Spring Break
EDITORIAL: UJ unfit for RMS discussion
Community input needed
Editorial | 4/28/09
Posted online at 2:01 AM EST on 4/28/09
Last Wednesday, the Union Judiciary heard a case in which petitioners Gideon Klionsky '11 and Ryan McElhaney '10 argued that barring Mr. Klionsky from running for the position of senator for racial minority students because he was not a minority both violated the Rights and Responsibilities Handbook and contradicted the Union Constitution. The UJ simultaneously discussed whether it had the right to rule on this issue.
While the UJ ultimately found against Mr. Klionsky, only Associate Justice Julia Sferlazzo '09 wrote that "this case should not have been heard by the UJ." We agree with Ms. Sferlazzo: The UJ's authority extends only as far as interpreting the Union Constitution. Mr. Klionsky and Mr. McElhaney's petition claims that the Union violated Section 7 of Rights and Responsibilities, which prohibits Brandeis from discriminating on the basis of race. However, cases of alleged discrimination are under the purview of the University Board on Student Conduct, not the UJ.
We feel that the justices who decided that the UJ could rule on this case interpreted the Union Constitution too loosely. Associate Justice Judah Marans '11 and Chief Justice Rachel Graham Kagan '09 both cited Article I Section 3: "This Constitution shall be enacted in accordance with all … University policies." In our opinion, this says that the Union Constitution is inferior to Rights and Responsibilities and that the UJ cannot interpret Rights and Responsibilities.
Furthermore, even though the UJ decided it had jurisdiction over this case, the justices should have dismissed it on an ideological basis: All white petitioners, respondents and justices held the rights of minorities on trial, requiring analysis of Brandeis' interracial relations. As Ms. Sferlazzo pointed out in her concurring opinion, "None of the justices have degrees in constitutional laws nor are we scholars of race and sociology." We appreciate the UJ's efforts to be fair in this trial by altering protocol to allow the testimony of friends of the court and the entry of amicus briefs into evidence; however, that the UJ had to modify its procedures just to hear this case shows that the UJ was not the proper venue for this issue.
While the UBSC should have decided Mr. Klionsky's individual situation, the student body should decide whether the University's minority undergraduate constituency should have its own Union senator and Finance Board representative. We agree with Ms. Sferlazzo's opinion that "a series of open forums and town hall meetings" would be more appropriate than a UJ trial in which only a few proponents of either side could speak. The students who were shushed in the back of the Shapiro Campus Center's makeshift courtroom should be exactly the students the Union should look to for feedback.
The Union should have settled the issue of minority representation by proposing a Constitutional amendment. This is both within the Union's authority and a means of involving the community.
While the UJ ultimately found against Mr. Klionsky, only Associate Justice Julia Sferlazzo '09 wrote that "this case should not have been heard by the UJ." We agree with Ms. Sferlazzo: The UJ's authority extends only as far as interpreting the Union Constitution. Mr. Klionsky and Mr. McElhaney's petition claims that the Union violated Section 7 of Rights and Responsibilities, which prohibits Brandeis from discriminating on the basis of race. However, cases of alleged discrimination are under the purview of the University Board on Student Conduct, not the UJ.
We feel that the justices who decided that the UJ could rule on this case interpreted the Union Constitution too loosely. Associate Justice Judah Marans '11 and Chief Justice Rachel Graham Kagan '09 both cited Article I Section 3: "This Constitution shall be enacted in accordance with all … University policies." In our opinion, this says that the Union Constitution is inferior to Rights and Responsibilities and that the UJ cannot interpret Rights and Responsibilities.
Furthermore, even though the UJ decided it had jurisdiction over this case, the justices should have dismissed it on an ideological basis: All white petitioners, respondents and justices held the rights of minorities on trial, requiring analysis of Brandeis' interracial relations. As Ms. Sferlazzo pointed out in her concurring opinion, "None of the justices have degrees in constitutional laws nor are we scholars of race and sociology." We appreciate the UJ's efforts to be fair in this trial by altering protocol to allow the testimony of friends of the court and the entry of amicus briefs into evidence; however, that the UJ had to modify its procedures just to hear this case shows that the UJ was not the proper venue for this issue.
While the UBSC should have decided Mr. Klionsky's individual situation, the student body should decide whether the University's minority undergraduate constituency should have its own Union senator and Finance Board representative. We agree with Ms. Sferlazzo's opinion that "a series of open forums and town hall meetings" would be more appropriate than a UJ trial in which only a few proponents of either side could speak. The students who were shushed in the back of the Shapiro Campus Center's makeshift courtroom should be exactly the students the Union should look to for feedback.
The Union should have settled the issue of minority representation by proposing a Constitutional amendment. This is both within the Union's authority and a means of involving the community.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Mat Coinor
posted 4/28/09 @ 10:35 AM EST
As an alumnus of the both the university and the Student Union I have tried my best to follow the developments in the RMS case, and like many I feared?for a time?that the UJ was not up for the challenges presented by this explosive case. (Continued…)
Post a Comment