Article by: Jim M. Wilson
Students learn quickly that the Student Government Association is a dynamic body that requires the mutual respect of its members for the process to be beneficial to Suffolk students. In a reasoned manner, SGA encourages all Suffolk students to come and make their voices heard. While debates can be at times passionate, SGA is meant to be the testing ground for ideas, further refined through prudence and vigorous debate. What good is rubber-stamping legislation if it fails to benefit the students as a whole? SGA deserves applause for the way the Senate has transformed itself from the bickering, do-nothing body of last year into a civil, productive entity centered on student concerns.
Is this sentiment lost on some members? An editorial by SGA Member-at-Large, Kris Callahan, would suggest as such; however the opinion necessitates some clarification. An editorial published in the Oct. 2 issue of the Suffolk Voice under the headline: “Suffolk politics come to a head in SGA: The Conscience of a Suffolk Liberal,” written by Callahan, asserts that SGA’s main purpose is to hear the concerns of Suffolk’s students and organizations— fair enough.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “A man is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.” As such, a responsible student must take this critical approach to any opinion, published or spoken. According to the article in the Voice, Callahan supports his assertion about SGA’s mission by postulating about “racially offensive flyers being posted around campus portraying our President as a monkey eating watermelon and fried chicken…” As no such flyer was ever posted by any Suffolk student organization, Callahan was asked to clarify his statement. In his response, Callahan admitted he “over-exaggerated on the content” of a Fall 2008 flyer posted by the College Republicans, fabricating a controversy to better support his vision—in his own words, “just to start an uproar.” Whether this lie was deliberate or simply hyperbole, Callahan’s statement amounts to intellectual dishonesty, at the very least.
Callahan claims that SGA is “slowly deteriorating.” He points to two former SGA Senators, Megan Costello and Anthony Gesualdi, as role-models for SGA members to emulate. Faced with major defeats in SGA concerning the executive board, Senators Costello and Gesualdi saw it fit to disrupt SGA meetings through personal attacks, illegal motions and manipulation of parliamentary procedure. When their tactics were ineffective, they moved to vandalize the SGA office. Gesualdi’s filibuster of the SGA budget almost removed funding for all clubs on campus. While Gesualdi was well-intentioned by attempting to promote fairness in club budget distributions, the tactics employed were irresponsible. Costello’s diversity legislation was an amendment to the SGA Constitution that was forced through with limited debate, which slated four additional senator seats to Diversity Services on top of the one seat currently granted. This was done with the intention of creating a permanent voting block that could be considered no less than affirmative action seats. Is this Kris Callahan’s vision for SGA?
Maybe I am just old-fashioned, but to me, words mean something. One can not go around publishing mischaracterizations, false statements and ad hominem attacks and expect others to respect their opinion without offering some minimal critical analysis. Callahan claims to be above the partisan bickering, yet his editorial was full of the same partisan attacks he rails against.
As a senator for the senior class, I have a suggestion: let us move forward. Let us leave behind the conspiracy theories, the personal attacks and the false assertions. SGA must move forward to do the students’ business through mannered, constructive debates. Let us commit to common sense, seeking legislative solutions that promote fairness and provide measurable benefits to students. Finally, let us leave the battles of SGA where they belong …on the battlefield of ideas.
