When I sit down to write a column, I often consult various sources of thought on the issue that I'm considering—world leaders, philosophers, historical personages and the like. This week's column stems from not only the Vassar Student Association (VSA) Constitutional amendment passed on April 19, but from a quote by erudite academic Ben Parker from the prestigious Spiderman school of philosophy: "With great power comes great responsibility."
The amendment in question alters the VSA Constitution to provide grounds for impeaching a student holding a VSA position based on a violation of campus rules. The resolution includes the explicit statement that elected members are expected to "uphold and abide by the VSA Constitution and the VSA bylaws and adhere to all Vassar College Regulations" and "responsibly represent his or her constituency by acting on its behalf."
This is primarily a reaction to the hoopla, kerfuffle and derring-do surrounding the resignation of Sean Koerner '11 from his position as Noyes House President when the VSA realized that their Constitution only covered impeaching student leaders for "dereliction of duty, incompetence, employment of funds or property of the VSA for private gain, violation of the VSA Constitution or the VSA bylaws or repeated censure," none of which were definite enough to impeach Koerner, though the Executive Board clearly felt that he had abused his role as a student leader.
But, if I may, I'd like to separate that case from this column. I propose to discuss not the specifics of any one incident, but the idea proposed by the amendment; namely, that "egregious violation of College Regulations" is appropriate grounds for censure against a student leader. The idea, in short, is that student leaders should be held to higher standards than the rest of the student body.
To me—and to old Ben Parker, apparently—that sounds like a good idea. Student leaders are more than just functionaries who represent student voices on campus; I'd contend that they're meant to be examples of positive contributions to campus life and atmosphere. In most sane worlds, College regulations would be designed to prevent a negative impact on campus life, and so any egregious violation of a campus rule is by definition not upholding that standard.
The actual implementation of such a clause, however, is tricky. As it stands, the VSA Council passed the amendment 15 to 7, and as a columnist whose goal is to examine issues from different sides, I feel it's only fair to enumerate some of the many excellent arguments raised in the debate. The first, overarching concern, is that the broad wording of the added clause—"egregious violation"—could be abused more than an orphan boy in a Dickens novel.
Who is to say that a VSA Council in the future won't take the opportunity to remove opposition on the pretense of silly, minor infractions? This fear fundamentally makes sense, but given Vassar's small community, the VSA Council has always been highly answerable to the student population. I'm not sure that even this hypothetical, Orwellian VSA would be able to get either the majority of the votes on the Council or the subsequent public approval to get away with impeaching an elected leader for something obviously trivial.
A suggestion for limiting the power of the amendment was to specifically list the acts for which the VSA could impeach a leader. To me, though, that seems like an unnecessarily harsh restriction; who wants to be stuck down the line with a House President whom the VSA doesn't have the power to impeach because the amendment failed to consider the possibility of their blindfolded rollerblade-archery hobby? Actually, I'd love to see that. Barefoot Monkeys, can we make that happen for next Parents' Weekend?
Of course, the example is hyperbolic, but it makes a point; the amendment, although a reaction to a recent event, is nonetheless intended to provide the option and the power to impeach on the ground of rule violations and in no way requires the VSA Council to act on non-extraordinary cases. I approve of it as an additional tool for governance, and a way to patch up a rather obvious hole in the VSA's authority over its constituent student leaders. As VSA President Jimmy Kelly '09 said during the Council meeting on Sunday, "This isn't the beginning of a witch-hunt."
To ping-pong Socratically for a moment, though, I do confess that this amendment is interesting from one witch-hunt angle: At what point do we recognize some culpability in the violation of College regulations?
To Koerner's credit, he took the fall for a number of people; although Koerner organized the party, Kelly was quoted in the Miscellany saying, "I do know for a fact that there were other members of Council that were in that room" ("Council debates standards, grounds for impeachment of student leaders," 4.14.09).
It is hardly realistic to imagine that our student leaders must undertake some sort of hermitage to uphold College regulations, eventually forsaking the need for material enjoyment and ascending to student government Samsara, but the nagging question remains of just how complicit our VSA officials, held to their higher standard, can be.
That said, I approve wholeheartedly of the VSA amendment, and I laud the VSA Council for its passage. Should you feel differently, we're now within the two-week interim during which all students can review the amendment and propose changes. Assume responsibility and become a student leader.
—Michael Mestitz is a member of the Class of 2012 majoring in economics. This semester, he will examine amusing slants on Vassar life.
is a member of the 
4 comments