In response to your article “Specialty seats a waste of space,” I would like to make the following remarks:

1. “Currently, there are 13 vacant senate seats.” The constitution and bylaws are written to take care of an ideal situation, which envisions a fully seated senate with each position contested by several candidates. It cannot take into account “current” situations that change on a regular basis. The agenda for the senate meeting on Oct. 7 includes seating bills for four new senators, two of them for specialty seats.

2. You state that “regular senate seats should be open to all students.”

Each senate position is open to every member of the constituency it is supposed to represent. I consider this a sound provision.

3. You mention that even if the ideal situation was realized, you’d still oppose specialty seats. You base this position on your belief “in individualism instead of group-identity.” This is certainly a valid point of view, although I strongly disagree. All democracy is based on some amount of “group-identity,” insofar as one group of people agree that they have enough in common to try and get along with each other and insofar as democratic governments try to reconcile the needs of opposing groups without disrupting the unity of the whole. I wish you had elaborated your “belief” in more detail than just mentioning it instead of devoting your column to a reiteration of arguments which have been refuted repeatedly in the past.

Marc Ruehlaender

International Senator

GSB