The recent decision of the Student Council to reappoint Mr. Magallon and Ms. Haung to their former seats was a disturbing but unsurprising revelation. It is blatantly obvious that a cabal within Student Council has an agenda to undermine the legitimacy of the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of branch of ASM and exaggerate an already large accountability gap. Of course Council’s actions are technically legal (no matter how stupid) but are nevertheless devious. The near unanimity confirming Beth and Niko suggests ethical considerations run secondary to what has accurately been described as cronyism. Whereas the Court acted in the student interest, Council’s decision is an affront to that prerogative. Those seeking elected office no doubt seek to enact positive change at this university and assume an enormous responsibility given the level of autonomy afforded ASM. However, there is a widely held perception by students that ASM is irrelevant; this action only lends additional credence to that notion, and undermines the efforts of students actually committed to serving their peers.
To explicate the gravity of Beth’s and Niko’s actions I would like to state that from the original hearing I was the sole and leading voice for their immediate disqualification. In my assessment, the original majority failed to properly consider the perversion of the election process that accompanies canvassing. There really is no excuse for not following the rules when instructed to know them and when one gains an enormous advantage over their opponents for cheating. Pursuant to the preservation of fairness, the inherent intent to secure votes by violators who consciously or inadvertently violate the election rules must be assumed to have corrupted election outcomes and undermined the electoral process’s integrity. Thus, punitive determinations must bear in mind that the “desired end” of their actions carried the presumption of alteration and, as a result, necessitated disqualification given the seriousness of the offense. The burden of proof rested with those accused and was impossible to be satisfied. However, finding the community service exceedingly lenient and quite frankly asinine, I nevertheless expected Beth and Niko to make a concerted effort when it was ordered. That was obviously not the case insofar as both (after months of time to for reparation) showed not only apathy but rather contempt for the Court’s efforts to penalize them. They submitted garbage community service that was essentially an extension of their position only after being reminded by a staff member the evening it was to be submitted. It is reasonable to expect harm to be repaired by community service only when individuals actually care enough to consciously go about doing it with the intent to remedy the wrong they committed. Anything less than that standard is not commensurate with position of public trust that Niko and Beth were seeking. Overall, Council subverted the Judiciary and allowed those guilty of gross malfeasance to escape with impunity. When outcomes favor the guilty, there is no deterrence or justice, only a precedent inviting malversation no matter how invective the sanctioning rhetoric or how arduous the tribulation was. The fact of the matter is, the credibility of ASM needlessly suffered again.
Nick Checker is a member of the ASM Student Judiciary. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
