To the Editor:
I read the statement in the Commonwealth Times regarding musings on Vice President Edward O’Leary’s comments, which dealt with the style of our recently drafted Constitution.* With all due respect, I must disagree with these comments on O’Leary’s description.
First, the new constitution is a very significant improvement on the old constitution, in that this particular one provides more efficiency within the Student Government Association, a problem that we had intended to fix.
O’Leary was speaking in general terms when comparing the VCU Constitution to the Constitution of the United States. My reasoning for this holding is simply based on the fact that there are three branches of the Student Government Association: a senate that legislates, a president that executes and a judicial that interprets.
The committees of the SGA might be described as our bureaucracies (the bureaucracy is sometimes referred to as the fourth branch of the United States government). It must be kept in mind, however, that the nation’s needs are different than those of the Student Government Association of VCU. For example, we do not need a military and do not form international treaties or alliances. So, in fact, the provisions made by our Constitution for three branches resemble the United States Constitution, whereas you said that it did not at all.
The broad picture painted by our Constitution does resemble the United States Constitution. The three branches are an integral part of both- as is the provision of the Vice President presiding over the Senate, in addition to the veto power. Those who question the Vice President presiding over the Senate should attend a Senate meeting and see first hand how the Senate runs more efficiently than it used to.
Vice President O’Leary is a man of integrity, which is demonstrated in his character, not to mention in his role of presiding over the Senate. He cognized these provisions included in our Constitution as being similar to that of the United States, and I believe he is right in saying so.
Cordially,
Robert J. Smith III
Deputy Chief of Staff
Monroe Park Campus SGA
*Editor’s note: The comments in question were quoted in a Feb. 7 news article dealing with criticism of the new SGA constitution. They were the opinion of VCU graduate law professor Robert Dybing, who disagreed with O’Leary’s assertion that the new constitution was modeled after that of the U.S. We believe the contrast made was necessary to provide the balance any news article demands.
To the Editor:
This letter is in response to Mike Dickinson’s Feb. 7 article on campus intellectual freedom. Teachers, much like parents, have a powerful influence on developing minds. It is important that we do in fact hear various opinions, but the question remains whether the professors are actually indoctrinating students by providing only one point of view.
When a professor feels strongly about an issue- and voices it- are those who feel differently able to voice their opinions without the fear of being unfairly graded? Perhaps the students who are trying to establish their positions on various issues are only hearing one side. If the teacher plays devil’s advocate and always attempts to show various views rather than their own it provides for the open and free environment of the exchange of ideas which academia is meant to be.
In our academic careers, we should question all opinions – even those with which we agree, as that is the way to enrich our own arguments and views.
Sincerely,
Demetrios J. Melis