They Just Don't Get It
Michael Watson | Editor at Large
Last Updated:11/4/09 Section: Opinion
In the most predictable event in the history of student politics at this College, our esteemed Honor Council has once again decided to ignore the will of the student body. Who can blame them? Why would they allow their little club to be infiltrated by the unwashed masses?
The Honor Council is in decline, and, alas, suffers from a terminal illness that will see its potential power as a force for ethics and responsibility on this campus rendered forever just that: potential. The illness is democratic deficit, and the prognosis is grim.
How, one may ask, can the Honor Council be anti-democratic if all its members are directly elected? It is so because the voting students are expected to make their decisions based on personal knowledge and a glorified tweet. The Honor Council also may exclude a student from candidacy based only on the opinions of its own representatives and those of the administration; at least the Council has deigned to give reasons for future exclusions. These policies will forever render the Council untrustworthy and distant in the view of the student body, and I fear they will never change.
Why is my outlook so grim? The reason is simple: the Honor Council has a fundamentally vested interest in maintaining the present system, and, as we all can see now, the Council will ignore the popular will with abandon. The proscription on campaigning for office confines thoughtful critiques of the Council's operating procedure and reform plans to these and other pages and renders them far from threatening at election time. As has been well documented, the non-unanimity rule in candidate exclusion has the potential to silence the at-large student voice, the lone one among us five thousand who is able to review the records of the prospective candidates and hear the secret debates over exclusion. To think that a secretive body in concert with a friendly administration would never abuse this power is na've. Both policies ensure that incumbents are virtually certain to be re-elected, and, should a new Councilor gain a favorable nod, he may be converted without delay to the institutional position of the Council. Nothing ever changes.
What is to be done? The Council has not been made aware of the extent of our displeasure by three consecutive referenda. The Council has not listened to our concerns and necessary reform is therefore consigned to nothingness. We must make known our discontent with the democratic deficit. I, as should we all, therefore ask the Council to call a free, fair, and open election, in which the candidates may take positions on procedural reform, or I will vote for no one and spoil my ballot. Fifty percent spoiled ballots should suffice as a vote of no confidence. Maybe then the Council will call a real election.
The Honor Council is in decline, and, alas, suffers from a terminal illness that will see its potential power as a force for ethics and responsibility on this campus rendered forever just that: potential. The illness is democratic deficit, and the prognosis is grim.
How, one may ask, can the Honor Council be anti-democratic if all its members are directly elected? It is so because the voting students are expected to make their decisions based on personal knowledge and a glorified tweet. The Honor Council also may exclude a student from candidacy based only on the opinions of its own representatives and those of the administration; at least the Council has deigned to give reasons for future exclusions. These policies will forever render the Council untrustworthy and distant in the view of the student body, and I fear they will never change.
Why is my outlook so grim? The reason is simple: the Honor Council has a fundamentally vested interest in maintaining the present system, and, as we all can see now, the Council will ignore the popular will with abandon. The proscription on campaigning for office confines thoughtful critiques of the Council's operating procedure and reform plans to these and other pages and renders them far from threatening at election time. As has been well documented, the non-unanimity rule in candidate exclusion has the potential to silence the at-large student voice, the lone one among us five thousand who is able to review the records of the prospective candidates and hear the secret debates over exclusion. To think that a secretive body in concert with a friendly administration would never abuse this power is na've. Both policies ensure that incumbents are virtually certain to be re-elected, and, should a new Councilor gain a favorable nod, he may be converted without delay to the institutional position of the Council. Nothing ever changes.
What is to be done? The Council has not been made aware of the extent of our displeasure by three consecutive referenda. The Council has not listened to our concerns and necessary reform is therefore consigned to nothingness. We must make known our discontent with the democratic deficit. I, as should we all, therefore ask the Council to call a free, fair, and open election, in which the candidates may take positions on procedural reform, or I will vote for no one and spoil my ballot. Fifty percent spoiled ballots should suffice as a vote of no confidence. Maybe then the Council will call a real election.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
jp
posted 11/04/09 @ 6:13 PM EST
your poll asks a leading question. to make an appeal to fairness, a fellow student and non-hc member suggests a less biased question, for instance, "how has the honor council's recent actions affected your opinion of that institution?"
j.p.
j.p.
posted 11/04/09 @ 6:21 PM EST
your poll asks a leading question. to make an appeal to fairness, a fellow student and non-hc member suggests a less biased question, for instance, "how has the honor council's recent actions affected your opinion of that institution?"
Post a Comment