Well, that was certainly the most entertaining Student Government election I’ve ever witnessed. Before getting to my main point, I first want to take a second to thank the candidates for running. I am sure that the last couple days have been very stressful for all involved, but this election was definitely an alembic that generated the highest ever level of interest in Student Government.
Now that I’ve said all the nice stuff, on to the melodramatic insanity of the four day campaign. I came into class in Austin North on Monday to find a flyer suggesting that former Presidential Candidate Daniel Vargas, S.J.D. Candidate, had poor attendance at Student Government meetings. Not to be outdone, Vargas himself handed me a flyer on my way back from class claiming that his opponent, Rachna Shah, Law ’13, had voted for discriminatory policies.
Claiming that an HLS student voted against diversity is like claiming that a third grader voted against Santa Claus. Having been at HLS for three years, I can say with reasonable certainty that no one here is hot for segregation. Without giving any sort of context regarding what the precise issue at hand was, it’s flat-out bizarre to say someone is against diversity.
As for the attendance canard, that attack called to mind the partisan complaints about how often President Barack Obama goes golfing. Do we really think someone who went through the trouble of campaigning won’t show up for the job? Are we to believe that a President Vargas would skip Student Government meetings once he’s seated upon the HLS throne?
I don’t think negative campaigning is always a bad thing. Sometimes an electoral opponent has actually done something wrong that should inform our judgment of his wisdom or character. But the attacks in this Student Government election played to some of the public’s worst stereotypes of HLS students as dissembling mercenaries who lack any sense of decency or common sense. Just ask Above the Law.
To be sure, the election is a victory for President-elect and 3L Matt Gelfand’s reform agenda, and I wish him the best of luck in constitutionally mandating transparency for Student Government (and, er, in choosing who the actual President will be next year). However, I suspect that a good chunk of the student electorate was simply repelled by the spectacle of the two other candidates pettifogging over personal attacks and rebuttals.
John Thorlin is a 3L. His column runs Thursdays.
The views in opinion editorials, columns, and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of The Harvard Law Record. The comments posted on this Website are solely the opinions of the posters.
Point taken that things should be put in context.
The negative campaign started with Rachna Shah’s flyer that Daniel Vargas had not attended the meetings. Then there was fight-back that in these meetings the incumbent RS voted against disclosure of budget. RS later sent out a long email to all LL.M students with denial and attack.
These was also an HL central issue, about which RS claimed that the executives of HL central received 6 digit payment. HL Central’s board was furious about it.
John –
Let’s get real about some logic here. Vargas characterized Shah’s policy – which presumptively banned the creation of new student orgs “based on national, state or regional identity or degree status” – as anti-diversity. It is plain on the face of it that this policy discriminates against members of the student body on the basis of national, state, regional identity or degree program. This is hardly the same thing as claiming that she is “hot for segregation”. I mean, REALLY. Sure, it’s hard to give “context” on a flyer, and it would have been nice to simply have quoted the by-law in question. If you wanted context on the issue, you should have checked out the Vargas’ campaign statement, or simply asked him about it. “Context” was not hard to come by in this situation…
Just to give you an update, in direct response to Vargas’ campaign, DOS removed its policy that mirrored SG’s. Whereas the website used to say that “In general, groups formed on the basis of a state or regional affiliation will not be granted student organization status”, as of today, it reads: “No organization will be denied official recognition based on political affiliations or point of view. To be considered for official recognition an organization must be open to all HLS students.” http://hlsorgs.com/create-a-new-org/
The Taiwanese students who are not allowed to have a student group thanks to Rachna Shah, when other nationalities are, might object to the assumption that nobody at Harvard could possibly be anti-diversity. How can you even say that after the racist caveman blog, the n-word outline incident, the genetic stupidity emails, and a dozen other scandals?
I think you guys are wrong; DOS seems to have the same policy they had before: http://hlsorgs.com/create-a-new-org/
“In general, groups formed on the basis of a state or regional affiliation will not be granted student organization status. If you are interested in forming a state or regional group, please send an e-mail to the Dean of Students Office (dos@law), we may be able to assist with an event that celebrates a state or regional area that is not currently covered by our existing organizations.”
An update: Does seems to change the policy and the above mention language denying new student organizations “formed on the basis of state or regional affiliation” no longer exists.
http://hlsorgs.com/create-a-new-org/