The Honor Committee should respect the democratic tradition of student self-governance and hold a vote on endorsing the democratization amendment. This is not a call for the committee to endorse the amendment itself. Rather, it is a call for the committee to hold a public debate about the democratization amendment and decide, as a representative body, whether or not to support lowering the threshold of votes for constitutional amendments.
According to the University Board of Election rules, “student signatures do not express willingness to vote for a particular referendum, only willingness to have the referendum appear as a question on the ballot.” Over 1,600 students have signed the petition to put the referendum on the ballot. These signatures should be a signal that this issue is of great interest to the community. Yet the majority of the Honor Committee failed to even consult their constituents prior to the meeting on Sunday and failed to give the amendment enough thought to have formed an opinion. This lack of engagement by committee members demonstrates that Honor’s three-pronged approach is an underwhelming response to an overwhelming display of interest in seeing this referendum be debated.
The committee’s alternative — an online repository of opinions — is an inadequate substitute for a public debate and vote. The committee does not take into account whether or not students have time to read as many as five lengthy opinions from their representatives. The online repository does not require that a candidate take a firm stance on the amendment. Hypothetically, a candidate could wax poetic about the faults and merits of the amendment without decisively communicating their opinion on it.
A vote on whether or not to endorse sends students a clear message as to where their individual representatives as well as the committee as a whole stand. This is especially important for students whose representatives are running for reelection to the committee; students have a right to know whether or not their representatives share the same values as them. If the view of the committee is that a vote against the amendment will damage their relations to their constituents, then they should reevaluate whether or not they actually are representative of them. If the committee is concerned about whether or not voting down an amendment intended to give more power to the student body is bad for public relations, then they should seriously consider why this amendment was proposed in the first place.
Honor should insert itself into this debate. Whether or not it chooses to endorse this amendment sends a clear message on how it views the role students have in shaping the system. It is ludicrous to suggest that a committee designed to run a system that is the caretaker of the moral fabric of our university — the values of the community of trust — should remain neutral and not act as a moral arbiter. Committee members should strive to be representatives as well as experts on a complicated bureaucratic system that is frustratingly foreign to many of their constituents. Members who think that this amendment is potentially damaging to the system should vote against endorsing it and take responsibility for that vote. Likewise, those that support it should vote in favor of it and bear that same responsibility. They should explain why they voted for or against the amendment and not hide behind bylaws and procedures.
The act of voting is an act of expression. Voting as a committee on whether or not to endorse the amendment will not rob individual representatives of their voice. Rather, it is an opportunity for the majority rule to prevail and for dissent to adequately and formally express itself. It is the foundation of representative democracy. The community of trust is built on honesty and mutual respect. We deserve that honesty from our representatives.
Nojan Rostami is a third-year College student and a member of the Honor Audit Commission.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | YesterdaySuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 6 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
