The opinion pages of the Daily have recently experienced an onslaught of ideas ranging from religion to GSB criticism. That’s OK. Discussion is always good, and I’m happy to see it happening in public view.

These pages in the Daily offer a chance for someone to bring his version of the truth to the people and a chance his words will help cultivate public opinion to side with his own personal view. Some methods of communication are efficient and informative while others are degrading and coarse.

The wonderful thing about it all is that anyone has the right to let his words speak to the masses — no matter the topic. This is the backbone of free press and the freedom of speech. Without these ideals, this country wouldn’t have the unique characteristics so many other countries continue to strive for.

Lately, however, there have been comments concerning a disclaimer involving what topics and discussion should be allowed on the opinion pages. It’s too bad some people don’t get it. Just by printing one letter or column doesn’t mean the Daily itself necessarily endorses a certain point of view, it just tries to open up discussion from one end of the spectrum to the other.

In no way would the Daily not print an idea just because the editor or staff may disagree with it. Everyone has the chance to speak. Everyone has the chance to be heard.

In the end, it’s what you do with the information given that’s important. Do you learn from it? Grow from it? Does it piss you off and force you to pick up your pen and write back? Whatever the result, one should try to be careful with his feedback. A well-thought argument will more likely get a point across than redundant criticism or personal attacks.

Use the 24-hour rule when writing. Think about what made you angry. Consider the other point of view. Try to put things into perspective and then write what ails you. You will be taken a little more seriously and perhaps even change some minds.

That aside, I would like to take the liberty of expressing my side of the story. And, sorry guys, it has to do with GSB.

I would wager there are many people on GSB who have been serving for several months who have yet to read the GSB constitution in its entirety. It seems sad to me this is the case, but unfortunately, I believe it to be true.

If pop quizzes on the current constitution were given periodically at the meetings, I’m sure there’s a chance half or more of the senators would fail. It speaks volumes to students about how their representatives are working for them when ignorance runs rampant in the student government. Did these individuals feel their work for the masses was done once elected to office?

Now, don’t misunderstand me. There are many on the senate who are actually working for the students. It just seems that a handful of bad apples can make the efforts of the strong representatives not as noticeable.

A few of the “good apples” have been involved in branch efforts of GSB like those involved with the Constitutional Convention. These people have taken an old, cumbersome document and streamlined it for what could be a new era in GSB.

Their efforts have taken a year’s worth of work and it all comes down to you, the students, to decide if it’s right or wrong. The idea behind the new Constitution — and I have taken the time to read it — is giving power back to the students while making the government process a little more efficient and more student friendly.

Everyone from GSB has been invited to give input on convention meetings, but many chose to ignore it. Now, when the time has finally come to put it to a vote, senators like Off-Campus Senator Mark Nimmer express their displeasure with the new draft.

Where were they last week when a meeting was held? Where were they last semester? Perhaps they weren’t taking it as seriously as they should have when there’s a strong chance it could be voted on and eventually replace the current constitution. It seems strange that Nimmer claims a tight academic schedule in relation to not being able to attend the Sunday meetings, but found time to show up when it went to a vote two days ago.

I’ve also heard rumors that some senators would sign up to be delegates on the Constitutional Convention, and then not show up so there wouldn’t be quorum at the meetings.

Childish behavior, if you ask me.

One thing I noticed at the last GSB meeting is that all friends sat together and for the most part voted together. It kind of defeats the point of having representatives from different colleges and seats when so many don’t seem to be thinking for themselves. Once employed, a little individuality and decisive thinking goes a long way.

Most importantly, I wish to ask the readers of this column to do a little of your own research in this new constitution. Read it. Try to understand what it’s trying to accomplish and then vote on it. Decide if it’s best for you. I’m sure that just by glancing over its pages a reader may bring more knowledge to the discussion table than some of the senators possess.

One thing is for certain, I’m glad I’m not a member of the student government process — at least I’m not formally. I don’t think I could stand the political games so many play when special interests come to mind.

I do, however, have the unique opportunity to express my displeasure with some of the senators who are serving me on today’s senate. I also look forward to their letters and feedback. Like I said before, that’s what these pages are all about.

---

John Mullen is a senior in liberal studies from Waterloo. He is opinion editor of the Daily.