President Biden’s first few months in office have been productive, a welcome change from the sheer chaos of the previous president. When Democrats in Congress sent Biden a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package, the president signed the bill with little to no fanfare, and $1,400 checks started hitting bank accounts the very next day. This sort of competent governance is shocking in comparison to the last four years. Yes, the bar has been set absurdly low by Republicans, but let’s acknowledge that this legislation is significant and will substantially help many people.

It would seem, however, that some vocal critics—particularly those online—remain wholly unsatisfied with the president’s performance to date. While we’re not seeing or hearing much of this critique from our fellow students, we have spotted a trend that may be related to this. Many groups on campus are choosing to organize outside of typical political spaces or are pursuing electorally adjacent action. The Wesleyan Student Assembly (WSA) recently passed a resolution to affirm students’ right to housing security. Student activists have begun to push the University to annually invest money into a Middletown Community Fund, and a local mutual aid group has sprung up in the wake of COVID-19, working to distribute food and money to those who need it.

This type of organizing is essential. WSA resolutions have borne fruit in the past, demands of college admins have led to beneficial concessions for local communities, and mutual aid has the potential to reach those who are suffering and are not being helped by the government. These methods of organizing can curate serious benefits for college students and locals. However, we question the efficacy of discrediting the benefits of either type of organizing. An article published last semester in The Argus rejected the idea that electoral organizing can bring about substantive change. The article also argued that those who vote in elections are inherently legitimizing systems of harm as a de facto consequence of voting. We strongly disagree with both assertions, and we worry that this article encapsulates not only the contemporary beliefs of some student groups engaging in electorally adjacent political work, but also that of some Wesleyan students.

We are not suggesting that voting and electoral organizing alone can solve all the problems our society is facing. Despite his early victories, we fully expect that President Biden is going to make decisions that Wesleyan students generally will regard as mistakes. We should be comfortable acknowledging these choices and what may reveal themselves as failures. Nonetheless, we believe that students—and anyone else for that matter—who refuse to take up electoral participation and organizing are forgoing opportunities to potentially help address societal problems that they care about. After all, the priorities of politicians do sometimes overlap with ours. For example, Connecticut’s state legislature is poised to pass a bill—HB-6228—this year that will Ban the Box, a policy that was the rallying cry of activists at Wesleyan a few years ago. The legislature may also enact measures that would create a right to housing and eviction counsel, as well as divert money from wealthy communities to marginalized ones.

The potential benefits of government action are substantial. If HB-6228 becomes law, activists won’t have to negotiate with President Roth or the administration, since “the box” will be legally banned among all colleges in Connecticut. If bills like SB-821 or HB-6187 were passed, all state residents who received unemployment benefits last year would receive a $500 check. There is a benefit of scale and authority to the government that shouldn’t be disregarded. It’s why we should engage with our local legislators, especially as students at Wesleyan; our local lawmakers are progressive. They are often already working towards shared goals, such as a public healthcare option, aggressive climate action, and marijuana legalization. And what if they won’t take up student priorities? Well, one Middletown state representative has suggested that we rebuff officials who don’t support a “progressive agenda.”

College students admit to having valuable insight for how to improve the welfare of their community when they choose to engage in community organizing. Therefore, they should also be willing to engage electorally with local issues, in the same way that voters and campaign workers should be willing to engage in community activism even after casting their ballot on election day. For example, a student group like the WSA could elevate the work of local groups and help secure housing rights for college students state-wide by working with legislators on the right to housing and eviction counsel bills. College students regularly submit testimony, and legislators have demonstrated an interest in protecting the welfare of students (HB-6377, Sec. 29, pages 118-121).

Wesleyan students have the ability to improve the Middletown community, as well as the wider Connecticut populace and people across the nation, by politically engaging with federal, state, and local government through electoral organizing. Community organizing is a crucial compliment to electoral organizing—rejecting either leaves progressive priorities in the dust. 

Note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the members and Executive Board of Wesleyan Democrats.

Eli Roche is a co-chair of Wesleyan Democrats and a member of the class of 2021.

Madi Mehta is a co-chair of Wesleyan Democrats and a member of the class of 2024.