The fundamental purpose of the USG is to represent the student body, and Weinstein took this responsibility very seriously. He was a forceful advocate of student opinion to the administration, and the USG made progress on several important issues under his leadership. Weinstein was effective in using student feedback, survey data and research to convince administrators to reconsider existing policies including library hours and the planned annexation of Spelman 7, Spelman 8 and Wright Hall to Whitman College. The USG collaborated with administrators to eliminate 9 a.m. exams on Dean’s Date and improve Dillon Gymnasium facilities and long-term funding. Many of these initiatives were spearheaded by other members of the USG, and Weinstein was eager to give credit where it was due. The productivity of these members could also be an indication of Weinstein’s good leadership.
Weinstein was also willing to bring new ideas to the organization of the USG. He instituted a variety of changes, from creating a new committee structure to appointing an elections manager. Some of these new entities have been productive, and others have been relatively useless. But it is a credit to Weinstein that he was willing to experiment with new ideas in an attempt to increase the USG’s potential to enact positive change. Innovation can sometimes reap great benefits. Despite Weinstein’s varied record, future presidents should not be afraid to bring new plans to the table.
Often, however, the abrasive manner in which Weinstein negotiated put him at odds with many administrators and made negotiations more difficult, jeopardizing these successes. Moreover, Weinstein was often ineffective as the leader of the USG itself. The chaos and conflict surrounding the USG’s most recent elections were a direct result of Weinstein’s endorsement of vice-presidential candidate Mike Weinberg ’11. And although internal clashes at the USG may have existed before Weinstein’s tenure and will again, he was unable to maintain order and control. He created new USG bodies rather than focusing on his relationship as an executive with the existing USG structure.
As Connor Diemand-Yauman ’10 takes Weinstein’s place, it is imperative that he approach his role as a student advocate with the kind of conviction and compelling arguments that his predecessor did. But he should strive to engender friendlier and more constructive relationships with administrators, whose collaboration is crucial to the USG’s success. Diemand-Yauman will, we hope, be willing to bring a creativity to USG operations to equal that of his predecessor. Finally, he must make a sharp departure from Weinstein’s style of USG management by reconciling USG members and ensuring smooth, constitutional and credible proceedings.