How can a mute speak for the populations? Answer: He can’t.

Jamie DeLoma

How can people who cannot even submit a 50-word statement to a campus news agency be expected to do your business efficiently? I will tell you how: they cannot. In last week’s Chronicle, two pages were dedicated to the Student Government Association’s elections. Of approximately 50 students seeking positions, a mere 24 submitted their name, position desired, year at Quinnipiac and platform. Doesn’t sound difficult? That is because it was not. Many of these students, who have since been elected to the SGA, may claim that they did not have time to fulfill the task. To that, I say nonsense. By the time the section had been printed, all applications have had been submitted requiring the applicant to submit their name, position desired, grade at Quinnipiac and you guessed it, platform. If they did not have time to type a brief summary of what they believed was crucial to their fellow students, they could have simply copied and pasted from their applications. Seeming more inexcusable? I agree.

To make matters worse, many, but not all, of the students seeking such positions and failed to meet the set deadline complained that four days were not enough to submit the information, which I have already demonstrated had not been difficult to submit, that the Chronicle unfairly showcased those students who submitted their information by the set deadline, and that they should not have been expected to submit such information over a weekend.

Maybe I have higher expectations for those people who are elected to represent my best interests but I do not understand why I should elect someone who is willing only to represent me on their time and during regular business hours Monday through Friday. Excuse my language but this is hogwash.

As for the claim that the Chronicle unfairly showcased those students who submitted their information by the deadline, I could not disagree more. The Chronicle is responsible for reporting the news that affects the Quinnipiac community and I do not see anything that affects the community more than the very people who we select as a student body to represent us.

The Chronicle showcased those students who respected the four-day deadline and showed more concern for the students on campus than their time designated to party, sleep or eat. The Chronicle showcased the students who decided to make public why students should elect them to their desired position.

Those students who did not respond spoke just as loudly. They pronounced that they did not have time to tell the students that they would make time for them or that they were always on call to help them. Only after did The Chronicle print the profiles of the students who did respond did the hand full of students go to the student center offices to complain that they were not included in the spread. Note, I said the student center. Only one student actually came to The Chronicle to voice his concern. How can students who cannot even approach the editors of this newspaper for their own concerns be expected to go to the necessary individuals when you have an issue?

It is not the responsibility of this newspaper to go to each nominee and beg for comment. This newspaper e-mailed each nominee and requested comment. Many students responded, many did not. To know who did what, I encourage you to look back at last week’s Chronicle.

However, to those nominees who took the time to respond to The Chronicle, kudos to you! It shows you have dedication, respect and an on-going commitment to the student body.