things that I do on this campus. I, however, expressed an interest in this position as I wanted to help SGA in the best place I could. Given my background and interest in parliamentary procedure as well as interpretation of important documents, I thought the job would be a perfect fit. I have enjoyed my time on SGA and am sad to see it come to an end next Monday. I will say, however, this article, my opinion, or anything else I have ever said has been to attempt to take personal jabs at people I dislike. SGA is important to me and it deserves my best efforts. I expect much from people only because I see the greatness we as people can accomplish. That does not mean, however, we should point out errors and assign names to those errors. We refer to that process as accountability.
Does you resume really go on like that?
“Fulbright Scholar finalist, Rhodes Scholar applicant, Neighborhood Watch Secretary, Walk for the Cure participant, 2nd Grade Spelling Bee Runner-Up, read all the Harry Potter books, 6th Grade Olympics Silver Medalist, politely rejected from some pretty impressive colleges…”
Good Lord
A 26 year old man is immaturely casting anger at select students for what reason exactly? I’m more than sure that plenty of SGA senators could write equally offensive and barbaric article about Mr. Mitchell. Yet, these articles do not exist. Could it be that there are 18-21 year old students who have stronger character and a more robust moral compass than Mr. Mitchell? It most certainly appears so. Luckily, Mr. Mitchell will not be running for Senate next year and he has been spared an embarrassing end result. He concludes the article with a claim that students do not vote because there is no encouragement. Well I will certainly vote in this election in an effort to reject any candidate who bears a glimmer of resemblance to the insidious spectacle that wrote this article. I hope Mr. Mitchell can find solace in the fact that a few months from now, he will be able to graduate and leave these “ill-fitted candidates” behind. I know the student body will surely rejoice as his absence. I just hope he has not inadvertently started the paperwork for his impeachment.
Glad to see I have encouraged you to participate in the electoral process. Welcome to democracy.
lol wow.
You’ve reached internet meme status? Be happy.
This article has created a lot of resentment towards SGA as a whole but Mr. Mitchell is entitled to exercise his freedom or speech and I am glad someone is man enough to not be afraid to express his opinions. Everything shouldnt be sugarcoated.
Before I give my OPINION, Mr. Mitchelle was appointed, not elected to his position. He has served for one year.I want to say too, I am happy with those running in my class, and with SGA so far. This is why I am not running or criticizing them. Before you write an article such as this, you should poll the student population, I know for a fact there is a strong majority with the same opinion as myself.How about this, next time you write an article, if you write one again, instead of insulting individual students you compose something that can lead to productivity. Explain why students should care about the elections or encourage them to get involved. This article portrays a disunity within SGA. Why would someone want to run for SGA and devote their time to the organization just to fight with people such as yourself? In my opinion, this was just a classless attack from a disgruntled SGA member that has never actually ran for a position, and can be compared to a child throwing a tantrum because his mommy didn’t buy him a lollipop at Kroger. If I were on SGA, I would ask for your impeachment, although your intentions were initially good(giving you the benefit of the doubt), you went about them in a classless way that is unbecoming of an SGA official.
Well it scares me that you would ask for impeachment proceedings seeing how that seems to infringe upon a person’s 1st amendment right to freedom of speech. Secondly, the appointment process does not forbid me from speaking my mind. As executive members we were encouraged to speak our minds, but I was not speaking as a member of the executive board in this piece. Nowhere in the piece did I ever reflect that my views were of the entire body. You, however, have taken it upon yourself to construe my message as such. That being said, keep calm and carry on as I resigned from office, per the request of President Locke, last night. Nice to see, by the way, you were brave enough to put your name on the post.
I vote to rename this article: “Come on Mercerians, it’s about time to (finally) give SGA a reason to make me resign!”
Very glad that Karma made an appearance. Very professional. Go listen to the podcast and see what actually happened.
lol people are so scared. Come on in, the water is fine…
I do not know why so many people are upset about this article. I applaud Gene for doing the right thing and holding people in office and SGA as an organization, accountable for there actions. When running for SGA, students know that they are putting themselves and their names out there to be criticized. And when you are unhappy about what they are, or are not, doing, you should be able to let it be known, so that they can be held accountable. You guys act like he just completely bashed everyone in SGA, that’s not how I see it. Gene was simply voicing his opinion about SGA and those people were his examples, and very good ones I must say. I’m sure there are many Mercer Students that do not have a clue what goes on in SGA. They aren’t involved enough to know and they are probably the people that are commenting below.
[…] SGA president Jordan Locke on April 2. The resignation was a result of Mitchell’s recent opinion article published in The Cluster on March […]