Thursday, April 18, 1996
Undergrads should question validity of their representativesBy
Erica Mannard
As it does every Tuesday, the Undergraduate Students Association
Council (USAC) convened last week to discuss business, programs and
yes, the ever-popular topic: Student Judicial Board Justice Noah
Hochman.
"Wait, wait," you say. "I thought that controversy was over. I
thought the council already voted to impeach Justice Hochman Â
and that vote was overturned by the Student Judicial Board
(J-Board) last quarter! I thought that whole unfair
procedure/invalid decision/USAC major mess-up thing was over."
Apparently not.
It seems that over the last 10 weeks, Cultural Affairs
Commissioner Frank Sampson has been thinking. After hours of
laborious self-debate, Sampson had a great idea: to reconsider the
question of Hochman’s impeachment.
Why? Because the brilliant members of our student government
have decided that in light of recent events, and without new
evidence, they should ignore the Student Judicial Board ruling that
cleared Hochman of wrongdoing and vote again (which, by the way, is
better known as double jeopardy).
Sampson argued that because of the investigation (initiated by
the undergraduate council), so-called hearing (executed by the
council), impeachment ruling (made by the council) and subsequent
overturning of that ruling (due to the council’s unfair
procedures), Hochman shouldn’t remain on the Student Judicial
Board. In future election cases, Sampson claimed, he might not be
able to make an untainted decision.
"Wait! That’s not fair," you say. You’re right! It isn’t
fair.
The most glaring injustice is that Hochman was impeached despite
the fact that he was vindicated by the J-Board, which ruled that
Cynthia Duarte’s one-person investigation did not prove his guilt.
(This report, by the way, was based on one witness’ supposition who
was never even questioned by anyone other than Duarte.)
The real issue here is the way our government is run. If
everyone who is charged with a violation is treated as guilty,
regardless of the verdict, then there is no justice.
When an allegation becomes the equivalent of a guilty verdict,
then a government (even a student government) has become
tyrannical.
When it’s all said and done, few facts remain in this
Undergraduate Students Association Council mess: (1) Noah Hochman
is innocent and yet, (2) has been impeached by (3) the council that
represents YOU.
That’s right: the council is supposed to represent you and your
interests.
Ask yourself this question: In whose interest did the student
council vote when they unfairly impeached Hochman? Were they doing
it for YOU, their constituents? Or were they doing it to advance
the Students First! political agenda? Is it coincidental that this
ruling occurred just before a new Students First! slate is up for
election?
It worries me that undergraduate President York Chang is more
concerned with a political vendetta than fulfilling the demand of
justice that his office brings. I fail to see the benefit of having
a student government that represents no one but itself, and I think
the actions of the council are inexcusable and unacceptable:
Unsubstantiated changes.
Unfair impeachment.
Uninterested justice.
That’s the way it is … BUT IT SHOULDN’T BE!
Mannard is a fourth-year communication studies student.
It worries me that undergraduate President York Chang is more
concerned with a political vendetta than fulfilling the demand of
justice that his office brings.