It is a sad thing when an authoritative body squelches student discussion.
Ben Couhig’s effort to recall Student Government President Chris Odinet was all but halted by a University Court decision Thursday. The decision determined that a recall of the SG president will simply fill the position with the SG vice president. To recall both the president and the vice president, students would have to file separate efforts for each office.
We believe this decision is an unfortunate one because it effectively stifled a lively campus-wide discussion. It is especially disappointing because according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in every state in the country that allows governmental officials to be recalled – including Louisiana – a vacant position created by a recall is either filled after a separate election is held or a board of commissioners appoints a person from a list of possible candidates. The University Court decision essentially charts new waters in recall procedure.
We believe the court’s decision is designed to keep any future recalls from taking place because it views the offices of president and vice president as separate. But during elections they are viewed as interdependent. One vote elects both the president and vice president, but two recalls are needed to clear an administration that a student may view as corrupt. What happens in the future if both the president and the vice president prove unworthy of students?
We view this as a severe obstacle in students’ ability to voice their disapproval of their government. What is the use of a recall if it can only result in a replacement whose beliefs and values were deemed acceptable by the person being recalled in the first place? We have no problem with the vice president running in a recall election, but there should be other options.
We consciously withheld our opinion on whether Odinet should be recalled because the effort had not passed the petition stage, but we have always encouraged students to enact their ability to have their opinions heard.
We have written before in this space that apathy has gripped this campus, and it is disappointing to see a student who followed all of the procedures laid out for him had his effort halted twice – first by the SG commissioner of elections and then by an unprecedented procedural decision by the University Court.
How can we fight apathy if any efforts to the contrary are shot down immediately?
How can we trust Student Government when they are locking us out of their meetings and hobbling our ability to pursue a change?
If Student Government isn’t going to listen to their peers, what use is it anyway?
—–Send letters to the editor to [email protected]