|
NEWS News in Brief Beyond the Burg Police Beat Street Beat Under the Microscope OPINIONS Letters to the Editor Staff Editorial VARIETY That Guy – That Girl Horoscopes Comics Confusion Corner Behind Closed Doors SPORTS From the Sidelines Home Field Advantage REVIEWS Film Music Dining Arts On Campus Critical Condition ABOUT US Subscribe Advertise Archive |
Staff Editorial: SA elections sillinessYou’d think knowing your Student Assembly candidates a few days early wouldn’t cause much of a ruckus. You’d think that, but you’d be wrong. According to SA Elections Commission Chair Jennifer Souers ’10, letting the cat out of the bag might just send a person to the Honor Council. Last week, after receiving information from a source who asked to remain anonymous, The Flat Hat published the names of the candidates running in this year’s election. Occasionally, we will print information from trustworthy anonymous sources when, in our discretion, we believe that the information is valuable and requires anonymity. We will not break that trust by compromising the confidentiality. In the wake of our decision, however, Souers has threatened the informant with charges of an Honor Code violation should she discover his or her identity. We find the affair overblown. Students would have received the information anyway. Souers, though, has said the early release calls the election’s integrity into question because voters will have formed preconceived notions. Because of her overzealous response, she has opened the door for anyone to appeal the results. Will sending the offending party before the Honor Council cause voters to rescind their preconceptions? And more pressing, can the offense even warrant that action? The answer on both counts is no. Though Souers’s actions venture too far, we cannot fault her for trying to uphold an outdated set of elections rules. An overhaul ought to be in the works, but for now we hope the elections can play out sans difficulty. |
||
The Flat Hat The Student Newspaper of the College of William and Mary since 1911 |
Seed Newsvine
So The Flat Hat broke the rules and then you blame the Elections Commission Chair who was doing her job…sounds like bad media to me.
— student Mar 14, 01:45 PM #
Whats wrong with the Elections Commission chairwoman doing her job? The rules are the rules—Ms. Souers followed them and it appears that your “informant” did not. If Ms. Souers chooses to do so, she has every right to let the Honor Council decide if there was in an infraction.
— Nick ('09) Mar 14, 02:44 PM #
So you can’t fault Miss Souers for doing her job, but you can write a nasty opinion piece about her in spite of that? A very professional approach.
— Stephanie('09) Mar 14, 03:05 PM #
SA Elections Commission Chair Jennifer Souers ’10 should be commended, not criticized by the Flat Hat for taking her job seriously. Her job entails that she conduct a fair and honest election for the student assembly and to meet those ends, several rules have been developed, including provisions for when the candidate list will be released to the public.
Someone who had privileged access to that information knowingly choose to leak the list to the Flat Hat. Since Ms. Souers is responsible for safeguarding the integrity of the election, why is it surprising or “overblown” that she would seek to holder the leaker accountable for the illegal and unethical leak?
— Matt ('09) Mar 14, 03:07 PM #
Who are we kidding: if she DIDN’T follow up on it, you would have written a scathing article on how the SA elections are so shoddy and disorganized that you guys were able to get their list. Give me a break. Just because you know you broke trust with all these people by prematurely releasing the info, now you want to take it out on the one trying to protect them?
— Student Mar 14, 03:28 PM #
“Souers actions venture too far…” Who are you kidding? It certainly isn’t your readership. Souers is the Elections Commissioner, doing her job mind you, and following the rules. I find it both outrageous and preposterous that you should criticize her, and defend your informants’ confidentiality, when it is they who violated the very confidentiality of that list. Shame on you!
— Ian Mar 14, 03:59 PM #
“We find the affair overblown…” It is of the upmost cowardice to make this claim when it is your own reckless actions that are the part of the problem.
You’d think that the abiding by the honor code would not be that hard. You’d think, but when it comes to the Flat Hat you’d be wrong.
— Student Mar 14, 04:17 PM #
So let me get this straight, the elections chair has informed the FlatHat staff that their source has committed an honor code violation but they prefer to substitute their judgment for the elected Honor Council’s and refuse to address the issue. Reading the Honor Code, it seems the entire staff is ignoring the rather plain, albeit aspirational language stating “students and all College community members must report suspected violations of the Honor Code by students.”
Now forgive me, but it sure doesn’t seem to be much of an honor system if the newspaper staff can know about an honor violation, yet willfully conceal it. I must say that absent some action to address the issue, W&M is proving that it has a second rate honor system. You staffers are lucky you don’t attend a school with a real honor code that makes tolerating honor code violations a violation.
— Guy Mar 14, 04:22 PM #
You’ve got to be kidding me. Regardless what the Flat Hat editorial board thinks of elections rules, they are the RULES. As a member of the Elections Commission, I am charged (under Jennifer’s leadership) to enforce those rules — not to deem them worthy or unworthy, but to enforce them. It was questionable for the Flat Hat to print that list, knowing it was a violation of the elections code. It is unquestionably ridiculous to print an editorial condemning the head of the Elections Commission for doing her job.
— Devan Barber Mar 14, 05:10 PM #
Jennifer Souers is a fantastic Election Commissions Chair. It saddens me to see that our school newspaper would write an attack on someone who was upholding their job with honor and integrity, and thus following the rules, despite the apparent “silliness” claimed in the editorial.
Further, in this article the Flat Hat claims “Students should have received this information anyway”, and of course they are correct; but I am absolutely sure that the candidate list would have been provided to all press when Miss Souers deemed fit. That being said, I do not understand why this distinguished newspaper was so eager for the candidate list that they assisted a candidate in breaking the Elections Commissions rules and thus the Honor Code.
— Brittany Fallon Mar 15, 12:32 PM #
I think this discussion might benefit from considering the distinction between “breaking the rules” and “violating the Honor Code.” The former does not necessarily imply the latter.
— Andrew '09 Mar 16, 06:12 PM #
I agree that there is a distinct difference between an honor code violation and breaking the rules. If the source promised not to disclose the information and did anyway, that seems a clear honor code violation. If not, then the person might be subject to some other form of discipline but not an honor code violation. Perhaps some of the election commission can clarify.
— Guy Mar 16, 07:07 PM #
It is utterly absurd of The Flat Hat’s ed board to criticize Ms. Souers for trying to do her job fairly. The Flat Hat is well within its journalistic rights to print the candidate list early, but don’t blame the chairwoman of the elections commission for upholding policy. Jennifer rightly believes that the rules — you know, guidelines requiring enforcement and compliance — ought apply even if they ARE, in fact, a little silly.
The Flat Hat should be commending Ms. Souers, not criticizing her, for her very ethical job performance.
— Nick Fitzgerald ('09) Mar 17, 12:58 AM #
Ms. Souers was just doing her job as Elections Commissioner. Why doesn’t the Flat Hat do its job as the school-sponsored newspaper and report campus news, instead of whining and complaining?
— Amanda Mar 17, 11:19 AM #
Jennifer Souers should never get in trouble for doing her job, and I’m disgusted that the Flat Hat has decided to go after a member of the government for ACTUALLY doing her job. And yet, I don’t see the Flat Hat going after people who don’t do theirs. That simply rewards incompetence.
— Michael Douglass Mar 17, 12:30 PM #
why is there a rule that students can’t know the slate of candidates before a certain date? Maybe the flat hat was wrong, maybe not – but the rule just seemed ridiculous.
— d kuehn Mar 17, 03:10 PM #
I’m also not sure why this should be an honor code violation – even for the informant
1. No lying was involved, obviously.
2. No stealing either, if the informant was privy to the information.
3. So was the informant cheating? Seems like this is what they could get him/her on, but I don’t think so. The honor council defines cheating as: “Cheating is the act of wrongfully using or taking the ideas or work of another in order to gain an unfair advantage”. This didn’t happen here either.
Maybe it is Souer’s job to seek out the informant and slap him/her on the wrist, but lets not go out of our way to defend her, people. Threatening the informant with an honor code violation is an abuse of the honor code itself – pulling it out as a threat whenever things don’t go your way.
Three cheers for the Flat Hat for calling out Souers on her abuse of power – and for standing up for the anonymous informant. No honor was violated here – and the elections committee is using the tradition of the honor code for self-aggrandizement and for the preservation of a stupid rule.
I think the honor code and the freedom of the press that the Flat Hat has a right to are much more important than a silly election rule that the SA passed and seems to want to defend with some twisted version of what the honor code is meant for.
— d kuehn Mar 17, 03:23 PM #
The fact that a rule might be silly, antiquated, and in need of amendment doesn’t really matter. If the informant was made privy to information based on a promise of confidentiality or as a result of a duty of confidentiality imposed by the acceptance of a position they knowingly undertook, then it absolutely should be an honor code violation. If it isn’t, then this school’s honor code isn’t worth a damn. Of course the fact that a student can know of another student’s violation of the honor code and simply ignore it is an indication that it is pretty worthless anyway.
— Guy Mar 17, 08:35 PM #
To be honest, if I reported all the honor violations I saw or witnessed, I would not be able to function or finish out my senior year here at the College. (And I DON’T go to parties – imagine what some of those students see and don’t report).
I try to report the most egregious, non-trivial ones, but it’s hard to do so and not become too involved time-wise, what with having to meet with Deans for each report and whatnot.
— Senior at WM Mar 17, 09:13 PM #
Guy – If the informant took some oath of confidentiality, then yes – he or she broke the honor code. But short of that, I really don’t think it should be brought in for every infraction.
Honor isn’t about obeying rules – honor is about a the way that people carry themselves. We only prosecute dishonor in a few circumstances. “Cheating” is defined pretty clearly as plagiarism. Stealing isn’t relevant here. Lying is what’s left, and personally I think the intention of the honor code is that lying be defined as something more significant than breaking a rule.
Whether breaking rules is dishonorable or not depends entirely on the honor of the rule. The whole reason why the honor code only goes after lying, cheating, and stealing is that these behaviors are dishonorable independent of any rules that the administration or the SA may create.
If you commit an administrative infraction or even a legal infraction there are other venues for handling those crimes. The honor code is not intended to take these cases on – after all, there is such a thing as an honorable criminal or an honorable rulebreaker. Likewise, there are many dishonorable law-abiding, rule-obeying citizens.
I maintain that its inappropriate to abuse the honor code by using it to enforce every SA bylaw, every student handbook dictate, and every administration policy. Souers may be doing her job by seeking out the informant – she should do that with all her energy. But she should not take the honor code so lightly as to scare a rulebreaker with a challenge to their honor.
— d kuehn Mar 18, 09:47 AM #
D Kuehn—
It should be the Honor Council’s job to decide whether or not the informant (1) broke the honor code and (2) if the violation was serious enough to warrant any punishment. Ms. Souers is just the accuser, it’s not her job to play the judge.
— Nick ('09) Mar 18, 03:08 PM #
Nick – well obviously. If enough relevant parties think it may be an honor violation the council will have to decide. But you can only carry that logic so far. You could make that argument for any rulebreaker out there who you could argue “broke someone’s trust” and in that sense lied.
At some point we need to distinguish between people who break rules and people who break the honor code. I suspect you could drag any rulebreaker you want before the council and make a very solid case that the council should hear it and decide – even if they eventually decide that the student is innocent.
I’m not familiar with exactly how the honor council proceeds, but what we really need is a knowledgeable prosecutor and a grand jury of some sort. Knowledgable prosecutors will know what cases are even worth bringing up – unlike Souers who uses accusations as a threat. And to make sure the prosecutor stays objective of the merit of the case, there needs to be some sort of objective body like a grand jury to decide if the case goes before the honor council. Maybe we already have these institutions in place – I don’t know.
But it certainly shouldn’t go straight to the honor council just because Souers lobbed an accusation at the informant. Someone should judge the merit of the case first. In the absence of a full judicial system, it would be nice if Souers’ own self-restraint would do the job.
— d kuehn Mar 18, 03:22 PM #
Nick – Imagine if you could just accuse someone of robbery and by virtue of your accusation have someone brought into court… It doesn’t work like that! And it shouldn’t work like that here. Souers made the accusation, yes. But Souers is the elections chair, not an honor council prosecutor. She can make accusations about honor violations until she’s blue in the face, but the fact that she’s made an accusation doesn’t mean that its the honor council’s job to do anything if the case doesn’t have merit.
— d kuehn Mar 18, 03:26 PM #
D Kuehn—I’d done some research on the Honor Council awhile back and if I remember correctly (and if someone from HC is reading this, please confirm/correct me) they have a two-step process that effectively serves as a grand jury and a jury (it’s all within the HC though they may have different students sit on both).
I don’t think your robbery analogy is valid. Since Ms. Souers is not a law enforcement official, I see this as more of a civil suit analogy. Ms. Souers would “sue” the informant based on her interpretation of the SA/Honor Council Code and if the HC doesn’t think it’s valid, they can throw it out or decide not to punish the informant.
— Nick ('09) Mar 18, 09:32 PM #
Well – if they have that two-step process in place then the robbery metaphor does sound more apt.
Aside from whatever technical mechanism exists – my point still is that I think its unfortunate that threats of honor code violations are being used now to address what seems to me to be just a case of rule-breaking. When I was on campus a couple years ago, I always understood the honor code to be something more than that.
— d kuehn Mar 19, 09:15 AM #
Anonymous did the right thing. Information will be free.
— anonymous Mar 21, 01:00 PM #
what i find most hilarious about all of this is that idiotic rules on behalf of the election commission and even more idiotic claims and threats move campus elections further and further away from the elections processes of, oh, you know, the real world. as a member of the student assembly for 3 years, i have several points to make:
a) SA elections have so many rules that it’s absolutely absurd. when i was running for senate, i called a candidate in a different race a “tool” on facebook, was reported to the commission, and received a campaign infraction that was made clear to the student body by placing a brand next to my name on the ballot. like, seriously guys? if things like that were legislated in american politics, campaigns wouldnt exist.
b) the SA is little more than a tightass mock-up of real politics. that in mind, it’s actually even terrible at being a mock-up — there are way more ridiculous rules and restrictions on freedom of speech in SA elections than in politics that actually matter.
c) most of the student assembly has virtually no power at all (that includes you, senate! i was a senator. believe me, i know how impotent the senate is). this in mind, it is astonishing how seriously members of the SA overwhelmingly take themselves. relax. have a beer. write uninforceable bills if you feel so inclined, but don’t lose sight of how powerless you are: it’s only a practice run for your career as a politician, and nobody cares about your record.
all that said, i applaud you, flat hat, for speaking out against the absurdity of all this. the elections commission is really stupid and should shut their self-righteous mouths.
— cait smith Mar 21, 04:06 PM #