To the Editor:
It seems that The Dartmouth has moved beyond merely misquoting people; it is now misrepresenting them. I am writing in regard to the article "Assembly passes part of reform agenda" (The Dartmouth, May 26, 1995) to protest The Dartmouth's inaccurate depiction of my activities during the SA meeting of May 25, 1995.
The SA meeting in question dealt with the recommendations of the Student Assembly External Review Committee (SAERC), led by Hosea Harvey '95. Since I first became aware of the contents of the committee's report, I have had problems with certain recommendations, particularly those dealing with election issues. The election reform recommendations called for presidential and vice presidential candidates to run together on tickets. They also stated that students ought to elect eight members of their class, but only allowed students to vote for four of them.
I was against these recommendations because I felt them to be, and still feel them to be, unrepresentative. After having conversations with members of the SAERC, it became clear that the SAERC was willing to sacrifice representation for efficiency. That was not a sacrifice that I was willing to make. The SAERC argued that their recommendations could help put an end to infighting. Perhaps they were correct, but nothing is worth curtailing what I believe to be a very basic right: free elections.
Although I could not reconcile the recommendations with my personal beliefs, my intention was not simple obstruction. I authored amendments to correct these problems. I also proposed that the structural changes suggested by the SAERC be instituted for the '96-'97 SA, since voters and candidates in the last election assumed that the SA would continue to function as it had.
As The Dartmouth reported, none of these amendments passed. The votes on some were close (one was a tie which was broken by Rukmini Sichitiu '95). As a result, I could not in good conscience vote for the suggestions. The structural reforms passed unamended, and the election reforms failed. Afterwards, I told a reporter from The Dartmouth that I was pleased that the election reforms failed, since I considered them to be dangerous as they stood.
However, the article painted me as leading "the conservative reaction" against the report, using amendments and other means to "slow the passage of the proposals." And regarding the election reforms, all the article said was that I "was happy that one of the sections did not pass."
The Dartmouth has pegged me as a conservative reactionary; as such, any actions taken by me must have been done in order to slow the passage of a "progressive" set of proposals. This is hardly the case; had my amendments passed, I would have voted in favor of the proposals. I think the vote of my fellow SA members indicated that there was at least some agreement with my concerns regarding the election reforms.
My problems with the immediate institution of the structural reforms are also becoming apparent. SA members are now realizing that almost none of the current leaders in the SA will, under the new guidelines, be eligible for leadership positions next year due to D-plans. Thus, next year's SA will be unable to draw upon its greatest strength: its experienced committee chairs and co-chairs.
I was particularly upset that my opposition to the election reforms was shown as being mere vindictive pleasure at the failure of part of the report. If I had wanted to somehow slow the progress of the report, I can assure The Dartmouth that I would have taken far more extreme measures. But this was simply not my goal. My amendments were all legitimate and were backed up by solid reasoning. They were not based on issues of conservatism vs. liberalism; this was an issue of representation vs. expediency. Some of us were willing to sacrifice the one for the other. I was not.
I would also point out to The Dartmouth that it was far from apparent that there was any sort of "conservative" block of students who I allegedly "led." The votes on my various amendments varied tremendously, with different students supporting and opposing me at different times. I, too, voted differently depending on the particular amendment or recommendation being considered. I would also note that I voted in favor of the representation reforms which altered the process by which non-elected students join the Assembly.
This was clearly an example of a paper exaggerating fact and editorializing to create a more exciting and combative scenario than what actually occurred. If The Dartmouth is looking for excitement, I would remind the editors of SAERC member Matt Shafer '97's uncalled for and rather vocal attack on me in the middle of the meeting. In case the reporter present doesn't remember, Shafer became upset about a point I made and literally exploded in rage, screaming at me across the room. Who's infighting now?
I would also remind the editors of the long term history behind this committee. When the enabling legislation for the SAERC was first proposed, I offered an amendment which would have structured the committee in a way which would have made it more open to the student body. This was, as above, a tie, which was broken by Sichitiu who voted against the amendment. I was assured that the committee would be representative of the students. Unfortunately, my fears were borne out. By the time the SA had to vote on these recommendations, how many students really knew what the SAERC was proposing?
I must say I'm disappointed in The Dartmouth for its portrayal of the meeting. For the most part, its reporting during the last term has been relatively free of embellishment and exaggeration. I guess the editors felt that they had the story of the term and decided to go for the gusto. Too bad people get hurt in the process.
