Kerckhoff politicking muddies free speech

Kerckhoff politicking muddies free speech

Name-calling, finger-pointing and mud-slinging ­ the annual
undergraduate student government elections have degenerated into
the usual bilge of Judicial Board cases and political
maneuvering.

This time, an advertisement in the Daily Bruin sparked the
ruckus. The Bruin Democrats’ full-page ad supporting the Students
First slate was the focal point of a Judicial Board ruling claiming
the group was "illegitimate" ­ that it did not follow the
Elections Board’s endorsement process, and so according to the
board, it had no right to voice its support.

Of course, the Elections Code does not explicitly state that
groups or candidates cannot place ads in The Bruin ­ you can
imagine The Bruin’s advertising department would be a little upset
if that bylaw existed. No, this was a matter of interpretation. At
least it seems so. The board will only say that it will issue an
opinion in 14 days.

But its ruling, however, was pretty clear: Because of the
"illegitimate" endorsing ad, two elections of Students First
candidates were nullified.

The reaction was immediate outrage. The Students First slate,
Bruin Democrats and assorted students cried foul, cited the First
Amendment and then went to work obtaining a restraining order for
this week’s elections.

In the midst of the controversy, Kerckhoff Hall reverberated
with angry voices, tense discussions and whispered conspiring.

Something in the air must have moved the board. In an abrupt
turnabout, on Monday night it recalled the decision to nullify the
elections. The ruling still stood, of course, but now it was up to
the Elections Board to decide sanctions.

Could it be that the Judicial Board suddenly realized it had
ventured into a free speech mine field?

Even though no explicit bylaw prevents ads from being placed in
The Bruin, the Elections Code clearly contains enough loopholes and
vague language to ensure constant First Amendment violations.

And if the bylaws are not changed, many problematic
interpretations of the code could and will arise. One possibility
is that candidates could get in trouble if "illegitimate" groups
take out advertising ­ this could create a chilling effect on
those wanting to advertise and a potential revenue loss for The
Bruin.

Another possibility is that candidates attending the
"illegitimate" Daily Bruin endorsement hearing will be sanctioned,
preventing The Bruin from fulfilling a vital editorial
function.

And, of course, there is the argument that the entire premise of
the endorsement code, which sets parameters for the format and
legitimacy of endorsing, directly violates the First Amendment by
preventing people from voicing their opinions.

With these potential minefields buried within the election
process, it is a mystery why no astute council member ever bothered
to point them out.

Didn’t anyone see this mess coming?

Actually, some did.

While many candidates and politicians were shocked by the
Judicial Board’s decision to nullify elections, when the news
reached The Bruin offices, the sentiment among many was only a
mildly suppressed "I told you so."

The vagueness of the Elections Code grew more salient last fall
as the council was amending the election bylaws, and the Daily
Bruin editor in chief and members of the Communications Board
immediately recognized the problem.

The council’s governing documents also could be interpreted to
govern The Bruin’s operations, business and editorial functions. In
a nation of strict delineation between the government and the
press, these bylaws are fundamentally flawed.

But when The Bruin and the Communications Board approached the
student council to voice these concerns, their reception was frosty
at best.

Repeated meetings with Undergraduate President Rob Greenhalgh
did not lead to any changes in the code, either. Warnings that
flaws in the code would lead to Judicial Board cases were
disregarded, and urges to change the bylaws were postponed until
after elections, when things got "less political."

Finally, a complete lack of action by the council forced The
Bruin to take matters into its own hands. In consultation with its
attorney, The Bruin published a policy statement asserting its
independence from the student government and clarifying the
problems in the bylaws.

But even the publication of The Bruin’s policy statement,
directly in opposition to the student government Elections Code,
did not incite movement from the council.

It seems strange that Greenhalgh and the council did not have
the foresight to recognize this problem. But then again, maybe they
clearly identified the loopholes in the code, saw its potential to
be manipulated for political gain and then put it away for a
convenient rainy day.

That day was last Friday, when Greenhalgh’s Judicial Board
appointees potentially halted the election of candidates from the
opposing slate.

The fact that student leaders did not anticipate the problems
arising from the Elections Code points to their lack of vision. But
maintaining vague language in order to reap political benefits is a
whole different ball game, one which drags the fundamental
documents of student government through the Kerckhoff mudslinging
tradition.

The usual politicking in Kerckhoff Hall is bad enough, but it’s
even more despicable when student politicians use the council’s
governing documents as political tools, in blatant violation of
free speech for political gain. It points to our student government
leader’s lack of integrity and, more disturbingly, to the lack of
understanding of free speech and the relationship between student
government and student media.