Once again, a proposed unilateral change of university policy has created an outcry among the student councils who find it their charge to defend (ineffectively and in vain) the rights of students against encroachment by the administration. This time, the proposal is to take the decision-making power in academic dishonesty cases from the deans of the individual colleges and place it entirely in the hands of one administrator. While the proposed policy in its current form is ill-formed and dictatorial, without an adequate appeals process and separation of interests, the divestment of power from the individual colleges is nonetheless the correct step for academic affairs to take.
This columnist has argued before that the six-college system is an abject failure in comparison to its model at Cambridge; students are little linked to their colleges beyond abstract and meaningless academic requirements, the majority of incoming freshmen choose their colleges randomly anyway, and upperclassmen feel little to no loyalty or emotional attachment to their particular college. While it could be argued that general education requirements are enough to give the prerogative of disciplining academic dishonesty to the undergraduate colleges, given the fact that students identify with their major far more than their college, the proposed changes make sense in creating a fair and consistent academic dishonesty procedure among students in the same major.
The college system requires major overhauling if it is to be a viable force on this campus. Namely, there should be at least twice as many colleges serving the same number of students to allow for diversification, freshman college transferring should be encouraged, sections of large classes like math 20A need to be divided by college, and there must be competitive housing for upperclassmen to live among freshmen to foster a sense of college identity.
The fact is that undergraduates, especially upperclassmen, don’t identify with their college and are much more likely to identify with and socialize within their major. The centralization and standardization of the academic dishonesty process is a sad monument to the failure of our college system, but should be applauded in that it does enforce consistency and reflects the reality of student loyalties.
With signs reading “”21,568″” plastered all over campus, students would either have to be blind or lazy not to vote in the upcoming midterm elections on Nov. 5. Most likely, the majority of the campus population will be the latter come next week. While this bodes well for American indifference to the healthy functioning of democracy, one does have to question both the validity and the methods of the College Democrats, who put up those signs. It seems strange that signs encouraging students to vote (which should be apolitical or focused on students’ rights) digressed into fanciful daydreaming about what 20,000 votes could do for lesbian, gay and transgender rights, as well as “”women’s rights”” (which means “”abortion rights”” these days).
While this writer has no problem with advocating the aforementioned positions, given the rather vocal — and organized, if not large — conservative constituency on campus, it seems foolish to think that all of UCSD’s votes are going straight to liberal causes.
Furthermore, if anyone believes that 20,000 votes in the 53rd congressional district are going to affect anything, they are sorely mistaken; while the 2000 race between then-incumbent Brian Bilbray and current representative Susan Davis did indeed come within 10,000 votes, recent redistricting gave Davis a rock-solid support base. According to the Union-Tribune, “”the national Republican Party has virtually written off the race.”” For that matter, who has even heard of Ms. Davis’ opponent, Bill VanDeWeghe?
While it is a great thing to go vote, apathy will probably rule in even these “”exciting”” midterm elections because once again, a random and disproportionately small part of the American electorate is going to decide things (presumably, in Senate races in big square states with more cows than people). It seems patently absurd that in a House of Representatives of 435 members up for re-election, less than two dozen nationwide face any sort of real competition. This is not due to the power of incumbency; rather, it is because the party that happens to control a state legislature at any given time draws Rorschach inkblots every 10 years for districts in the name of securing seats like Ms. Davis’ from any sort of challenge by the opposing party. And 21,568 votes is certainly not going to change that any time soon.
