For many, the winners of Sing Song 2007 were an unwanted reminder of Sing Song problems of the past.
Many students, aside from members of Sigma Theta Chi and Gamma Sigma Phi, held out hope that ACU might finally create a fair, equal and unbiased playing field for other Sing Song participants.
Sadly, we were once again let down.
Siggies swept every category, including costumes. They wore a piece of beige felt with silver sparkle – and they called it a french fry.
From the stage the “fries” could easily have passed for fence posts, pieces of uncooked bacon or band-aids.
Somehow those costumes seemed to outshine GATA’s shimmering ladybugs and Alpha Kai Omega’s festive Christmas elves.
Somewhere there must have been a costume line item for “sentimental vote.”
In the men’s division, GSP was allowed to change performance, though regulations infer that clubs are not allowed to change even the color of its socks after the Wednesday night rehearsal.
Yet, GSP brought in new props each night and the director significantly changed his costume Friday night to enhance their presentation.
From the outside, it appears as though rules are redefined each year in order for these two particular clubs to dominate.
Rumors have it, the losing clubs might boycott Sing Song altogether next year. Why show up? If ACU continues to hire alumni affiliated with social clubs as “non-biased” judges, this monopoly is sure to continue.
Would hiring judges with no relationship to ACU ruin Sing Song or would it remove the room for “sentimental voting,” requiring fair play from all involved? If there are no politics involved, why were clubs not given score sheets?
Why are Sing Song co-chairs allowed to make presentations to judges regarding other clubs efforts? Could a Siggie present the essence of the Kojie program with the same amount of emotion and enthusiasm? Why put anyone in the position to do the impossible?
It’s not the directors or the judges’ fault. It’s the fault of those who are entrusted with making and keeping the Sing Song rules.
They have created a system that is designed to fail.
To many of the losing participants, this 51-year tradition has become too political. It seems to some the outcome justifies the means, to others it’s an unfair game that’s no longer fun.
Tiffany Gauntt
Junior journalism major from Colleyville
