I AM WRITING this column in response to Student Council President Noah Sullivan's personal campaign for an opinion referendum on the University Judiciary Committee's sanction process and hate crimes. The Student Council president is permitted a small number of official University-wide e-mails each semester, and on Wednesday he chose to use half of his e-mail to endorse a particular position in a referendum that was rejected by Council. That seems inappropriate and possibly an abuse of his office, but I'll put that to one side for now.
This referendum was written less than two weeks ago, though a previous version was written on Feb. 5 in order to have something on the ballot. Sullivan had very little contact with the UJC before writing this, appearing once at a workshop in November followed by a couple of conversations with UJC Chair Angela Carrico. Sullivan came to his first UJC meeting to talk about this issue last Sunday, though a number of UJC members, alarmed that Council was proposing a referendum on the internal structure of the UJC without trying to find out what the current structure is, how it works, what its problems might be or what challenges would be posed by any reforms, came uninvited to Council's meeting when the measure was debated. Perhaps the concerns they expressed (that Sullivan did not understand the system he was trying to change) created the "politico turf battle" Sullivan mentions in his e-mail.
The "turf battle" reference implies that this is something that Council and the UJC have been feuding over. However, Sullivan didn't ask the UJC to consider this proposal, and even Council declined to put it on the ballot, voting against its placement 13-8, with Sullivan absent for the vote after speaking in favor of the referendum. (Go to www.studentvoice.org to see how Council members voted). Sullivan couldn't even convince Council itself.
I cannot speak for other members of Council, but I voted against the measure's placement on the ballot because of the "last-minute" nature of this referendum. Its sponsors had simply not bothered to put any real effort into creating this proposal, such as meeting with affected groups and lawyers, finding out the issues and trying to propose a meaningful, workable reform. There have been no meetings to examine whether the current system is problematic or how it might be improved. There has not been so much as a forum, a letter to The Cavalier Daily or any other attempt to educate the student body about the issues involved. How can there be any of those when sponsors don't understand what they're proposing? Student self-governance requires an awareness of the issues, but that education demands effort and runs the risk of people asking awkward questions. Has anyone talked to you about the pros and cons?
If Sullivan wanted to hold a referendum to find out whether we detest hate crimes, then all he had to do was ask that question. I'd be the first to vote for it. We already have strong statements to that effect all around Grounds. Instead, Sullivan proposed a referendum on UJC bylaws. When asked what he wanted to get out of this referendum, Sullivan has indicated that he wanted to affect UJC candidate endorsements and make this election "more interesting." This may not be his only reason, but it seems to have featured in his replies to more than one person.
There are legal implications for any shift in how the UJC sanctions students that should be known and taken into account. The last thing that anyone wants is the creation of a flawed system capable of producing only successful appeals for people sanctioned under it. If Sullivan cares enough to ask this question, why did he not care enough to take the time and do this properly? Is it too much to ask that he research a proposal before presenting it as a referendum?
I'm under no illusions that this column will affect the way people vote in the referendum; most will see the question as "Are hate crimes bad?" and rightly vote "yes." Seven hundred words are too few to go through the important questions that need to be asked and answered before this one can be posed. We are posing this one now and making it pointlessly divisive because this is the only one that shows up on someone's résumé. If anyone is interested in going through the important questions, let me know and we can do it together. I don't care about credit; I'd just like any changes to be for the betterment of the community, and not just me.
Gavin Reddick is a Student Council representative from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. He is also a UJC judge representing GSAS.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
