STAFF EDITORIAL

Rob Meyer. Michael McGuinness. Jonathan Parks. Brian Tomina. Derek Dickow. Nick Mitchell.

What is it that makes these names sound similar?

It’s the same element that makes this year’s Oakland University presidential candidates Steve Clark, Andrew Bashi, and Jordan Twardy comparable.

All are men.

The first collection of names lists past OU student body presidents since 2000, minus Madelyn Miller in 2006-07 year.

Miller inherited the position after McGuinness resigned in 2006. Although she was the first female to hold the position in over 10 years, she was never actually elected.

In fact, there hasn’t been a woman elected as student body president since 1995.

The 2007-08 Student Congress had five female members on the executive board, and three women on the legislative board, including the vice president.

With a major female presidential candidate in the national election, a woman in office is a hot topic.

One cannot help but wonder: Why are there so few female OU student body presidents?

There are many women involved and elected in student congress.

It appears inconsistent with the many roles women play throughout the university. Women are active in every other facet of university life. Women’s sports are popular, and most organizations have an equal proportion of men and women.

University statistics indicated that 62 percent of the students at OU are female.

The current list of past presidents does not support this number.

There seems to be no obvious reason why a woman could not be elected to office.

With the largest election ever for Oakland University’s student body president, the answer may lie somewhere within the institution itself.

OUSC is a small organization. Even in the recent election, there were several open slots for legislature positions.

Last academic year, Meyer ran unopposed.

So the imbalance is itself in the numbers. There is only a small amount of people involved in student congress; it is just an unfortunate fact of OU’s demographics. 

With increased participation and marked improvement from Meyer’s solo campaign, now is the time to heighten the gender diversity.

Hopefully, in the elections to come, there will be a female presence in office.

The future growth of student congress may assist in offering a broader service to the multitude of individuals and groups at the university.

Building on the momentum of the past election in the coming semesters is crucial. The energy put into the recent election should continue to manifest itself in student congress activities and remain in the forefront of Oakland students’ on-campus interaction.

Not only should the vigor directly assist Oakland students, but may also invite more students into the foray.

The increase, from a probability standpoint, will offer more diversity and differing viewpoints.

The trick is to maintain the devotion and keep the limelight fixated on OUSC, in order to attract more and more people to its important function as an organ of the student body’s voice.

And, maybe, in the next few years, a name like Madelyn will not only be accompanied by Robs, Steves, Michaels and Brians, but also Kellys, Mindys and Hollys.