If we had a nickel for every time we heard someone say, “The LAAO Special Elections were a flop” or somewhere along those lines, we’d likely have amassed sufficient change to drown our academic woes in venti-sized cups of Starbucks’ cold brew. Yet, in the grand scheme of campus intrigue, what adds an interesting layer to this unfolding saga surrounding the Liberal Arts Academic Organization’s unsuccessful election turnout is the possibility that it might just be the plot twist the organization secretly needed.
This sentiment was echoed by an anonymous contributor who, within the digital vault of unfiltered student viewpoints and the community diary known as the ‘ADZU Secret Files,’ wrote a no-holds-barred critique of LAAO, its missteps, and the hopes for the organization’s renaissance. From praising the failure of the special elections to highlighting the issues within the organization and its student body (e.g., LAAO’s engagement crisis, the lack of empowerment from LAAO officers, communication breakdowns, and concerns about genuine representation), the post seemed to be a brief yet pressing examination of LAAO’s current state of affairs.
As it becomes increasingly apparent that LAAO’s electoral setback may merely be the tip of the iceberg, we dig into the narrative of challenges that lie beneath the surface of its stumble. Has this organization’s claim to fame as the champion of political involvement and coherence seen better days?
In an exclusive interview with The BEACON, Jane Doe underscores that the voter turnout, which resulted in vacant leadership positions among LAAO, can’t be pinned on the electoral commission’s incompetence alone. Rather, it’s a ‘symptom’ of a larger issue that extends to the heart of LAAO’s own student engagement practices, or the lack thereof, for the past few years.
“Despite diligent efforts, the student body remains disengaged,” Doe states. The reluctance stems from a variety of reasons—an absence of a suitable platform to voice their opinions, a feeling that their grievances would fall on deaf ears, and above all, apathy. This sense of disempowerment didn’t only compound the issue further, but it gradually eroded the spirit of active involvement.
Time and again, special elections came and went, but students remained on the sidelines, either disheartened by the lack of accessibility to vote or simply disinterested in their organization’s fate. The right to vote was often overlooked or obstructed, and as a result, it created an environment where decisions are made in a vacuum. Now in its failure, what was once a rallying point for student engagement has turned into a declaration of missed opportunities and unfulfilled promises.
“But it’s not just internal issues that have contributed to LAAO’s recent ordeals,” Doe adds, “its failure to adapt and cater to the diverse needs of its constituents has also played a significant role.” While other academic organizations have provided specific avenues for their respective majors, LAAO has struggled to find a balance that could cater to all its students. This lack of tailored support has somehow left many feeling overlooked.
Furthermore, the decline of LAAO was a slow burn, with each year seemingly taking a heavier toll on both its officers and the students it aimed to represent. In particular, the tumultuous period surrounding the last election left a scar on the organization. This was topped by the lack of support from the School of Liberal Arts administration for the previous school year. This, in turn, created a draining atmosphere that discouraged active participation and augmented the conflicts within LAAO. Students felt that their investment in the organization was no longer worth the effort, and their enthusiasm waned as they questioned the relevance of their involvement when they couldn’t count on LAAO to deliver on its promises.
Doe recalls, “In the aftermath of last year’s Ateneo Fiesta, for example, where students expected incentives and rewards for their efforts, many were left disappointed; they felt a sense of betrayal due to the mismanagement of these incentives, which had been a letdown to those who had worked hard to represent LAAO.” This frustration not only cast shadows over the credibility of LAAO, but also sowed seeds of skepticism among the student body and made them question the organization’s commitment to their interests and aspirations.
Given that a lot of mishaps have contributed to LAAO’s fall from grace, where does it go from here?
In the wake of all past and present fallouts, the path forward is clear but demanding. The crucial first step is acknowledging the elephant in the room—a disengaged student body, inadequate platforms for dialogue, and a waning appeal to the governing body, among others. It’s imperative for LAAO to rekindle its core purpose, particularly given how its appeal to the governing body has weakened due to an overall lack of coherence.
If LAAO is to regain its standing as a once bold representation of student unity and empowerment, it must not only inspire but mobilize its members and urge active participation in shaping meaningful initiatives. This collaborative endeavor, albeit challenging, carries the potential to breathe new life into an academic organization once synonymous with profound leadership and purposeful student engagement.
Will LAAO rise to the moment’s call and reignite its once fiery vigor, or will it persist in allowing the organization itself to be labeled as ‘LAAO lang’?
