Nay, Nay, VPMA By Adam Rosen ....
T:
e Executive Board of the SA, which runs the daily operations of the organization, is composed of four people: the president, the executive vice-president, the academic vice-president, and the fmancial vicepresident. Together these four people are empowered to spend money, oversee our student government and its chartered organizations, and most importantly, to represent the entire undergraduate student population. Over the course of time,the position of vice president of university programming, or the activities coordinator, developed, as well as the post of vice president for multicultural affairs (VPMA). All of these officers-except the VPMA-are chosen through popular election, with each student casting one vote for the candidate of their choice. The VPMA is elected by a group of no more than twelve people and receives a stipend, as well as an operating budget comprised of money taken from student activity fees. The people voting for the VPMA are representatives from the African Student Organization, the Asian Student Union, the Black Student Union, the Caribbean Student Association, the Haitian Student Association, the Indian International Student Union, the Jewish Student Union, the 'Latin American Student Union, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Union, the Muslim Students Association, Students for a Barrier Free Campus and the Women's Center, which are organizations composed of students who are historically underrepresented people and are members of the Inter-Cultural Awareness Committee, or the ICA., The ICA is a committee created by Bylaws IV of the SA Constitution to enforce a code ofethics prohibiting any form of discrimination, to enforce the SA's affirmative action policy, and to assist a VPMA, even though there is no VPMA in the SA Constitution. To clarify the point, the
VPMA-whose office does not existis elected by the ICA-by custom -to serve as a de facto E-Board member, giving them more representation than all other students. For several years students who were underrepresented-as well as those who were not-have been working to get rid of the position, but their efforts have always hit a wall. Any effort to remove the VPMA from existence would acknowledge its existence, so failure would result in establishing it as a real position. The claims laid against the office are simply that as a de facto E-Board member representing the undergraduate student body and receiving a stipend and an operating budget from student activity fees, slhe should be chosen by popular vote and not by a small clique of students: This year the VPMA was elected by six people. With a student population close to 10,000, having only six people put an individual in office to enforce affirmative action policies and to give a voice to the thousands of students who are historically underrepresented people is clearly a case of discrimination. Realizing the tenuousness of her position, Yumeris Morel, the current VPMA, sought to put her office into the SA Constitution by popular referendum. To accomplish this she wrote a petition with the proposed constitutional changes and-as required-got ten percent of the undergraduate student body to sign it. The proposed changes would make the VPMA a constitutional member of the E-Board, representing only those students who are historically underrepresented people, and elected by the ICA representatives. When this was presented to the Student Assembly Rules Committee. they approved the petition and upon presenting their report they made no mention of the glaring contradictions between the proposed amendment and the constitution, and the total
disregard and violation of students ' rights. This was the final straw for many people in the struggle against the VPMA's office. After the Assembly meeting Austin Graff, the Assembly representative from Roosevelt Hall, filed a grievance with the SA Judicial Board against Morel's referendum, citing numerous constitutional contradictions and violations of students' rights. The grievance Graff filed listed five constitutional contradictions between' the referendum's proposed changes and the unaffected parts of the SA constitution. First, Article II, Section 2, ~a, which says 路'all members share equally in the rights of the Student Association and no rights shall be abridged" would be violated because ICA members would have special voting privileges over other students. Article II, Section 2, ~ b, saying 路'all members may participate in the elections of the Association, no rights shall be abridged" is contradicted by the proposed change to allow only ICA representatives to'vote for the executive position ofVPMA. Article II. Section 2, ~ f, reading "equality of rights shall not be denied or abridged by the Association on account of race, creed. religion, or sex" is violated because the ICA's membership is restricted to groups representing certain races. religions, semal orientations. creeds. and sexes. The final problem Graff listed in his grievance was t~t the Bylaws IV. Part I. Code of Ethics forbidding discrimination by the Student Association "against any individual or group on the basis of race, gender, religion. ethnicity. sexual or political orientation. disability. age, vetera'n status, national origin. or marital status" would be breached by creating an office of the VPMA because it would not be representing non-ICA students, like white. male. heterosexual Christians. The J-Board met to hear Graff's grievance on February 15. During the J-Board hearing both