Vote Yes on the Student Judiciary

 

Andy Boden

 

 Undergraduate/Political Science

 

In an era when student apathy is at an all time high, and when Student Senate transparency could be higher, I feel it is my duty to raise awareness on one of the new issues on campus. Student Senate recently passed a bill which will agree to establish a new student court pending a referendum. The voting on this referendum is set to take place online on Tuesday, December 1 and Wednesday, December 2. I urge everyone to take the time on those upcoming days to go online and vote in favor of this proposed student judiciary.

 

The proposed student court can bring forth good things. It will be an independent body of the Senate and will have the power of judicial review. This means the court will be allowed to overturn decisions made by Student Senate. The inclusion of judicial review was one of the toughest decisions Senate had to make when formulating this bill since it involved giving the power to a new governmental body to be more powerful than the Senate itself in certain instances. Although some democracies in this world have existed without judicial review (the United States not being one of them), I have to give Senate credit for including this provision. Being the strong believer in judicial review that I am, I must express that a judiciary without judicial review is just like healthcare reform without a public option.

 

The only instant I can imagine where judicial review would not be needed is if the other governmental bodies would never make bad decisions. We all know that Congress can make bad decisions, and we all know that the president can make bad decisions, so it’s naïve to think that a governmental body as small and as close to its constituents as Student Senate cannot make bad decisions. Last year, a certain Organized Activity nearly faced a severe budget cut just because the Finance Commission didn’t agree with this group’s mission. Not only is this kind of rationale for defunding an Organized Activity grossly unethical, it is also prohibited. Luckily for this group, Student Senate voted to amend the budget to give it a substantial amount of money, but this amendment passed by only a single vote. Had that one vote abstained or gone the other way, this group would have unjustly lost out on a lot of money important to its operation. The good thing about having an independent student judiciary is that this group could have appealed Senate’s decision and the judiciary could overturn it.

 

Another good thing about the proposed student court is that it will also have the power to conduct an annual review of the Student Senate election and settle any disputes that may arise from it. Once again, this is a very necessary power that addresses the very real possibility of something bad happening on campus. After the Student Senate election of 2008, many questions arose relating to the legitimacy of the outcome. However, the election committee decided to let the results stand and not conduct a second election. The proposed student court provides an added safeguard to make sure that infractions such as these will not go uncorrected.

 

However, in order for all these potentially great things to come about with this court, it is imperative that competent individuals be appointed to the court. The appointments committee will consist of one student senator, one student senate exec board member, one housing representative, and two students at large. To whoever those five individuals may be, I urge you all to really consider who is fit to serve on this court. The persons appointed should be ones who can think critically, and not let their own personal morals, egos, biases, or ideologies deliberately cloud their decisions. Those persons should also be trustworthy and handle their positions with dignity.

 

As for the students, this is a great opportunity for us to allow the implementation of something that’s not only new and exciting (at least in my mind it is, but bear with me, I’m pre-law), but something that can also be beneficial. As for the checks and balances argument, for those of you who would object to the implementation of judicial review, I suggest that you read Federalist 78, or find out about the other checks on the proposed student court included in the bill. Once again, remember to vote yes on December 1 and 2.



The Flip Side is a publication dedicated to providing an alternative media outlet and forum on the UW-Eau Claire campus by welcoming the writings, views, and involvement of all students and community members. By reporting on news, perspectives, and opinions on all issues, we seek to develop and maintain our freedom of speech.

All published material remains the property of the individual contributors. Opinions of the writers and contributors are their own. Articles found within, in no way reflect the opinion of The Flipside Press as a whole. The Flipside Press rserves the right to reject any advertising, articles, letters, images, or other material submitted for publication.