Early last week, it came to light that an offensive comment had been sent in the Student Association (SA) Planning, Research, and Election committee GroupMe. The committee had been discussing possible penalties for an alleged campaigning violation for the vice president for academic affairs’ special election, and one member suggested that “tar and feathering” be the punishment. Hundreds attended the Student Congress meeting on Monday night to voice their concerns over the message. Although Jeremy Rosenberg, the student who wrote the message, resigned shortly after, attendees were looking for a larger statement and response to the issue.
While this issue was not the SA E-Board’s fault, its fallout was the fault of the E-Board. At no point in Monday night’s meeting was Rosenberg the main topic of discussion. His statement was the driving factor, but at no point did he directly address the students at the meeting or give any sort of statement. His quick resignation left no sense of accountability, and students were left distressed and in need of a place to look for an explanation. That place then became the Student Congress meeting, and those accountable were the SA E-Board.
The reality is that Rosenberg’s actions cannot be held to reflect the views of the entire SA. His statement was not supported or reciprocated by any members of PRE, Student Congress or the executive board. Rosenberg does not represent the beliefs of the SA.
But while the larger SA cannot be held directly accountable for the incident, there is a fault in its lack of transparency. Instead of receiving an official statement from Rosenberg or PRE, students relied on a screenshot and word of mouth to inform them of the events. On Monday, an email was sent out by the SA E-Board that condemned “hate speech and racialized death threats” but did not provide an explanation of what had happened to prompt the email. Nor were there any official statements regarding the reasons behind Rosenberg’s resignation.
Such ambiguous language and lack of transparency surrounding serious events can build mistrust and fear among students at a time when our campus needs to work toward open and honest dialogue. The email provided no series of events, no factual explanation and no outline of what processes are in place.
Students made it clear on Monday night that there is concern over representation within the SA. While the responsibility of changing this falls both on the SA and on the advocacy of the students that it represents, matters can only improve with increased transparency.
There is no simple solution to preventing discriminatory behavior. The SA constitution forbids engaging in discriminatory or preferential policies or practices, yet does not specify what these policies and practices are — nor can it. While members of the e-board were criticized at Monday night’s meeting, it cannot be expected that the e-board members take full responsibility for those underneath them. Progress cannot be made if individuals are not held accountable for their actions.