Schreiber’s club elections are unfair

Editorial Board

Schreiber High School has a great variety of clubs to offer to its students.  Faculty and staff often claim that there are many ways to get involved in the school community through extracurriculars.  However, sometimes it is not so easy and is unfairly biased.

After being an avid club member for a year or more, most members desire a staff position, which is very important for a number of reasons.  These positions teach students leadership skills and allow them to take on a larger role in a club about which they are passionate.  They look stellar on college applications and allow the student to form a bond with the teacher leading the activity.  In theory, this is a great strategy, but in reality, the chosen board members are not always selected for the right reasons.

Some clubs, such as newspaper, Key Club, and debate, have adopted position selection principles that are based on a student’s commitment to the club, expertise, and engagement and sometimes require a lengthy application and interview process.  However, in many honor societies, board positions are solely decided based upon an election where friends vote for their peers.  As a result, the election ends up coming down to a popularity contest.  

These informal selection procedures neither depend on how many activities the student has participated in, nor the number of meetings the student has attended.  In addition, it does not take into account the number of other commitments a student has or if they are a justifiable choice.  There are many people who are undeserving of positions and obtain them anyway.  Although it makes sense that the elections should be held democratically, with students voting for whoever they feel fits best for the position, it rarely occurs that way in actuality. 

If clubs want to employ a more fair voting process, there are a number of methods they could use.  For example, clubs should schedule a meeting day where each person who wants to run for the position makes a short speech, where they indicate their dedication and passion for the organization, and its value.  Then, the current board members and advisers can combine attendance records with the speech to find qualified individuals, while still taking into account student voting results.  Ultimately, the final decision should not be based on a majority vote, but instead, on a culmination of qualifications to prove a student’s worthiness for a position.

To allow Schreiber to continue to provide ample opportunities for student participation, board member elections should be changed.