If future Spectator editors decide to stop endorsing Student Senate presidential candidates based on the testimony from former Senator Matt Flaten, it would be an act of cowardice.

I refer you to Flaten’s March 11 column in these ink-laden pages (“Endorsing causes trouble”).

As Flaten described, The Spectator typically endorses a Student Senate presidential candidate, an act that seems to lure mild to Tabasco-flavored controversy. While Flaten’s opinion is not without merit, it ignores one vital sign of a healthy campus environment: dialogue.

Before we delve further into a topic that few students care about (but more should), let’s get a little personal.

I was part of two of the three editorial boards that Flaten mentioned in his column – one that didn’t participate in endorsing, and the board that said all candidates were incompetent for the job.

The decision not to take part in the endorsement process in the spring of 2001 was completely my fault, and I have regretted it ever since. I once used to believe in much of what Flaten wrote last Thursday. I thought since Senate has a hand in The Spectator’s budget, the newspaper should not be in the business of preferring one candidate instead of another.

I loathed tension that had been created between the two organizations in previous years because of those silly endorsements.

But the editorials, columns and political cartoons of newspapers are meant to inform, persuade or entertain. More specifically, they’re meant to raise hell.

Segregated fees account for less than 10 percent of The Spectator’s budget. Besides, Senate makes its allocation based on the Finance Commission’s recommendations.

If The Spectator didn’t endorse a candidate on the basis that the Senate holds the combination to the safe of segregated fees, then all the organizations that receive money should just keep their yappers shut.

Of course, The Spectator is in an exclusive situation because the opinions of its writers are skimmed by the eyes of most students – a privilege that most other organizations don’t enjoy.

At a campus where 90 percent of the students roll their eyes at Senate elections, we should continuously try to keep the conversation fluid. The more people talk about the elections, the more people become emotionally involved and the better the chances of sending apathy to Mars.

Flaten spoke of how emotional Senate presidential elections are and how The Spectator’s endorsement only stokes smoldering logs. The former vice president said the rejection of himself and Sarah Schuh in the spring of 2002 was “more hurtful than an endorsement of our opponents.”

Sorry for hurting your feelings, Mr. Flaten, but the candidates running did not satisfy our desires – as students – for Senate leaders. The board debated whether to pick the lesser of the evils – students who vote don’t have a chance to reject all candidates, so why should we?

But we realized the campus deserved a stronger stance; the students deserved better than what they were offered in presidential candidates.

See what we’re doing here? We’re having a dialogue. You can agree or disagree, but please don’t try to limit speech because of black-and-blue egos.

Being part of The Spectator’s editorial board is a grueling task: The members need to pick a topic that is important but still relevant to students. Sometimes the board succeeds, and sometimes it fails.

But it should not ignore one of the most important aspects of university involvement because it “creates an atmosphere of animosity between the victors and the newspaper.”

The Spectator editorial board is comprised of students who possess a tremendous opportunity to have an active role in university policy.

In the words of an Irishman: When you’ve got the spotlight on you, you should use it.