Nepotism and Niceness

I am VP-elect for a student group that I've never served on.

And I am a co-President-elect for Student Org #2, mediation. (That one I at least worked on.)

Nepotism: Not a nice word. I'm generally against it. And yet, I got first pick in the housing lottery this year (literally: I was #1 in the room draw, out of 300 people) because of nepotism, so really, what I am is a big ole hypocrite.

Okay, lemme 'splain: Joiner, through nepotism last year, got on the board of Shady Student Group (and yes, it is extremely shady -- it basically plans events for dorm residents, and for that, we get priority pick in the housing lottery. No other student group gets priority housing pick). She was made the VP, in fact.

So this year, as president-elect of Shady Student Group, she made me the VP.

This wasn't done without a fight -- the current members of the board weren't happy with it, but she stuck to her guns, wrote extensive email "briefs" of her position, and they backed down in the end. While the fight was on, I regretted ever agreeing to get into it, but I could hardly back out with Joiner lobbying so hard for me, could I?

And thus, I am VP-elect of Shady Student Group. And last night, I was able to pick my room for next year, assuring myself of dorm housing for my last year here.

I am so shady. I hate myself. But I'm also like, Whoa! Nepotism makes life easier! Who knew? Let's get me some more of that! (Hate. Self.)

Onto niceness: tonight we had "elections" for Student Org #2. I say "elections" because it's really just interested people sitting around and figuring out who wants what. Nary a vote was taken. That's what happens when you get a bunch of facilitative types in a room.

Now, with Student Org #2, there were four people (all second years) who were each qualified for and deserved the head honcho position. We were, respectively, co-directors of Task A and co-directors of Task B.

Now the co-directors of Task A (me and Boss), were willing to run as a team for head honcho. But one of the co-directors for Task B didn't want a high position, leaving her a bit at a loss. But she also was interested in other positions besides head honcho, and last month said so.

Last week, though, she changed her tune and expressed some regrets about our arrangement (me and Boss for co-head honcho, and her for Fancy Made Up Position). But tonight, she seemed okay with going ahead with Fancy Made Up Position, and said so.

Now, in an odd twist, she is also involved with another organization that Joiner was just elected head honcho of, and Joiner gets to appoint the other positions on that board. She's not getting the position she originally expressed interest in, but Joiner will give her something else.

Where does the niceness come in? Well, it's not exactly niceness, I guess. I don't know what it is. It just perplexes me that this girl, who is perfectly nice and capable and interested, came off the worse in both "electoral" processes, whereas Joiner and I, who are nice and capable but not very interested in our respective groups (at least, on a policy level), came off very well in them. Joiner actually went through an election, against an extremely bright and intellectual (and probably more qualified) candidate who didn't have the social connections with members of the group. Joiner and her running mate totally lobbied people, and made nice with the first years, and they won. So interesting. It really is who you know.

As for me, I don't know. It could have been quite different, if both of the other co-directors had wanted head honcho position. My co-director is extremely efficient and capable, if bossy at times. I am not efficient, nor even very interested in the administration of the organization. In fact, I think it's utterly boring, and rarely speak at meetings, and never volunteer for extra duties. Yet somehow I ended up as co-head honcho, whereas that other girl, who is really interested in the field, ended up as something else less glorified.

Politics. I tell ya.