With the results of the 2016 presidential election still fresh, it’s hard to not draw parallels between that election and our Senior Class officers election. While the stakes are much greater in the presidential election, in both cases the results left some people feeling unrepresented and in need of a change to the current system.

“The current system doesn’t represent the people’s will; it was a popularity contest.” Those were the reactions of some people following Nov. 8 — and the announcement of winners of the Senior Class officer positions last spring.

Near the end of the year, students are given the chance to run for one of several senior leadership positions in the school, including class president.

The officers generally represent the student body at meetings and school functions. Matthew Coontz, Class of 2017 president, for example, addressed the school at opening Mass, attends board meetings, and acts as a representative for the student body.  

The other class officers attend weekly Principal Staff meetings in rotation, also acting as representatives of the student body. At these meetings class officers are often asked a question and then arrive at the next meeting with an answer after they have gotten feedback from classmates.

Class officers also are given the responsibility of making decisions on behalf of their class and the school. The 2016-2017 theme, “Character Forged By Faith,” and poster design, for example, were in part selected by the class officers.

Another responsibility of the class officers is to pick the theme for prom. Giving these decisions to the students is important, according to Mr. Jeremy Jackson, who is co-Senior Class moderator with Mr. Joe Henning. He said, “They (class officers) make the decision, which I believe is better for the students; for example, you don’t want me making a decision about what music you are going to listen to at prom.”

The roles are clear; however, obtaining the path to the class positions has left some frustrated and confused. The concerns mostly revolve around struggling to get one’s name out or to distinguish oneself.

Senior Alec McGuire, who unsuccessfully ran for sergeant-at-arms, said, “There is no real platform for telling your peers why you’re running.”

Some students think this could be solved by campaigning, but as of now that isn’t an option. “There’s not campaigning in terms of signs and banners,” said Mr. Joe Henning, teacher and co-director of student affairs.

There are multiple reasons for this, most of which have to do with avoiding the nastiness campaigns can bring out.

Jackson said, “I think campaigning can bring out a lot of negative tendencies to point out why you’re better than someone else. Posters hanging everywhere and that kind of mania that accompanied this year’s (presidential) election, I don’t think that has a place in a school, and I don’t think it fits Trinity’s mission.”

Despite no traditional campaigning events, candidates running for positions are given the opportunity to interact with students at an event held in the Communication Arts Center convocation hall. Candidates are allowed to give non-prepared statements and talk with juniors, who will be voting in the election.

McGuire said name recognition still seems to be a major factor that determines how successful a candidate will be because few opportunities are given to share information about oneself and one’s ideas. He said, “It becomes a popularity contest.”

Jackson acknowledged that “most elections are somewhat of a popularity contest. I don’t mean that positively or negatively, just factual.”

Jackson said he doesn’t think a platform is really necessary because a student’s time at Trinity has been the platform. He said, “It’s voted on by the student body so I think that a person (who wins) has distinguished themselves through their service and activities in the three years before running.”

The system has faults, however.  Better communication between students and faculty on what the rules are and, more importantly, why they are in place would fix many issues. The issues and questions students have are valid, but explanations given by Henning and Jackson make quite a bit of sense, and the majority of students who are frustrated with the process would probably accept the explanations.

While the explanations may help with some students’ frustrations, they don’t necessarily fix all the problems of the system. The concern about trying to gain name recognition does have some validity.

Jackson is correct when he says the three previous years of activities and service should be enough to convince people. But some students with a good record of service may still not be well known. Students whose service isn’t being on the football or basketball team aren’t given the attention they deserve and face an uphill battle to be known to a large part of the class.

This is why events similar to the one held in the convocation hall need to happen more often, and students who are voting need to be encouraged to attend. While signs and other campaign methods may not be appropriate for a school environment, a place where conversations can occur is.

Currently, campaigning is largely banned because some fear the conversations will become vitriolic in nature, and this fear is valid based on how disrespectful many political and regular conversations have become. Instead of avoiding this and accepting it as an inescapable reality, the school should look at this as an opportunity to teach students how discourse and discussion truly should happen.

Doing this would be yet another way for Trinity to shape students into “Men of Character.”