Staff Editorial: Vote for the Somalians!

The 2011 Executive Spring Election created a disturbing controversy over race. Contrary to previous years, there were many new challengers running for office. Unfortunately, this exploded into an issue of race despite the best intentions.
With urges of “Vote for the Hispanics,” or “Vote for the Asians,” the voting tables were a confusing place to be. Previous years only averaged a 50 to 150 voter count to this year’s was 550. Something significant has changed, and it’s impossible to ignore the contributing factors toward this year’s momentous showdown. What was supposed to be a friendly competition turned into a threatening conflict between the two groups running for positions: United Through Our Diversity (UTOD) and the Fall Executive group for reelection. What we’re thinking is that the gravity of this situation was not handled in the most conscientious manner possible. UTOD is a group that formed early in the school year hoping to display their belief in proper representation of the diverse student body that they might improve Executive, and in turn, the school, according to Roman Jaramillo, a candidate for ASB President. The opposing group of candidates who did not run in an official group were the current Executive members, hoping to win with their promise of experience. Good intentions are always the start.
Clashes between the two groups began when the current Exec President Oscar Wong chose to campaign on Facebook, seeking permission from the campaign manager, Ms. Diaz. Though they were approved, miscommunication occurred, because this counted as illegal campaigning outside of the school. This is where it gets messy; someone reported Exec as cheaters, resulting in the punishment of Facebook campaigners—they were not allowed to put posters up and had to stay in the Student Government Room for two lunches.
Then came the posters displaying the slogan, “United Through Our Diversity.” Just this slogan would surely draw attention; had these individuals chosen to run individually, there may not have been as much of a fuss. It’s not even clear whether this is an illegal group on campus—official groups are not allowed to campaign together. Gray areas such as these allow for the freedom of bending rules that are not quite set. Both groups immediately became hostile toward each other, fueling the flame for a melodramatic high school election.
Amidst the tension, crowds formed in the Quad, mostly voting for their corresponding ethnicity, turning the race into a thing of well, race. However, focusing only on skin tone just scratches the surface of the issue. How many of us can say that we knew exactly what these candidates planned to do for our school? Mudslinging and racial wars are a dirty part of American politics and culture. When we were voting for these people, we had almost no information except their last names and the good word of aquantainces. Whether any of the candidates were qualified to run our school did not necessarily factor into our decision-making.
Call us crazy, but maybe that’s what posters are for, not just to show off eye-catching handwriting. Unclear motives and causes along with an assumption that the audience is uninterested led to an ill-informed student body. When we don’t know what our leaders are up to, we tend to assume they do nothing at all, making us less proud as a school. What we need to do is to fix this system of vague candidates and blurry bylaws. We need to ask for information and plans instead of relying on weak promises and first impressions.
It’s up to us, the student body, to ask for more from our elected leaders, and it’s about time.