Last Thursday we ran an opinions article about alleged sexism in SAC. Our top news story was also about the students’ administrative council-it detailed the latest points of contention between various factions within our student government.

We’ll leave you, with the aid of this issue’s letters, to ponder the sexism question on your own.

But it wouldn’t be right if we didn’t comment on the current debate SAC is having with itself over whether or not to radically change its constitution at the upcoming annual general meeting.

As last Thursday’s news story outlines, UC rep Mark Graham and SAC president Ashley Morton are leading a movement to remove references to class and ethnicity from SAC’s mission statement, and to change SAC’s election process. The proposals have been rejected by Alexandra Artful-Dodger, SAC’s Equity commission, and other critics as undemocratic.

So here’s the thing:

Nobody else cares.

Are radical changes to the constitution and the mission statement really all that necessary-will U of T forever be bound by monolithic and inflexible traditions if these changes aren’t made? If these radical changes go through, will it really be a terrible affront to democracy everywhere, or will it only be a fairly pointless policy change at a tiny student union that in the scheme of things matters just a little more than how long a piss you took this morning?

Does it really make any sense at all to argue about mission statements?

SAC has done some very wonderful things for this school and no one is about to say that it’s entirely useless. However, considering that roughly a tenth of the student population is motivated to even participate in SAC elections as it is, it’s hard to understand why student politicians fight so hard one way or the other.

Really. SAC’s job should be to improve the lives of students at U of T-and while there’s bound to be a little disagreement on how this should best be done, there’s no reason why debates of this kind should disintegrate into petty arguments over pointless technicalities that only amateur politicos give a rat’s ass about.

So, SAC, get over yourselves. All this playground bickering is not doing you any favours in the image department, and it’s only eroding the already tenuous relevance you hold at this university.