Some of SBG reinstated: Is it right?

I was raised with a very cut & dry/black & white idea of right & wrong.  It wasn’t until my 20’s that this idealism was seriously challenged, and I learned to embrace the varying shades of grey that represent the complex world in which we live.

So, when I first heard that the USG assembly candidates from SBG were reinstated but President, VP, and Student Trustee candidates were not, I was immediately conflicted with the decision: It seemed very inconsistent on the part of the EPC to treat Sean Murray (VP candidate) differently than Geoff Berkheimer (assembly candidate), when from all accounts, Geoff was equally, if not more actively participating at the controversial SBG rally that lead to the disqualifications in the first place!

It wasn’t until I took a step back, looked at the big picture, the likely time-line for the future, and the relative “insignificance” of these elections that I began to actually prefer this decision over a downright rejection of the appeals and continued disqualification of the entire SBG slate.  Please allow me to explain:

The most important thing to realize is that although I strongly supported lumping all of SBG together, and the disqualification of the slate due to improper election practices, I really have very little issue with the individuals on the slate or their platform.  In fact, when comparing the status quo (the current USG assembly) with SBG, I certainly identify more with SBG.  I myself am a USG outsider with no previous ties to the sitting USG members.  I support their calls for transparency, accountability, and a government that works for the people it represents (and have spent the better part of the Spring semester working toward those goals).  My primary issues with SBG are that of the dangers of political parties, and the unscrupulous men (Chris & Joel) whom I felt were calling all the shots.  Certainly, when USG Presidential candidate, Bernard Mariano, tells me he can’t just meet with the SAFC advisor whenever he wants because, “Joel has me on a very tight schedule,” one becomes concerned with the legitimacy and intellectual independence of candidates from their mentors.

In fact, I was very excited when I heard that Bernadette Casaclang (SBG, assembly candidate) was running for the assembly, and emailed her to congratulate her and let her know I was looking forward to working with her in USG.  My first thoughts were of Bernadette, and of sadness, when I first heard of the full SBG slate disqualification.  Through a mutual friend, I made sure that she was not disheartened and still intended to pursue getting on the USG assembly (there is an ad hoc process for filling vacant seats mid-term). I contacted Geoff personally and, despite our differences, worked to smooth over those rough patches and strongly encouraged him to still get on the assembly through the ad hoc process.  I told him that I, and most sitting USG assembly members would be more than happy to support anyone who sincerely wanted to be involved with USG, work hard and help out.  I would push for judging each individual on their own merrits, and I would strongly support the acceptance of any “disqualified” SBG candidate onto the assembly who had a legitimate desire to serve.

With that in mind, the reinstatement of the disqualified SBG assembly candidates, while “unfair” certainly proves to be more utilitarian to all parties involved.  The temporary shame of disqualification for the six assembly candidates (most of whom I believe were duped into this whole thing by more devious and sinister persons) has dissolved somewhat due to the vindication of reinstatement.  Perhaps some of them might not have sought acceptance into the USG assembly simply because of the shame associated with disqualification. Now, if they choose to not serve, it is more likely to be an indicator of having insincere motives from the beginning (rather than if they chose to not go through the arduous ad hoc process).

The reinstatement comes with string attached: Taking a mandatory ethics class and writing a reflection paper on the experience of this election.  This reminds me of the context of this whole election: We are in an educational environment.  We are novices at elections, politics, and governance: We are all learning together and this certainly IS a learning experience.  So why not turn “reinstatement” into a learning experience? This is certainly more than would have been required of the six assembly candidates had they chosen the ad hoc process, so in the end the result is the same, but the process is presumably better. I see no problem with that.

Finally, what of the remaining three disqualified SBG candidates?  Shouldn’t they be reinstated? Again, it is very easy for me to fall into the trap of naivete and take the black & white/all or nothing approach.  However, keeping in mind my “grander intentions” of the initial appeal to treat SBG as a single unit, I believe this decision is appropriate for two reasons:

First, the point I wanted to make about the dangers of running as a political party has been clearly made.  No one who accepted or rejected this idea is going to change their minds based on an unequal reinstatement of the candidates.  Therefore, I am not afraid that the principal and lessons of this experience are in jeopardy of being watered down.

The second reason goes back to an extremely important lesson I learned while serving in the US Air Force: Those who take on more responsibility hold more prominent rolls will be held to higher standards. If three people do the exact same thing wrong: A low ranking Airman First Class (A1C), a Technical Sergeant (TSgt), or a Colonel, because of their positions the wrong they have committed is not considered equal, and therefore their punishments will certainly never be equal.  This is a very important lesson in life, agree with it or not.  This is quite simply how the real world works.  While the A1C may receive remedial training and a wage garnish, for the same offense a TSgt may face reduction in rank, and the Colonel may even face the loss of their commission and discharge from the service.

On the other hand, the scrutiny to which each of these individuals would be subjected would be inversely proportional to the level of consideration given before passing judgment: An A1C may find it easy to commit wrongdoings without them being noticed, but less consideration would be given to them when passing judgment, whereas a Colonel may be under constant scrutiny and find it very difficult to commit a simple wrongdoing, but much more careful consideration will be given prior to passing a judgment.  Officers are held to higher standards of conduct than NCO’s, and NCO’s than rank-and-file enlisted: With more responsibility and prominence comes higher standards. An A1C could plead ignorance, whereas an NCO or Officer should know better.  This is just how the world works.

All this is to say that when you dealing with different strata of responsibility, the traditional sense of equality goes out the window.  And why not?  A high profile individual receiving a light punishment for a crime is certainly more damaging to social welfare than a low profile individual receiving light punishment.  To me, this appears to be the case in this ruling which I initially branded as “inconsistent.” The individual running to serve on the Board of Trustees over the entire U of I system should certainly have higher expectations placed upon him than the individual seeking to fill an uncontested assembly member seat on the Undergraduate Student Government.

I think it is important to note here that I am not entirely decided on how I feel about this.  That inate sense of black & white justice in me is certainly bothered, however the ever developing utilitarian in me is certainly pleased.  I am not writing to pass final judgment on the “rightness” of how this scenario has played out, or the reasons I have provided for why it may have turned out this way.  All I can say is that this is certainly a reflection of how the real world works.  If it is right to teach university students lessons that will serve them for the rest of their lives in a very real and very harsh world, then this certainly was right decision on that account.  Beyond that, I am probably not qualified enough to make a decision beyond speculation, so I leave that debate to the moral philosophers (who, in my mind, are each and every one of us) to decide personally for themselves.

One final note: It is interesting to me the difference in the levels of bias and difference in professional writing in reporting this news story when comparing The Chicago Flame and ChiTown Daily News:

The Chicago Flame: Some disqualified student government candidates reinstated

ChiTown Daily News: Six disqualified candidates at UIC will get student government seats