A circular distributed in the College last Friday morning by the National Student League and the Student League for Industrial Democracy tried to prove that the eight students who had been disqualified the evening before had not been treated fairly by a special investigation committee of Student Council. Those who issued the leaflet protested against "the wholesale, eleventh hour disqualification of candidates for the class elections that took place at 11:30 I P.m,"

            Student Council in the past has not been so unmindful of students' rights that people in the College should take seriously the charges leveled against it by the outlaw organizations who, by their own admission, are non-campus organizations and as such have no right to try to influence opinion of a purely collegiate nature.

            The leaflet issued made some rather far-fetched statements which should he disproved.

            The actual facts of the matter are these: on March 7, at the first open meeting of Student Council, the members elected an elections committee of six people who were enjoined to reform the elections system so that representation in the Student Council would be adequate and fair. Though Council was in no way required to permit three non-Council members to serve on the committee, its appointment of three Council and three non - Council members proved that it was willing to overlook actual technicalities in its desire to be fair to the students.

            These six people met and drew up a program for reform, a program which made caucusing and electioneering illegal and not pe-miscible. Although the three non-Council members included in the committee, all of them belonging to the National Student League, were aware of this last clause in the suggestion passed by Student Council, they did not consider it worthwhile to keep their organization and the Student League for Industrial Democracy from drawing up a step of issues which would be submitted by their joint candidates.

            It is impossible to deny that a joint meeting of the National Student League and the Student League for Industrial Democracy called by a joint committee of these two organizations to formulate said program does not constitute illegal caucusing; that these two organizations distributed a circular which, advocating the platforms of these disqualified candidates, although no names were mentioned, constitutes electioneering. When called before a special investigating committee appointed by Student Council, two candidates admitted that the distribution of this circular by outside organizations constituted electioneering.

            The day has passed when an organizations spends money and time to aid or indorse a cause on altruistic principles alone. If both the National Student League and the Student League for Industrial Democracy drew up this circular without any intention of aiding the candidates, then what other plausible reason can they give for its distribution?

            If both the National Student League and the League for Industrial Democracy are outside groups, then this election should not interest them in any way, nor should they protest against the disqualification or in any way try to influence a purely collegiate affair.

            While protests are in order, we ought to signify our objection to the use of the term Brooklyn College Chapter in connection with both the National Student League and the Student League for Industrial Democracy. Neither group is officially recognized by college or student authorities.

            At its last meeting on Tuesday, Student Council signified its readiness to listen to any fair, legitimate, and unemotional complaints That its final action will be fair and aboveboard ought not to be questioned by anyone.

Return to Spotlight Page || Home Page

May 20, 2004