Student Assembly President Danielle Moore '95's resignation sparked predictable responses: outrage, criticism, confusion.
The act of resignation is a controversial one -- a disappointing one, from the standpoint of the students who elected her with the expectation that she would serve as Assembly president for the whole year and try to put the Assembly back on course. Letter after letter has attacked her without addressing the problems that led her to resign.
What if she did make a bad decision? Can anyone really say that if they do not understand the problems she has faced? And can we really demand that she take whatever is dished out to her, merely because we elected her? Where do we draw the line?
I am most bothered by the fact that those who have written to The Dartmouth have done so to undermine her reasoning and berate her for not staying. The general tendency has been to believe that the problems are all in her head and dismiss her statement as irrational; some try to claim that she was too single-minded and wasn't willing to compromise her radical agenda.
What proof is there that she had any such exclusive goals? She worked most on the meal plan, the first-year experience report, the alcohol issue. What about the hours she spent trying to resolve conflicts? What about all the Assembly has already accomplished for all students under her leadership?
When Moore said her hands were tied and that she was unable to work toward her goals, many students assumed she was referring to an extremist feminist agenda.
But I recall that her goal, as she stated at Convocation, was to build a community here at Dartmouth that crossed boundaries of race, class, gender and beliefs. How reprehensible is that goal? Why did everyone assume the worst instead of referring to her own statement: that the goal she was working toward most was community.
The Assembly is set up in such a way that, despite the fact that Moore sacrificed academics and work to try and discuss the situation with disruptive members of the Assembly, she could get nowhere.
And despite her willingness to put any issue on the table for discussion, she still was attacked. Why are we so reluctant to take another look at the Assembly, and at the expectations we have for leadership, instead of insisting that the problem must be with her?
I spoke with Brian Ellner '92 -- Assembly president in the 1990-91 school year -- about the differences between his experience with the Assembly and Tara McBennett's, president in 1991-92.
He said he was attacked for his political views, but McBennett had to deal with jeers about, for example, her attire -- she was not taken seriously enough for her viewpoints to be addressed. "It makes it really hard to lead," he commented. "I definitely saw the gender difference."
Even Andrew Beebe '93, who began his year in office with a controversial call for the coeducation of the Greek system, did not have to face nearly the same level of harassment and disrespect with which Moore has faced.
To say this is not a gender issue is to ignore the fact that Beebe was never expected to sacrifice and continue sacrificing himself to "earn" respect the way this has been demanded of Moore. There is -- should be -- dignity attached to the position itself. And there has been for our male Assembly presidents.
I asked Assembly Vice President Rukmini Sichitiu '95 to tell me one thing she wished people would realize about the current situation she and Moore face. She considered for a moment and then commented, "Leadership, authority and power are nothing but what other people grant you."
She told me about trying to maintain order in meetings when a member -- whose name is well-known by now -- spoke out of turn and refused to be quiet. According to protocol, when told that he is out of order, he should be quiet. But if he refuses, then what? Should she try to shout over him? What would it accomplish to have two people screaming like idiots instead of only one?
Some argue that it was okay if Assembly Secretary John Honovich '97 did not follow protocol as long as he was standing up for the needs of students. If it is not necessary to follow protocol, why do Moore and Sichitiu have to bother with petty challenges to their actions every day (often mid-meeting in a disruptive manner), while Honovich is allowed to speak whenever he wants?
What can the Assembly possibly accomplish if its members do not make a commitment to following due process and respecting the leadership we, the student body, have elected?
There is, as Moore said, a difference between activism and politics. I am an activist and not a politician, meaning I am willing to discuss anything and work with anyone in a proactive manner.
However, I do not mess around with ego-petting and coalition-forming and infighting. When I commit to work with a group of people, I expect from them a certain level of respect, which I return, and an ability and willingness to work together. That does not mean that I will not compromise. It does imply, however, that I will not -- and should not have to -- beg or plead or kiss feet.
It seems strange to me that we expect this kind of yielding from our Assembly president, and that we blame her for not trying hard enough to gain cooperation from others instead of criticizing those others for not trying harder to work with her. It seems clear that the effort has been one-sided, coming only from her.
By electing Moore and Sichitiu, we have placed our confidence in them and they deserve respect. But if members refuse to take them seriously, what can be accomplished? Four other women have left or will leave the Assembly. The situation is not a fabrication of someone who could not cope -- the greater the power a woman has, and the less willing she is to pander to men, the more she is criticized in petty ways, beleaguered and verbally abused and even physically intimidated.
I cannot say that, as a general rule, resigning is the way to effect change. But I can say that these problems are very real, and that Moore did not do this on a whim.
We would do well to re-examine the Assembly -- and maybe to follow our president's advice and deconstruct it.
Clearly, as evidenced both by the treatment Moore and Sichitiu have received and by the defensive, nonconciliatory reaction to Moore's resignation, we have little to be proud of as it stands.
