Spring Break
EDITORIAL: Getting a balanced commitee
Forum | 11/13/07
Posted online at 2:37 AM EST on 11/13/07
Despite surprisingly forceful outcry among students against University President Jehuda Reinharz's decision to arm campus police, a new committee charged with establishing protocol for gun use does not indicate a radical broadening of discussion on the issue. The group includes faculty, administrators and a paltry three spots for student representatives, one of which will be filled by Student Union President Sreeya Sinha '08.
It's clear that the makeup of the group does not reflect the deep interest students have expressed in the issue, and even administrators acknowledge that neither the structure nor the goals of committee have changed in response to the controversy that has surrounded the firearms issue.
That just three students will serve as the voice for a student body of 3,000 is worrisome. But the committee is still an important opportunity to inflect a diversity of perspectives into the conversation over how and why firearms should be used on campus.
For this reason, we believe Ms. Sinha, who is responsible for selecting the other two students from an application process open to all undergraduates, must choose her fellow committee members with the guns controversy in mind. This means considering the selection of students who have openly opposed the decision to arm the police.
Firearm opponents, for their part, should recognize that the decision is unlikely to be revoked. We encourage them to lobby to have their views heard on what is, at this late stage, a more important issue: the rules governing the officers who will carry weapons. Ben Serby '10, one of the students who submitted to Reinharz a petition critical of his decision, acknowledged then that the petition was largely a "symbolic" motion, motivated more by principle than practical protest. It's time for Mr. Serby and the rest of the students who have argued earnestly-and often with great eloquence-against firearms to move beyond principles and apply their ideas to the specifics of police protocol.
While we wish the administration would further open the debate to students who have shown such an interest in it, we aren't holding out hope. In the end, three student representatives on the committee may be our only advocates. We should make these voices count. If enough people apply by the Nov. 16 deadline and the right ones are selected, the student body may have a chance to offer critical, well-rounded input on this policy that is so crucial to our safety on campus.
It's clear that the makeup of the group does not reflect the deep interest students have expressed in the issue, and even administrators acknowledge that neither the structure nor the goals of committee have changed in response to the controversy that has surrounded the firearms issue.
That just three students will serve as the voice for a student body of 3,000 is worrisome. But the committee is still an important opportunity to inflect a diversity of perspectives into the conversation over how and why firearms should be used on campus.
For this reason, we believe Ms. Sinha, who is responsible for selecting the other two students from an application process open to all undergraduates, must choose her fellow committee members with the guns controversy in mind. This means considering the selection of students who have openly opposed the decision to arm the police.
Firearm opponents, for their part, should recognize that the decision is unlikely to be revoked. We encourage them to lobby to have their views heard on what is, at this late stage, a more important issue: the rules governing the officers who will carry weapons. Ben Serby '10, one of the students who submitted to Reinharz a petition critical of his decision, acknowledged then that the petition was largely a "symbolic" motion, motivated more by principle than practical protest. It's time for Mr. Serby and the rest of the students who have argued earnestly-and often with great eloquence-against firearms to move beyond principles and apply their ideas to the specifics of police protocol.
While we wish the administration would further open the debate to students who have shown such an interest in it, we aren't holding out hope. In the end, three student representatives on the committee may be our only advocates. We should make these voices count. If enough people apply by the Nov. 16 deadline and the right ones are selected, the student body may have a chance to offer critical, well-rounded input on this policy that is so crucial to our safety on campus.
Be the first to comment on this story