TO THE EDITOR:
In response to yesterday’s editorial, “Abuse of power” (Feb. 11): Yes, as the elected representatives of the senior class, we were acting within our rights as outlined by the Student Code to endorse a candidate for student body president. And, yes, our decision to become involved in the election flies in the face of precedence. So yes, you could say that we didn’t take the hint — the hint that supports blindly following the actions of those who came before you. The hint that quells thought, that discourages seeking improvement through change. We know better, and we do not submit to the assumption that going against precedence is “inappropriate.”
The nature of our role as senior officers inherently connects the senior marshals to the SBP through the collaborative efforts undertaken to improve student life. Our decision to interview and endorse a candidate follows our invested interest in electing someone capable of strengthening the relationship between the senior class and student government. Our insight gained from working with the student body president necessitates informing seniors of the candidate we feel is most capable of working for seniors’ needs.
Title VI, under the Student Code, specifically prohibits certain student government officers from endorsing an SBP candidate. We are not on that list. But by silencing those who are, Title VI is taking away the most informed opinions from this debate. In concluding the editorial, the suggestion is made that the Student Code be modified. The two of us agree.
Meggie Staffiera
Sebastian Williams
Senior Class Officers
