LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Union Judiciary must be drastically improved
by Daniel Silverman
Forum | 3/16/04
Posted online at 3:54 AM EST on 3/16/04
To the Editor:
Two years ago, I went to Senate meetings to complain about the stupidity I saw in student government. Information was not readily available, many policies and procedures were arcane, and the whole process was too difficult for a normal, uninvolved student to grasp.
Last year I ran for, and was elected, secretary. This is basically the "chief operations officer" of the Union, and I like to think that in that time
I and other members of Union government have made some steps to make things easier. They include a newly expanded Web site, "how to" guides, a club resource center for club leaders and a better announcement system, to name just a few improvements.
One thing that I have not been able to figure out, despite being an active member of Union government and being on both sides of Union Judiciary cases, is the UJ process. Our UJ's current process is a joke, and the most recent case with Bryan Lober '06 is just the latest example. Instead of a simple, straightforward impeachment process that we can understand, the "court" demands long, detailed "briefs" with complicated arguments of fact and law. They hold evidentiary and procedural and all other kinds of hearings to determine the minutiae of the case.
This may be what the U.S. Supreme Court does for a living, but this is not what the UJ is here for. Our UJ is supposed to be a resource for students. A simple, straightforward method of resolving disputes. Got a problem with elections? Upset that a club leader is violating the club's constitution? Angry that a senator is not fulfilling his constitutional duties? If your case has merit, if it's well thought out, you should be able to explain it in a page or two, the other side should be able to respond, there should be a quick hearing a few days later to argue the merits and, within a week, we should have a decision.
Instead, we have a silly, complicated month-long process that generally results in a ruling that is completely illogical and inconsistent with what the UJ has decided before. If these five students pretending to be judges are going to play at being the Supreme Court, they should at least be good enough to learn how to follow their own precedents.
As it stands, the UJ is an inconsequential and useless body, one in
urgent need of reform. I hope our next batch of justices do something-anything-to try to make the Union Judiciary relevant again.
-Daniel Silverman '05
Student Union Secretary
Two years ago, I went to Senate meetings to complain about the stupidity I saw in student government. Information was not readily available, many policies and procedures were arcane, and the whole process was too difficult for a normal, uninvolved student to grasp.
Last year I ran for, and was elected, secretary. This is basically the "chief operations officer" of the Union, and I like to think that in that time
I and other members of Union government have made some steps to make things easier. They include a newly expanded Web site, "how to" guides, a club resource center for club leaders and a better announcement system, to name just a few improvements.
One thing that I have not been able to figure out, despite being an active member of Union government and being on both sides of Union Judiciary cases, is the UJ process. Our UJ's current process is a joke, and the most recent case with Bryan Lober '06 is just the latest example. Instead of a simple, straightforward impeachment process that we can understand, the "court" demands long, detailed "briefs" with complicated arguments of fact and law. They hold evidentiary and procedural and all other kinds of hearings to determine the minutiae of the case.
This may be what the U.S. Supreme Court does for a living, but this is not what the UJ is here for. Our UJ is supposed to be a resource for students. A simple, straightforward method of resolving disputes. Got a problem with elections? Upset that a club leader is violating the club's constitution? Angry that a senator is not fulfilling his constitutional duties? If your case has merit, if it's well thought out, you should be able to explain it in a page or two, the other side should be able to respond, there should be a quick hearing a few days later to argue the merits and, within a week, we should have a decision.
Instead, we have a silly, complicated month-long process that generally results in a ruling that is completely illogical and inconsistent with what the UJ has decided before. If these five students pretending to be judges are going to play at being the Supreme Court, they should at least be good enough to learn how to follow their own precedents.
As it stands, the UJ is an inconsequential and useless body, one in
urgent need of reform. I hope our next batch of justices do something-anything-to try to make the Union Judiciary relevant again.
-Daniel Silverman '05
Student Union Secretary
