We've heard it before: College is the training ground for the real world. It's supposed to be this great aspect of college life, that we have the opportunity-probably our only one-not only to experience the unfamiliar, but also to practice in the areas in which we will spend our futures.As last week's referendum against Iran's nuclear research, sponsored by the Brandeis Israel Public Affairs Committee, reveals, collegiate activism is a rehearsal for future endeavors, especially at a school like ours.

To dispel any lingering confusion, the Student Union is constitutionally required to present a petition to the entire student body if its sponsor gathers signatures from at least 15 percent of the undergraduate population. Once up for vote, a referendum requires only a simple majority to pass, and, unlike elections for Union positions, abstentions don't count. If passed, these referendums represent the official opinion of the entire student body.

The political ramifications of the referendum, which calls for "our elected leadership to act appropriately and swiftly in order to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapons capability," are inconsequential. When push comes to shove, what it says doesn't matter; what merits discussion is that such a referendum was produced in the first place.

According to Union Secretary Aaron Braver '07, there have been only two referendums brought to the campus since 2001. One was the Fair Trade Brigade's successful endeavor last December, and the other was a failed movement in 2002 to ban Kraft products from campus. There is certainly merit in the Union's having the position that only Fair Trade coffee should be sold on campus-whether or not you agree with that referendum's result, it's fitting for the Union to have such a stance. But is it proper for our student body, as an entity, to have an official opinion on an international political issue?

As is constitutionally mandated, arguments against passage of the referendum were posted on the voting Web site, alongside the sponsor's statement; only four students submitted "against" arguments. Three of the four took issue with the politics of the referendum: They opposed the action called for by BIPAC. Interestingly, only one student, Kabir Husain '09, viewed the fact that BIPAC sought to make this viewpoint official as "ludicrous." He argued it would be more appropriate for BIPAC "to hold dialogue on the matter, or sponser [sic] talks and lectures."

Yet only 486 people voted, with the referendum passing by a mere five votes. Did the more than 2,600 other students not care? In order to move the petition to the referendum stage, BIPAC gathered 602 signatures, according to club president Jacob Baime '08. So, where was everyone?

Since not even one-sixth of the student body voted, you must wonder whether this referendum really means anything.

I cannot bring myself to support BIPAC's campaign, beyond their intent. While their drive to foster enthusiasm for their position is commendable (as BIPAC Deputy Director Alex Fineberg '08 rightfully said, "activists have to be activated"), the leaders of BIPAC ultimately stepped into a realm unsuitable for this kind of politics. I would've gladly signed this as a petition, but I could not bring myself to vote in support of the referendum.

We should amend the Union constitution to prevent improper referendums. The BIPAC referendum pertained to a relevant issue, but making it the official opinion of the student body is inappropriate. Wider-interest concerns merit petitions-like the one for which Democracy For America collected over 1,000 signatures-not referendums. Were the Union constitution only to allow referendums that directly pertain to campus life, the precedent BIPAC set-that anyone with enough signatures can force the student body into taking one official position-will be negated. After all, since when is Brandeis intellectually homogenous?