The Crisis in Student Government Over the last five weeks, student government has come dangerously close to being compromised by the scandal following the Bradley Smith pamphlets. In the debate that the pamphlets set in motion, two students misused their positions in student government to serve their own personal agendas. In the aftermath of the Phoenix's coverage of the Bradley Smith pamphlets as well as its decisions to print both a letter from Smith and Wilson Kello's "Censored by Ari Plost" cartoon, Plost's friend, Josh Kramer, and Plost's girlfriend, Laura Barandes, abused their positions as Student Publications Office Coordinator and active Student Council Observer to the Board of Managers, respectively, to seek action against The Phoenix. Our student government has not yet taken action against either of them. While the whole issue may seem overblown to some, letting them go unpunished would establish a precedent that student government officials may pursue personal vendettas and, in doing so, disregard established rules and procedures. Forum for a Free Press (FFFP) held its first meeting primarily to deal with Ari Plost's complaint against the Phoenix for printing Kello's cartoon, which I attended to offer my opposition to any attempt at censorship. Plost asked that the Phoenix be forced to fund an Anti-Defamation League speaker, print an apology in their next issue, and send that apology to the student body via [reserved-students] email. As justification, he offered details of the personal suffering the cartoon caused him, calling it a "personal attack". His friend Kramer, who facilitates FFFP as Publications Coordinator, had wrongly informed the group that it had adjudicative powers over publications with the potential threat of revoking their charters. Through discussions with members of student government after the meeting, I have concluded that this is not true, as I had suspected. FFFP is intended to charter publications, allocate funds, ensure that publications do not violate their charters, and no more. However, the members of FFFP did not know this; Kramer, as a former member of Charter Committee, should have. It was never alleged that the cartoon broke any law or violated the Phoenix charter during the meeting. Still, the Kramer-facilitated committee came close to forcing the Phoenix to print an apology and send it via reserved-students email to the entire campus. The editors finally agreed to privately settle the issue with Plost, partially to preempt possible FFFP action. This nearly successful attempt to force the Phoenix to print what FFFP feels is appropriate sets an ominous precedent for publications on this campus. As Editor-in-Chief of this publication, I am deeply concerned about these attempts to restrict free speech at Swarthmore. Sam Schulhofer-Wohl and Vincent Jones explicitly chartered FFFP to ensure that a free press will continue to exist on this campus, but the organization gone in the opposite direction. Whatever you may think of the Phoenix's decision to print the cartoon, it did not libel Plost and FFFP has no ability to restrict speech beyond that if it does not violate their charter. Had the editors not chosen to settle with Plost privately, a precedent of censorship might already have been set. Though he faced a massive conflict of interest as a friend of Plost and Barandes who had been fired from the Phoenix staff, Kramer did not recuse himself from the discussion and instead asked the committee how they intended to "settle" the dispute (which has not been, and will not ever be, the function of FFFP). As stated earlier, he told the committee that they had a power of adjudication that they do not possess. Though he was cordial and allowed both sides to speak, he framed the issue in an incorrect manner. He had been in contact with Plost and Barandes on the issue and reporterdly had pizza with them after the meeting. As Student Publications Coordinator, Kramer is paid by Budget Committee (BC) with student money in part to act as an advocate for publications such as this one; instead, he threatened the freedom of every publication on campus. I could presumably be brought before FFFP and threatened with action as a result of this article. Budget Committee received formal complaints about the Forum for a Free Press meeting facilitated by Kramer from both myself and Phoenix Editor-in-Chief Patrick Runkle. During its meeting on March 22, which I was unable to attend, Runkle discussed his complaint with the committee. The issue, however, was tabled at the urging of BC (and SC) member Jared Solomon, who insisted that Kramer be present when the issue was discussed. Kramer resigned as The L-Word went to press. That, however, should not mean that discussion on the issue is over. BC must deal with Kramer's behavior at their next meeting and establish that it was unacceptable. I should note that I have been hired with Nick Attanasio to replace Kramer as Publications Coordinator. This week, Student Council (SC) refused to take action against Laura Barandes after she similarly abused her power as Student Council Observer to the Board of Managers in the opening salvo of the scandal. Barandes made copies of an eight page packet about the Phoenix and its coverage of the Holocaust issue the night after Kello's cartoon came out and then handed them out the next day to the Board, despite it being very clear to all past and present SC Observers that they are not to talk or offer ideas. Barandes claimed to act on behalf of the student body, yet she went to Kinko's and spent a great deal of her own money to make the packets, rather than use the free BC copier to which SC has access. If she is so confident that she acted on behalf of the student body, she should bill it for reimbursement. Barandes did not contact SC about her planned actions except for Mariel Acevedo Diaz '01, a student on her hall (Barandes is the RA on Willets 1st North). At the SC meeting, Acevedo Diaz said she was "absolutely furious" at Peterson for even raising this issue, which of course she should be since she did not notify the rest of Council of Barandes's intended actions as soon as she found out. However, Barandes should not have put Acevedo Diaz in the situation of being consulted by her RA with regard to the packet in the first place. Overall, the factionalized Council seemed to care little about Barandes's disregard for their constitution, preferring instead to defend her on the grounds that she did what she thought was right and that the constitution was not clear. Others claimed the letter was unbiased, which is a ridiculous defense. As I said at the meeting, she could have handed the Board Playboy and it would still be a violation of the constitution. And, after reading the packet (now posted on the SC board), I believe that it is incredibly biased. In the end, the issue was tabled by SC until their next meeting at 8:00 PM in Kohlberg 228 on Monday, March 30 after motions for censure and an amendment of the Constitution failed to pass. The most important issue here is Barandes's abuse of her power to serve her own personal agenda. As Plost's girlfriend, she should have immediately disqualified herself on principle from taking any action on this issue in her position as Student Council Observer. This would preclude saying anything at the Board of Managers meeting or arguing the issue in Council. Instead, she went behind the backs of everyone involved except for one member of Student Council (including the editors of The Phoenix and Kello, both reportedly named in the packet) and violated the SC constitution. SC, however, did not seem to really mind. Not one person even seconded Co-Chair Ryan Peterson's motion to impeach Barandes. They should reconsider before their next meeting, where they will be faced with even more public support for impeachment. In considering the magnitude of this violation, I ask Swatties to think about how they would feel about this issue if Barandes had named them in that packet like Kello, Runkle, or Min Lee and not given them any chance to respond or even know what was written. Or, think about how it would feel if she had pushed ideas that you strongly oppose (rolling back diversity in admissions would be one such issue for many people) using the weight of her position as an SC Observer (the letter was signed "Student Council Representative to the Board of Managers"). What she did is an affront to the student body as a whole and particularly to SC, which fought long and hard for the Observer positions. Since the meeting, disturbing attempts have been made to frame the issue as anti-Semitic persecution. I am personally offended by this insinuation regarding my intentions as a proponent of the impeachment of Barandes, as I would assume are most of those seeking this action. Whether she or others involved are Jewish is irrelevant; we want an appropriate response to a flagrant violation of the SC constitution for personal reasons. To attempt to twist public debate against us with inflammatory and derogatory accusations is a scare tactic that the student body must not tolerate. At the same time, some are trying to dismiss the complaints against Barandes as a conspiracy theory that should just be laughed off. As Patrick Runkle said at the SC meeting, this isn't very fucking funny. Just because I believe that Kramer and Barandes misused their power does not mean that I believe in a conspiracy between them and/or Plost or anyone else, nor does it make their actions any less real. I group them together because they both misused their power with regard to an issue in which they have conflicts of interest. I will let their actions speak for themselves in that regard. This is not something that can be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. The extent of the crisis continues to grow still further, as a significant faction of Student Council and others align against Co-Chair Ryan Peterson and proponents of impeachment for raising the issue of Barandes's violation of the SC constitution. We, as students, elected Peterson to do his job and he has done it honorably and fairly. He deserves to be commended for his principled stand on this issue. Instead, he faces personal attacks and an intransigent Council that seems to be moving toward willful disregard of Barandes's violation, even in the face of a potentially massive student response in favor of impeachment at the next meeting (which I urge each and every student to attend). The members of SC, who allegedly represent us, have shown that they care more about their friends and alliances than the good of the student body. At the SC meeting, Peterson called Barandes's behavior a constitutional crisis in student government. Barandes and Kramer not only failed to recuse themselves from issues in which they have personal involvement but used their positions to further their own personal agendas. Amazingly, no action has been taken against either of them. SC is betraying the student body that it supposedly represents by ignoring this violation of the SC constitution (BC has not yet dealt with the issue of FFFP). Thus, I call on students to join me in demanding that SC and BC take action to preserve the integrity of student government.but the organization gone in the opposite direction. Whatever you may think of the Phoenix's decision to print the cartoon, it did not libel Plost and FFFP has no ability to restrict speech beyond that if it does not violate their charter. Had the editors not chosen to settle with Plost privately, a precedent of censorship might already have been set. Though he faced a massive conflict of interest as a friend of Plost and Barandes who had been fired from the Phoenix staff, Kramer did not recuse himself from the discussion and instead asked the committee how they intended to "settle" the dispute (which has not been, and will not ever be, the function of FFFP). As stated earlier, he told the committee that they had a power of adjudication that they do not possess. Though he was cordial and allowed both sides to speak, he framed the issue in an incorrect manner. He had been in contact with Plost and Barandes on the issue and reporterdly had pizza with them after the meeting. As Student Publications Coordinator, Kramer is paid by Budget Committee (BC) with student money in part to act as an advocate for publications such as this one; instead, he threatened the freedom of every publication on campus. I could presumably be brought before FFFP and threatened with action as a result of this article. Budget Committee received formal complaints about the Forum for a Free Press meeting facilitated by Kramer from both myself and Phoenix Editor-in-Chief Patrick Runkle. During its meeting on March 22, which I was unable to attend, Runkle discussed his complaint with the committee. The issue, however, was tabled at the urging of BC (and SC) member Jared Solomon, who insisted that Kramer be present when the issue was discussed. Kramer resigned as The L-Word went to press. That, however, should not mean that discussion on the issue is over. BC must deal with Kramer's behavior at their next meeting and establish that it was unacceptable. I should note that I have been hired with Nick Attanasio to replace Kramer as Publications Coordinator. This week, Student Council (SC) refused to take action against Laura Barandes after she similarly abused her power as Student Council Observer to the Board of Managers in the opening salvo of the scandal. Barandes made copies of an eight page packet about the Phoenix and its coverage of the Holocaust issue the night after Kello's cartoon came out and then handed them out the next day to the Board, despite it being very clear to all past and present SC Observers that they are not to talk or offer ideas. Barandes claimed to act on behalf of the student body, yet she went to Kinko's and spent a great deal of her own money to make the packets, rather than use the free BC copier to which SC has access. If she is so confident that she acted on behalf of the student body, she should bill it for reimbursement. Barandes did not contact SC about her planned actions except for Mariel Acevedo Diaz '01, a student on her hall (Barandes is the RA on Willets 1st North). At the SC meeting, Acevedo Diaz said she was "absolutely furious" at Peterson for even raising this issue, which of course she should be since she did not notify the rest of Council of Barandes's intended actions as soon as she found out. However, Barandes should not have put Acevedo Diaz in the situation of being consulted by her RA with regard to the packet in the first place. Overall, the factionalized Council seemed to care little about Barandes's disregard for their constitution, preferring instead to defend her on the grounds that she did what she thought was right and that the constitution was not clear. Others claimed the letter was unbiased, which is a ridiculous defense. As I said at the meeting, she could have handed the Board Playboy and it would still be a violation of the constitution. And, after reading the packet (now posted on the SC board), I believe that it is incredibly biased. In the end, the issue was tabled by SC until their next meeting at 8:00 PM in Kohlberg 228 on Monday, March 30 after motions for censure and an amendment of the Constitution failed to pass. The most important issue here is Barandes's abuse of her power to serve her own personal agenda. As Plost's girlfriend, she should have immediately disqualified herself on principle from taking any action on this issue in her position as Student Council Observer. This would preclude saying anything at the Board of Managers meeting or arguing the issue in Council. Instead, she went behind the backs of everyone involved except for one member of Student Council (including the editors of The Phoenix and Kello, both reportedly named in the packet) and violated the SC constitution. SC, however, did not seem to really mind. Not one person even seconded Co-Chair Ryan Peterson's motion to impeach Barandes. They should reconsider before their next meeting, where they will be faced with even more public support for impeachment. In considering the magnitude of this violation, I ask Swatties to think about how they would feel about this issue if Barandes had named them in that packet like Kello, Runkle, or Min Lee and not given them any chance to respond or even know what was written. Or, think about how it would feel if she had pushed ideas that you strongly oppose (rolling back diversity in admissions would be one such issue for many people) using the weight of her position as an SC Observer (the letter was signed "Student Council Representative to the Board of Managers"). What she did is an affront to the student body as a whole and particularly to SC, which fought long and hard for the Observer positions. Since the meeting, disturbing attempts have been made to frame the issue as anti-Semitic persecution. I am personally offended by this insinuation regarding my intentions as a proponent of the impeachment of Barandes, as I would assume are most of those seeking this action. Whether she or others involved are Jewish is irrelevant; we want an appropriate response to a flagrant violation of the SC constitution for personal reasons. To attempt to twist public debate against us with inflammatory and derogatory accusations is a scare tactic that the student body must not tolerate. At the same time, some are trying to dismiss the complaints against Barandes as a conspiracy theory that should just be laughed off. As Patrick Runkle said at the SC meeting, this isn't very fucking funny. Just because I believe that Kramer and Barandes misused their power does not mean that I believe in a conspiracy between them and/or Plost or anyone else, nor does it make their actions any less real. I group them together because they both misused their power with regard to an issue in which they have conflicts of interest. I will let their actions speak for themselves in that regard. This is not something that can be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. The extent of the crisis continues to grow still further, as a significant faction of Student Council and others align against Co-Chair Ryan Peterson and proponents of impeachment for raising the issue of Barandes's violation of the SC constitution. We, as students, elected Peterson to do his job and he has done it honorably and fairly. He deserves to be commended for his principled stand on this issue. Instead, he faces personal attacks and an intransigent Council that seems to be moving toward willful disregard of Barandes's violation, even in the face of a potentially massive student response in favor of impeachment at the next meeting (which I urge each and every student to attend). The members of SC, who allegedly represent us, have shown that they care more about their friends and alliances than the good of the student body. At the SC meeting, Peterson called Barandes's behavior a constitutional crisis in student government. Barandes and Kramer not only failed to recuse themselves from issues in which they have personal involvement but used their positions to further their own personal agendas. Amazingly, no action has been taken against either of them. SC is betraying the student body that it supposedly represents by ignoring this violation of the SC constitution (BC has not yet dealt with the issue of FFFP). Thus, I call on students to join me in demanding that SC and BC take action to preserve the integrity of student government.
|
Home | Archives | L-Word by Email | About The L-Word | Staff | Feedback