University Party member and MSA member Paul Scott wrote me an email defending the “U-Party” against my criticisms. In it, he writes:

“I want to be clear that even though we are against passing resolutions which
have the ability to divide this University on controversial and non-campus
issues, we by no means are going to ignore them. Although our group will be
devoted towards accomplishing tangible things that are possible inside the
scope of student government, it should be known that there is a distinct
dichotomy between an organization that plans to ignore the issues of the day,
and one that strives to promote education and dialogue between differing
ideologies and the rest of campus.”

Maybe it’s just me, but I just can’t understand how the University Party claims to embrace action while eschewing taking any position on what they term “non-campus” issues. Promoting education and dialogue is great, but it’s just not the same as lobbying for increased student input in the administration, lowering tuition, and working to reduce Ann Arbor rent. What would the U-Party propose: holding a debate between wealthy students whose parents are landlords, and students who want to crack down on corporate slum lords like Varsity Management? I hope students realize that taking a position and taking action are inextricably linked, and if MSA ever decides they can’t take a point of view they have voluntarily turned themselves to a powerless student council relegated to irrelevance.

Author: Rob