As the author of the Oct. 8 Student Association Congress resolutions, I am deeply disappointed by the Judicial Board’s recent decisions, which struck down clauses crafted with the intent to protect our campus from divisive and discriminatory initiatives. These rulings, while attentive to procedural integrity, overlook the essential goals of these resolutions to create a safer, more inclusive environment and to uphold the values of empathy and mutual respect that are critical to our community.
Resolution 3: Fostering Compassion, Not Preference
The Judicial Board’s ruling against Resolution 3’s clause, which encouraged attendance at commemorative events led by Jewish organizations, interpreted this as a violation of the SA Constitution’s nondiscrimination clause, suggesting it showed “preference” on the basis of religion and/or nationality. If this interpretation holds, one must question why the SA has ever supported or encouraged attendance at events hosted by any protected category, especially since Article A of our constitution explicitly states that the SA exists to “promote and facilitate diverse activities for its members that cultivate different and sometimes opposing ideas, cultures, skills, and pastimes.”
Further, and perhaps more importantly, this reading misrepresents the clear intent of the resolution and completely removes it from the context of the bill. This clause was not designed to “prefer” any group but rather to foster campuswide empathy by encouraging support for peers facing profound pain. Uplifting the Jewish community in moments of grief does not discriminate against others. It is a call for collective empathy and solidarity — values that unify rather than divide. Viewing this encouragement as preferential treatment risks overlooking our responsibility to stand with those who are struggling.
Resolution 7: Impact Assessment Supports Inclusion and Upholds Free Speech
The impact assessment in Resolution 7 was designed specifically to protect the SA’s commitment to nondiscrimination by ensuring that any BDS-related proposals would undergo due diligence to assess their impact. The Judicial Board’s view that this violates free speech and viewpoint neutrality fundamentally misinterprets the measure’s intent and actionable consequences.
The assessment does not restrict discussion or prevent any proposal from advancing based solely on its viewpoint. Instead, it serves as a safeguard, ensuring that any proposal aligns with the SA’s values and does not inadvertently harm or marginalize any group within our community. Free speech is preserved entirely, as all perspectives may still be discussed and proposed. This assessment simply upholds our responsibility to protect students from discriminatory practices. If a proposal is found nondiscriminatory, it proceeds without restriction, making this process one that enhances rather than inhibits our commitment to equity.
Viewpoint Neutrality Applies Specifically to SA’s Financial and Regulatory Decisions
The Judicial Board’s concern that this assessment violates viewpoint neutrality misses the specific application of this principle. As adjudicated by the Judicial Board last year, the viewpoint neutrality clause is pertinent to corporate “regulatory or financial” decisions. They did not apply it to broader statements, and there is certainly no precedent to apply it to an internal congressional policy. In that same brief, which struck down clauses in last year’s BDS resolution, the J-Board affirmed that financial impact is a moot point here as we have not called for the SA to “financially adhere to a non-neutral stance.” This impact assessment is not an overreach. It applies solely within the scope of the Congress and ensures that any proposal aligns with our values of fairness and inclusivity. It is a balanced, reasonable measure meant to safeguard inclusivity without overstepping our authority.
Temporary Prohibition on Reintroducing BDS Legislation: A Fair, Responsible Step
The Judicial Board’s ruling against the clause preventing the reintroduction of BDS legislation this year overlooks an important aspect of parliamentary governance. According to Robert’s Rules, legislative bodies like SA Congress have the authority to set temporary procedural limits within a term. This is a common practice that allows focus and stability, enabling us to work on other pressing matters without being repeatedly sidetracked by highly contentious issues. This measure doesn’t limit future Congresses, it only establishes a responsible framework for this session.
Given the strong majority of representatives who voted to rescind the BDS resolution from last spring and implement these policies, any reintroduced BDS legislation this year would almost certainly be dead on arrival. Instead of spending the valuable time of Congress on a reintroduction of legislation that has already been heavily considered, this measure would ensure focus remains on other issues to best represent the student body. This procedural measure, therefore, reflects both the will of SA Congress and a commitment to our campus community’s well-being.
A Call for Unity and Compassion
These Judicial Board decisions ultimately reflect an interpretation that, while procedural, detracts from the broader, compassionate goals these resolutions sought to advance. By striking down these clauses, the Judicial Board missed an opportunity to support actions that uphold our community’s values of empathy, safety and respect. Our resolutions were carefully crafted to make inclusivity more than an abstract ideal but an actionable standard — one that protects students from divisive policies and prioritizes unity.
Procedural integrity is undoubtedly important, and I respect the Judicial Board’s dedication to it. However, the very narrow interpretation applied by the J-Board defeated the purpose of the procedure in the first place. Today, unfortunately, they have hindered, rather than helped our ability to create a campus where all students feel safe and valued. It is crucial to consider not only the letter of the SA’s governing documents but also the spirit of our shared community values. These clauses not only should have been deemed acceptable according to the letter of our bylaws but should have been recognized for what they were — important measures to uphold the spirit of them.
Should there be any further review beyond this point, I call on the Judicial Board to consider what I have presented carefully, as both the justices and Congressional representatives strive to make Binghamton University a better campus for all.
Saul Hakim, a senior double-majoring in political science and Judaic studies, is a representative in the SA Congress and a senior advisor to the Binghamton University Zionist Organization.
A Letter to the Editor is an opinion column published in response to a column or article previously published. This is Hakim’s response to news coverage on 11/4 titled “Judicial Board strikes down parts of two resolutions passed at last SA Congress meeting.”
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.