It’s time to set aside pettiness and focus on student issues

It has been interesting watching the comments on The Daily Athenaeum's Web site over the last few weeks.

Typically, the most commented articles tend to be about developing stories in the athletic department, the football team or anything sports-related.

People care enough about sports at West Virginia University to take the time to be involved in a discussion about it – news just tends to be absorbed and quickly forgotten.

That trend has dipped recently, with more comments appearing on reports involving the Student Government Association.

At first, the idea of people engaging in a discussion about SGA and its leaders sounds great. It's always encouraging to see the student body engage, interact and think about what they want from their student representatives.

Until you read the comments.

Though there are a few genuine standouts, they are quickly overshadowed by the constant bickering and name-calling from people who can be easily identified as having more than a passing interest in the group.

As a result, we've closed several commenting features on articles, ending potentially good discussions about campus issues.

Even during the election, it wasn't uncommon to see candidates undercut one another, attacking credibility and personality in a few select words.

In the context of the election, it's only natural to want to undermine the competition.

However, several of the comments were potentially slanderous, bravely posted by people signing their comments as "Anonymous," despite having the option to provide a real name.

The comments became more intense when the editorial board weighed in on the debates and then our eventual endorsements.

These decisions were not swift and without thought.

The fine folks in production and at our printer didn't care much for the extended deadline, but we felt it best to analyze the presentations of every single candidate, their platforms and the two parties' presidential and vice presidential candidates before declaring support behind anyone.

We were accused (not without a sense of irony, I hope) for bias in our opinions.

Each endorsement and editorial was presented as such, on the relevant pages and in the relevant section.

That didn't deter any of the anonymous posters failing to come to terms with that concept, but that's to be expected. Not everyone will agree with our decisions – nor should they.

This kind of attitude does not dispel the reputation SGA has of being a clique and a drama-filled organization.

It doesn't do anything for the 22,000 students who didn't vote, who are disengaged by or feel disconnected from their representatives.

It serves only to further the drama created by candidates, campaigners, friends and well-wishers who fail to recognize the basic premise of any leadership position – to lead.

If all the candidates who didn't win were genuinely concerned about their platforms or the advancement of the student experience at WVU, they would continue to work on behalf of the student body, regardless of the title.

Brett White, special events coordinator for the Center for Civic Engagement, for example, made a name for himself purely on advocating student issues and volunteerism.

The work wasn't about the title. But it has paid him dividends and he has served the University well.

We have made a concerted effort this year to make students more aware of the student government process than ever before.

There have been times when errors have crept through, and we have been rightly called out on them.

But the constant stream of name-calling and bickering doesn't help anyone nor does it further student advancement.

Perhaps I am expecting too much. This column will most likely be flooded with the same kind of hate-filled silliness that has consumed many previous articles and columns.

If that is the fate this column is to be dealt, then so be it – at least then our student representatives and their followers will finally be united in a common message.