As the Columbia College Student Council election looms, political infighting grows. Insiders-folks within student government-position themselves with weighty resumes and talented vice presidents. Although they are dedicated and sincere in their efforts to effect change, their student government experiences are as much a boon as they are a detriment to their campaigns. Student leaders, who run student clubs and teams, tend to approach campus issues differently from those involved in student government. They are far more critical of the University administration-necessarily so, as the survival of their groups depends on their abilities to navigate the bureaucratic machine, compete for resources, and make do with limited means. One can only hope that the winning CCSC candidate will demonstrate and employ both perspectives in overcoming these inimitable obstacles.

First and foremost, candidates must remember to keep the "Columbia College" in Columbia College Student Council. It's particularly easy for CCSC members and Columbia College students alike to neglect the size and scope of the University. If CCSC wishes to succeed in its endeavors, however, it must be cognizant of this reality. There are 16-yes, 16-undergraduate and graduate programs in the University. This ranks high among the Ivy League (if it doesn't top the list altogether), and it still does not account for the needs and demands of the faculty, individual departments, and unique ventures (e.g., Lamont Doherty and the School of Continuing Education). Each program has some lobbying group or student government, and each has its own set of administrators. All vie for the same pool of limited resources.

Simply stated, Columbia College competes with over 15 institutions for the same financial, personal, and administrative consideration. While we are not actively working in direct opposition to these groups and their initiatives, there is an element of competition. We saw this dynamic put into full effect when the business school abandoned undergraduate dining and flex dollars for a "cash only" policy at its Uris Hall dining establishment. Not only must potential CCSC leaders recognize the need to put their peers first, but they must not be afraid to do the same thing. This leads to the all-important question, "What must CCSC candidates draw from this internal competition?"

When we recognize Columbia College as just one among many in the University hierarchy, tactics and strategies must adjust accordingly. First, if CCSC leaders are going to champion one issue and invest thousands of man-hours (student and administrative alike), make it good. Michelle Oh, 2006 CCSC president, defined her legacy with a long, drawn-out debate over tailgating at Baker Field. Although an unpopular restriction, countless issues, policies, and oversights deserved far more attention. Seth Flaxman, sitting CCSC president, took a step in the right direction with financial aid reform. At times, the effort was too preachy, as various efforts to lobby government agencies and representatives transcended the realm of campus affairs-but it was a great improvement over party planning. Again, this is not to say that certain ideas are bad or unfounded, but the reality of the situation is clear. Rarely do student agencies put more than one piece of major campus legislation into effect during their term, so make sure it is a smart and sensible policy before embarking upon the great crusade.

Second, in everything we do, we must assert the importance of Columbia College to the University. Somewhere, an administrative body will face the hard choice: allocate millions to renovate graduate housing or refurbish Wein Hall? If CCSC expects to succeed with any large-scale or ambitious project, the administration has to recognize the latent value in it. It's not enough to describe the conditions in Wein or to detail the horrors of mandated undergraduate dining, however frightening they may be. Rather, CCSC must couch its arguments in the high rhetoric of the administration.

For example, while I could extol all of Columbia's programs and schools, Columbia College builds Columbia's reputation among the largest possible body-millions of potential undergraduates-as a selective and elite institution. Therefore, efforts to improve student life would only reflect positively upon the University. Moreover, by its nature as a four-year undergraduate institution, Columbia College fashions intimate and powerful bonds. The University's undergraduate population creates one of the most reliable alumni bases for the University. If you tackle the prevalent student life issues, you foster a lasting atmosphere of school spirit and school pride. It's a simple calculus: the more students enjoys their undergraduate experiences, the more likely they are to donate to their alma mater. Suddenly, the administration might think twice about funding small projects like fax machine quotas and alumni e-mail accounts.

Setting any and all criticism of Michelle and Seth aside, both did a fantastic job of getting alumni involved in their efforts, articulating the larger ramifications of faulty policies and involving students. So long as leaders can define and promulgate their understandings of the amorphous student body's "best interest," they can keep issues in the news and build support. As soon as they bring alumni aboard and sell their ideas in terms of long-term earnings and across-the-board benefits, lofty platform promises will soon become settled policies. Remember, Columbia's a business-if the administration listens to anyone, it's the alumni and their bottom line.