To the Editor:

I was surprised by Kyle Larson's letter to the editor on Friday regarding Vanderbilt Student Government's experience requirement. As a member of VSG, Kyle should have realized the hypocrisy of and inherent problems associated with the requirement. It is wrong on so many levels, beyond the reasons stated in The Hustler's "Our View" last Wednesday.

First and most importantly, just as VSG has tried to mimic the structure of the United States government (with a Senate, House, executive board, various committees, etc.), so should it follow the Constitution's lead. Although the U.S. government is larger, more complicated and infinitely more powerful than VSG, our country's founding fathers still intentionally placed no experience requirement (other than age and citizenship laws) to become leader of the free world. Why? Because the experience requirement is inherently undemocratic. The writers of the Constitution had faith that the democratic process would yield a capable leader.

To assume the student body would elect someone based strictly on popularity, disregarding the candidate's ideas, experience or leadership ability, shows little faith in the judgment of our fellow classmates. If a person is qualified enough for the majority of students on this campus to elect him/her to such an important position, regardless of previous VSG experience, this person is in turn more than qualified to run the organization.

We are all smart people, and students will elect the person who has the best ideas, the ability to lead and the best record of enacting change on campus regardless of popularity or VSG experience. As a member of VSG for the past three years, I believe there are only two qualifications for an effective student representative and leader - you need to have an opinion and you need to care about making things better. A person with these traits will make a great VSG president.

The requirement is also merely an insulating agent for members of VSG, keeping longtime participants safe from competition outside of the organization. VSG should welcome candidates who care enough to run for president, as only through stiff election competition are new ideas and visions for the future of the university born.

The charge of arrogance does have some basis. Although I do not believe VSG or its members are guilty of such a charge, is it not somewhat arrogant to think that no one outside of VSG is qualified enough to fulfill the roles of the position? Regardless, this charge is still indicative of one of the largest issue facing VSG. If our constituency views VSG as arrogant, we have a huge problem.

Not only are students unaware of what VSG does for them, but also they don't respect the organization. Larson claims non-VSG members do not take the opportunity to voice their opinion at House and Senate meetings. Of course students do not participate; I wouldn't if I was outside of VSG. Meetings like these are not the right venue for student opinions to be voiced, as they are awkward and intimidating for someone new.

VSG needs to do a better job of welcoming student opinions through focus groups, events like Desserts with Kirkland, e-mail accounts or just dialogue with students about important issues. The voice of the students should always be the driving force of VSG, as VSG exists solely for the purpose of making every student's experience at Vanderbilt better.

VSG has nothing to lose by repealing the experience requirement and everything to gain. It would be arrogant of us to suggest otherwise.

Tyler Armstrong
Junior, A&S
Campus Services Committee Co-Chair