Kerckhoff politicking muddies free speech

Published: Thursday, May 11, 1995

Name-calling, finger-pointing and mud-slinging the annual undergraduate student government elections have degenerated into the usual bilge of Judicial Board cases and political maneuvering.

This time, an advertisement in the Daily Bruin sparked the ruckus. The Bruin Democrats' full-page ad supporting the Students First slate was the focal point of a Judicial Board ruling claiming the group was "illegitimate" that it did not follow the Elections Board's endorsement process, and so according to the board, it had no right to voice its support.

Of course, the Elections Code does not explicitly state that groups or candidates cannot place ads in The Bruin you can imagine The Bruin's advertising department would be a little upset if that bylaw existed. No, this was a matter of interpretation. At least it seems so. The board will only say that it will issue an opinion in 14 days.

But its ruling, however, was pretty clear: Because of the "illegitimate" endorsing ad, two elections of Students First candidates were nullified.

The reaction was immediate outrage. The Students First slate, Bruin Democrats and assorted students cried foul, cited the First Amendment and then went to work obtaining a restraining order for this week's elections.

In the midst of the controversy, Kerckhoff Hall reverberated with angry voices, tense discussions and whispered conspiring.

Something in the air must have moved the board. In an abrupt turnabout, on Monday night it recalled the decision to nullify the elections. The ruling still stood, of course, but now it was up to the Elections Board to decide sanctions.

Could it be that the Judicial Board suddenly realized it had ventured into a free speech mine field?

Even though no explicit bylaw prevents ads from being placed in The Bruin, the Elections Code clearly contains enough loopholes and vague language to ensure constant First Amendment violations.

And if the bylaws are not changed, many problematic interpretations of the code could and will arise. One possibility is that candidates could get in trouble if "illegitimate" groups take out advertising this could create a chilling effect on those wanting to advertise and a potential revenue loss for The Bruin.

Another possibility is that candidates attending the "illegitimate" Daily Bruin endorsement hearing will be sanctioned, preventing The Bruin from fulfilling a vital editorial function.

And, of course, there is the argument that the entire premise of the endorsement code, which sets parameters for the format and legitimacy of endorsing, directly violates the First Amendment by preventing people from voicing their opinions.

With these potential minefields buried within the election process, it is a mystery why no astute council member ever bothered to point them out.

Didn't anyone see this mess coming?

Actually, some did.

While many candidates and politicians were shocked by the Judicial Board's decision to nullify elections, when the news reached The Bruin offices, the sentiment among many was only a mildly suppressed "I told you so."

The vagueness of the Elections Code grew more salient last fall as the council was amending the election bylaws, and the Daily Bruin editor in chief and members of the Communications Board immediately recognized the problem.

The council's governing documents also could be interpreted to govern The Bruin's operations, business and editorial functions. In a nation of strict delineation between the government and the press, these bylaws are fundamentally flawed.

But when The Bruin and the Communications Board approached the student council to voice these concerns, their reception was frosty at best.

Repeated meetings with Undergraduate President Rob Greenhalgh did not lead to any changes in the code, either. Warnings that flaws in the code would lead to Judicial Board cases were disregarded, and urges to change the bylaws were postponed until after elections, when things got "less political."

Finally, a complete lack of action by the council forced The Bruin to take matters into its own hands. In consultation with its attorney, The Bruin published a policy statement asserting its independence from the student government and clarifying the problems in the bylaws.

But even the publication of The Bruin's policy statement, directly in opposition to the student government Elections Code, did not incite movement from the council.

It seems strange that Greenhalgh and the council did not have the foresight to recognize this problem. But then again, maybe they clearly identified the loopholes in the code, saw its potential to be manipulated for political gain and then put it away for a convenient rainy day.

That day was last Friday, when Greenhalgh's Judicial Board appointees potentially halted the election of candidates from the opposing slate.

The fact that student leaders did not anticipate the problems arising from the Elections Code points to their lack of vision. But maintaining vague language in order to reap political benefits is a whole different ball game, one which drags the fundamental documents of student government through the Kerckhoff mudslinging tradition.

The usual politicking in Kerckhoff Hall is bad enough, but it's even more despicable when student politicians use the council's governing documents as political tools, in blatant violation of free speech for political gain. It points to our student government leader's lack of integrity and, more disturbingly, to the lack of understanding of free speech and the relationship between student government and student media.