Democracy at the IOP

The Institute of Politics (IOP) recently concluded its first open elections for student leadership. Six students were elected chairs of program committees and six more were elected representatives to a "Director's Task Force" that is to decide the permanent structure of student involvement at the institute. Since the dissolution of its Student Advisory Committee (SAC) on Dec. 1, the role of students at the IOP has been in flux; we congratulate the IOP on its elections and hope that they represent a continuation of student influence at the institute.

SAC had come under fire mainly for its method of succession, in which applicants were selected by current SAC members. Instead, the decision-making last week was based on objective standards of participation, with every student who had attended half of any student committee's meetings eligible to vote for that committee's election. The election process may still have far to go; turnout was estimated at only 50 percent of eligible voters, and candidates for seven of the 13 available positions were uncontested. Yet these initial elections based on objective criteria for eligibility serve as a good model for the future, providing for more open and inclusive student leadership. We also hope that the future structure will provide, as SAC did, a venue for students to discuss IOP-wide issues outside the bounds of specific program committees.

It is promising that several former SAC members are among those who will be leading the organization into its new year. Especially in this time of restructuring, the IOP should not lose these members' dedication and expertise. Unfortunately, however, the election rules, which explicitly forbade seniors from running for positions on the interim committee, may have arbitrarily excluded those undergraduates with the most institutional knowledge. In addition to working with the six staff members and graduates whom Pryor will appoint, the members of the Task Force would do well to seek the input of these seniors so that the value of their experience is not lost.

In his original announcement, IOP director and former Sen. David H. Pryor had indicated that he would appoint the committee chairs for the coming semester. We are glad that he did not do so, as the election process provides for more openness than would a hand-picking the leadership--especially after Pryor's sudden November decision to dissolve SAC altogether. However, this about-face itself serves as a reminder that students need a strong voice and permanent role at the institute. In this light, the IOP's elections are a positive sign; the more decisions that are reached by open deliberation with student input, the better.