Has SGA made Mr. UTSA into Mr. SGA

Even with the best of intentions, it is never a wise choice to mingle personal interests with a political issue. Even if the two just so happen to be hand-in-hand, the mere association is a cause for concern and may in fact speak to a lack of hindsight on their part.

In a series of exchanges on Facebook, certain members of the Student Government Association have used the issue of bringing alcohol to the Chili’s Too restaurant on campus to encourage students to vote for a particular SGA officer for Mr. UTSA.

While the messages were technically about the alcohol issue, the nature of the posts seemed to merely be a shout-out to one of their own. This isn’t against the rules as much as it is a pinch shrewd and manipulative.

However, digging deeper into the issue reveals something that’s of far greater concern. It now appears that the SGA sponsored this particular candidate, failing to consider any other worthy candidate that was not associated with their organization. Once again, this is not considered illegal as members of the SGA are allowed to sponsor and support whomever they feel is in their best interest.

But with this monopolization of the electoral process, it begs the question: at what point does using political influence become nothing more than a self-serving procedure that only benefits the selected few and leaves everyone else on the outside looking in? When does the support of a topic devolve into a tool for self-promotion? Is it right for a single organization to hold sole control of a campus-wide election?

It becomes no more than an internal transference of power among the inner circle; if one SGA member doesn’t get it, then another one will. And to use such a critical topic as alcohol on campus, especially with its implementation at UTSA football games and the revenue at stake, as a lobbying tool undermines the entire effort.

Again, none of this is strictly illegal and anyone can run for election; but then, with this kind of control, at what point do we still consider this politics when it has clearly become something more domineering?