Even though the landmark Roe v. Wade decision was handed down over 30 years ago, the issue of a woman’s right to an abortion remains a sensitive and divisive issue. Abortion continues to play an integral role in a politician’s platform in that almost everyone seems to have a strong opinion about it. The ongoing debate is far from civil. Many abortion clinics have received death threats and have been subjected to acts of violence in an effort to thwart the provision of their services.

The Student Assembly voted on March 15 to provide $5,700 in funding for a debate on abortion hosted by the Students for Life. The pro-choice coalition will be represented by Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union and pro-life supporters by Sean Klusendorf, president of the Life Training Institute. Overall, I hope this particular event promotes healthy and civil debate. In an era in which to be partisan is to be divided. I believe this debate can help both sides to come together and recognize that each brings a valid reasoning and rationale to the table. I find it ironic that radical pro-life supporters decide to murder others in an effort to prevent what they believe to be murder. Bombing an abortion clinic will never be an effective catalyst for change. Debate can demonstrate to the community that we support collaboration, not senseless destruction.

Abortion is not a topic that seems to affect the everyday life of students here at the College, but it is surely something about which nearly everyone has an opinion. Personally, I am part of the pro-choice coalition and stand behind Roe v. Wade. I believe a woman should have the right to decide if she wants to raise a child. It is often the case that the household cannot economically support a decent upbringing for the child, and the mother suitably acts in her and the child’s interest.

As Americans, we generally do not appreciate someone controlling how we act and think, and I do not believe abortion should be any different. Many pro-life arguments remind me of practices used in the early days of welfare. Mostly middle-class women would meticulously control the behavior of women below the poverty line, forcing them to adopt the same parenting strategies of the middle-class women, lest they lose their government assistance. Although this is anecdotal evidence, I see the middle-class predominantly supporting pro-life choices and legislation. They can afford to provide a child with a decent upbringing, and they therefore cannot fathom the current conditions of many women in poverty. These women face the reality of abortion and are directly impacted economically and emotionally by their pregnancies.

Regardless of your own opinions, hosting a debate is a great way to engage civilly with those who have opposing viewpoints so as to better understand their perspectives. I have no issue with no funding of this debate, and I emphatically support SA. I can only hope, however, that the debate focuses on the realities of abortion instead of esoteric concepts that tend to invade many discussions here at the College. To many of us, abortion still remains an abstract category that has not directly affected our lives. We must keep in mind that this issue has far-reaching implications. If we do so, I know this debate can bring both sides of the argument together in a healthy and productive manner.

By the time this article goes to print the student body will have elected a new president for the Student Assembly. It may just have been me, but the lead up to the election seemed much less visible and pronounced than in previous years and especially than the last election. I barely knew campaigning had started until Pubcouncilgate broke, and now that it seems that it was just a few poorly chosen words and a lot of exaggerated hype, the candidates and the campaign have again become background noise. Neither The Flat Hat nor The Virginia Informer even endorsed a ticket.

Both took the opportunity to criticize the Student Assembly in general. The Flat Hat, wishing to appear above the fray, bought into the common fallacy that if you criticize all sides, you are a rational, sagacious centrist. Therefore the SA is too “polarized.” The Informer blasted the SA for being undifferentiated resume-padding automatons. Ignoring the fact that it would be very hard to be both polarized and identical at the same time, what happened to make even newspapers give up on politics?
Perhaps it is because the current — or previous, as of today — administration has been quite boring. It has picked very few high profile fights and engaged in relatively little grandstanding. Their most drastic measure, denying the Honor Council funding, was the result of a bill passed the semester before the administration took office. Since then, the SA has operated under the radar of most students. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. The things that get the student body’s attention rarely do anymore than just that. The end result is usually a bill that recommends that someone else do or change something.

What the outgoing administration has done is exactly what they promised to do: Make the SA a better resource with which to enable students to do the things they want to do. This is not glamorous and it is understandable that many remain unaware. One step was the new website, which — although still glitch-ridden — provides easy access to information about the SA and an effective means of communication. A glance over the bills passed this semester shows the usual mix of code changes and resolutions against this or that, but also a substantial number of acts which directly benefit groups of students. The popular decision to fund a 24-hour Swem experience during finals has continued, of course, but there are new ones as well. The Roots were here because of SA money, and students can now file Freedom of Information Acts with the SA covering the cost. Also, the SA funded a late night bus for students who went to see the most recent Harry Potter movie. Such a bill is inconsequential, but it illustrates exactly how the SA should function. They have the resources to provide the little services and perks that make life on campus a little more convenient. Ryan Ruzic J.D. ’11 wrote a recent editorial in The Informer that makes an excellent point. The SA is not the U.S. Congress, and they have very little power to shape the structure of our campus society. However they have the funds to let students pursue their interests within its confines.

In this way, we can judge that the outgoing administration did a decent job. During fiscal year 2009-2010, the SA allocated $169,530 to student organizations. In FY10-11, this number jumped to $190,486, while the total student fee budget only increased by $5,000. The main purpose of the SA is to be a resource for students, everything else is periphery. By this measure, the SA is not broken. It may be easy to mock their self-important moments and their endless procedural debates, but that goes with the territory. It seems that disdain for any governing organization is simply the way we were raised.

Is it just a coincidence that criticisms leveled at the SA — polarized, cliquish and detached — are used so much in national politics that they have become trite to the point of vacuity?

In light of the recent allegations of bribery made against Kaveh [Sadeghian ’12] and Molly [Bulman ’12]’s campaign, I have decided to come forward of my own volition to express my disgust at the Election Commission’s decision. I am the Chair of the Publications Council and one of the members who met with Kaveh on Friday evening. I was charged per the Council to investigate ways in which we could secure funding we expected to receive during the normal budget process and correct the [Student Assembly]-Pub Council contract which caused the budget problem in the first place. One of the options brought up was meeting with the current Executive leaders, either President Chrissy [Scott ’11] or Vice-President Kaveh in order to see what kind of solutions they could offer us. Since Kaveh was the only one available that evening (and I wanted to act as quickly as possible), fellow council member Alex Pouille [’11] and I met with him on the [Sadler Center] Terrace to chat about our options.

Kaveh offered us a number of solutions to both our budget issue and our contract concerns. Kaveh spoke of investigating use of [Student Bar Associations] funds, pursuing a bill to secure funds from the SA Reserves, and he mentioned the use of a SA President’s summer discretionary fund. He said were he or David Alpert voted in, we would be able to petition the winner for use of some of the fund. Kaveh made it clear from the beginning of the conversation that he was in no way campaigning, but simply offering us options to solve our problem. And we came to Kaveh as he was current SA VP, not because he was a candidate for the current SA elections.

I left the meeting feeling that Kaveh gave me and [the] Council good options and that the Council could now act appropriately. And then I sent out an email to Publications Council members to update them on our progress. I did mention that Kaveh had mentioned this fund and its possible use to the Council’s benefit. But at no time did he promise to use the fund in exchange for Council votes. The simple truth is, Kaveh never made a campaign promise nor did he bribe me or the rest of the Council.

Unfortunately in my emails, I ignorantly and irresponsibly used language that made it seem as if Kaveh had attempted to bribe me and the Council in our conversation on Friday evening. My emails said Kaveh “agreed” and “would” help the Council through this fund. That I cannot deny; but no deal took place along the lines of “voting Kaveh in and then we’d be able to get the funds we are requesting.” That never happened and was not even something that could be construed from our conversation. Unfortunately, my emails didn’t adequately convey this. And for that I should be penalized, not Kaveh. I can only beg an ignorance of the consequences of inflating such a conversation. Unfortunately, I’m just not a politician. What I meant to convey to the Council was that we had this other option available-that of the SA President discretionary fund- and that in my own opinion and assessment (not by any promise made to me) Kaveh could possibly help us with this. Hindsight is a wonderful thing; and if I had known that such charges would have been leveled against Kaveh for the words of my email, I certainly would have chosen my words more carefully and accurately-which did not involve any agreements or bribes.

Unfortunately I allowed my own personal decision on the SA election to impact my vocabulary — making Kaveh open to completely false claims of bribery and violation of the election rules. I am completely aware that voting for David A. would also allow the Council the opportunity to petition him for financial help from the summer discretionary fund. It is my fault (and my fault alone) that I did not make this option clear to the rest of the Council in my emails. As I said, I am [not] and never will be a politician. To be quite honest, the politics on this campus annoy me to no end. I was seeking purely to solve the problem of the Council’s funding through whatever means necessary and permissible.

I feel such guilt that my poor word choice has caused such a debacle. I feel even more disgust at the way in which a few SA individuals saw this as a political opportunity and jumped at it. This only convinces me more that the way in which politics is practiced at William & Mary is unhealthy and destructive. And sadly, the very person who after even just a brief conversation seems most likely to me to help the situation, is being targeted with lies and malicious intentions in what amounts to a modern day witch-hunt.

I apologize to Kaveh and Molly and their entire campaign for causing this mess. I hope that they and all of their supporters can forgive me for my politically dangerous and stupid words. And I hope that people will still be encouraged to vote. Despite my disgust with those in the SA who hold their positions for personal gain rather than for the benefit of students, I’ve always voted. It still remains, the only way a William & Mary student can express their opinion is through the ballot box.

Because of current events, we have made the decision to abstain from endorsing a candidate for Student Assembly president and vice president.

Yesterday, Kaveh Sadeghian ’12 and Molly Bulman’s ’12 campaign for SA president and vice president was suspended for two days — from noon Tuesday until noon Thursday. This suspension is due to a discussion between Sadeghian and the Student Publications Council Chairwoman Meredith Howard ’11 about funding for a new publication, the Business Law Review. After an investigation of the events surrounding this suspension, we feel that although Sadeghian may have had good intentions in trying to help Howard obtain future funding for the council, he nevertheless acted inappropriately as a candidate for SA president. The mere mention of the presidential reserve fund to Howard was unwise considering the circumstances. While Sadeghian has said that he told Howard he was only acting in his vice presidential role when he was discussing possible funding solutions, the timing of this discussion in relation to the campaign was inopportune. We believe that Sadeghian could have prevented this situation from escalating by speaking against the emails in which Howard endorsed him. Because of the ambiguity of these circumstances, the sanction handed down by the election committee seems valid even if there was no intention of bribery.

As a student, Howard has every right to endorse whomever she feels is best for SA president and vice president. But in this instance and in her position as chairwoman of the Pub Council, there is a clear problem with the use of her position to endorse a candidate based on the possibility of future funding. Her endorsement of a candidate because of an alleged promise of increased funds could be interpreted as accepting bribery. As chairwoman of the Pub Council, Howard represents all campus publications that receive funding from the SA. She does not, however, represent each publication’s individual opinion. The publications on campus have their own editorial boards, and each publication has the right to endorse whomever they want. Our choice of a candidate should be based on campaign platforms, not on future funding decisions. The process must be impartial in order to maintain the integrity of our publications and of the College.

This brings us to another point about maintaining objectivity: the tenuous relationship between the Pub Council and the SA is the root cause of this issue. The SA is ultimately in charge of the funding for the Pub Council, although each publication’s content is independent of SA control. The Flat Hat takes pride in the fact that the Pub Council is overseen by students and receives no direct funding from the administration. However, as this incident demonstrates, the politicking of the SA can be seriously detrimental to even those organizations most devoted to objectivity: student newspapers.

Over the past few years, the SA has become a polarized body. The culture of the SA seems volatile, with political agendas catalyzing conflicts. The SA should support all publications and leave political views aside in order to allow the College’s publications to remain objective. They should not have to bend to every whim of the SA to retain their funding, nor should the Pub Council’s funding depend on an individual’s politics.
We believe that Sadeghian did not intentionally violate election policy, but that he and Howard both acted inappropriately. We believe political motives within the SA affecting funding decisions should be kept in check in order to prevent occurrences like this from happening in the future.

__Editor’s Note: Flat Hat Chief Staff Writer Ellie Kaufman recused herself from this editorial in order to remain neutral in her reporting.__