<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11969108\x26blogName\x3dCambridge+Common\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://cambridgecommon.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://cambridgecommon.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-4528793327087001496', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Friday, December 02, 2005

question 2: politics and the UC

I just posted each of the ticket's response to question 2:
This fall, the Council was criticized by the Harvard Republican Club and the Crimson Editorial Board for involving itself in labor relations at Harvard. By the end of this process, you will have met with the groups involved in politics like the College Democrats, the College Republicans, the Environmental Action Committee, the AIDs Coalition (to name a few) and countless important ethnic organizations to ask them for their endorsement. Many, if not all, of these organizations are built around what could be considered a "political"” agenda in their approach to the administration. What involvement, if any, do you think the Council should have with what many would consider politically charged on-campus advocacy? Why? How does your approach to seeking endorsements relate to that?
Read them all (Haddock/Riley, Voith/Gadgil , and Grimeland/Hadfield), share your thoughts on the thread, and check out and contribute to the ongoing discussions on question 1.

ALSO, feel free to use this as a open thread for thoughts/questions/comments unrelated to this particular question. Just remember CC's policy on anonymous comments.

6 Comments:

At 4:46 PM, Blogger Ben said...

Here's an update on how the UC itself is breaking down in its sentiment about who should be its next leader. Excluding Matt & Clay, the three Election Commission members, and the Dudley rep who just joined last meeting, there are 44 regular UC members who could endorse.

So that's 22 needed to get half. According to the facebook, the current breakdown of declared UC endorsements is as follows:

John Haddock: 19
John Voith: 13
Magnus Grimeland: 1
One UC member, Socrates Cruz, is in facebook groups for both Johns. The rest are undeclared.

And here's the breakdown by committee.

SAC:
John Haddock: 11
Undeclared: 4
John Voith: 1
Magnus Grimeland: 0

FiCom:
John Haddock: 5
John Voith: 4
Undeclared: 3
Magnus Grimeland: 1
Election Commission: 1

CLC:
John Voith: 8
John Haddock: 3
Election Commission: 2
Undeclared: 2
Haddock & Voith: 1
Magnus Grimeland: 0

John Haddock is quickly assembling all the trappings of a front-runner. The facebook group membership is now 318 to 261.

 
At 4:58 PM, Blogger Ben said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 5:00 PM, Blogger Ben said...

Just to keep my math skills sharp... So for UC members who *can* endorse, it's 43% for Haddock, 30% for Voith, and 2% for Magnus.

For those who *did* endorse, it's 58% for Haddock, 40% for Voith, and 3% for Magnus.

 
At 8:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 8:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 12:10 PM, Blogger andrew golis said...

please remember CC's anonymous comments policy: http://cambridgecommon.blogspot.com/2005/11/policy-on-anonymous-uc-comments.html

 

Post a Comment

<< Home