Your Turn Letters to the Editor

In the weeks heading into spring break, most students are overly stressed for midterms and projects, wanting only to survive the gauntlet and unwind into a week of relaxation. Some students take on another level of stress and run for the Student Government Association, most notably the executive branch (president, vice president, and executive director). This past season was no different than the others – the election was surrounded by controversy and chaos, but also added a new level of deception to the student body.

For the most part the elections process was very clean, avoiding any major issues that the homecoming elections had suffered. However, it wasn’t until the last day, when it became apparently clear to the student body that the unofficial winning ticket had violated many policies and procedures of the university and state. In a judicial grievance, I noted that the Lee-Maghsoudi-Johnson team knowingly committed many violations of the SGA elections bylaws, VCU policies and procedures and the Virgina code.

However, here is where the real issue lies, why with all the overwhelming evidence against this ticket, has the SGA dragged their feet and not disqualified the team of Lee-Maghsoudi-Johnson like the Homecoming Committee did with their respective candidates? Why haven’t they declared the winner of a team who didn’t violate any elections procedures, noting that neither Moehl-Norris-Motley, nor Titsworth-Learn-Joseph had any grievances against them. One should perhaps make the connection of their suspect activities, but the fact that their campaign blatantly disrespected and ignored the sanctions by the election committee, by giving out handbills to students going into the library. This ticket went one step further by denying, under oath of the honor code, that their campaign was asked to leave the library steps. In fact, their campaign was asked by a library security guard to leave the steps and they disobeyed his command by returning after his shift ended. After they were caught, they confessed to violating these rules.

So summing up, the general grievance is that Lee-Maghsoudi-Johnson disobeyed and disregarded elections/library policies, purged themselves of the honor code. However, due to the lack of diversity in the SGA, friends appear to be helping friends. In the Homecoming election, where no leadership was necessarily on the line, violators were disqualified for similar violations, but I suppose we must make special sanctions for our school politicians.

-William C. Moehl

I recently ran for SGA president and, in terms of the vote count, I came in last place, with William Moehl in second and Jessica Lee in first. But you know – that’s OK. My people and I put forward a good effort, and we ran a good clean campaign. That’s where things fall apart. Jessica Lee’s ticket had multiple grievances filed against them by William. In the judicial hearing they agreed to the facts for several of the charges. For example, they copied parking tickets and posted them on cars.

The SGA’s judicial branch subsequently found them guilty of the charges. However, instead of disqualification, or throwing out the election, they ruled that there had to be an apology. When they let me know the ruling they assured me that it would be a very public apology. But that’s not what I want to see. I don’t want to see them forced to make an apology; it doesn’t concern me how public it is – I just wanted to see the right thing done.

Maybe there’s a misunderstanding here somewhere. I am, after all, not a politician – I’m an engineer. If you behave unethically as an engineer, the bridge collapses, or the life support system fails, or the levies break. Apparently, when you behave unethically as a politician, you’re required to say, “I’m sorry.”I will neither attend or read an apology on this issue, because it in and of itself is just a slap on the wrist for those found guilty, and a slap in the face to the rest of us who ran clean ethical campaigns.

I firmly believe that the ends do not justify the means.

Based on my own moral and ethical objections concerning this situation, I have resigned my position in the student government. I will not work for half the going rate of a web developer in an organization that will not hold its members to ethical standards.

If you would like more information, feel free to add me as a friend on Facebook, or contact me via my SGA Watch blog at http://blog.themachinery.net

-Clinton Titsworth

I assume that Darwinism is referring to evolution, but Darwinism is a very vague term that can mean any number of things. It is used by some to speak of evolution in a derogatory fashion while some in the scientific community use it to differentiate between older evolutionary theories like, natural selection, and newer theories, such as genetic drift. Said Darwin, “Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common.”

Darwin saw this with some finches in the Galapagos, and many others since then have shown this via experimentation. Death you say? Evolution falls into the realm of science, and science does not “prove” things to be true. Science is based off of empirical knowledge derived through experimentation, and it tends to work by disproving things (that pesky null hypothesis). There is more “proof” in a bottle of liquor than there is in science. Real scientists have this nifty thing called the scientific method, and as Martha Stewart would say, “It’s a good thing” (Hey, look! I can misrepresent quotes, too!). Richard Dawkins said creationism is a “preposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood.” Are you really sure you wish to be quoting him?

Giving the appearance of design does not mean that something was necessarily designed. Science, not just evolution, is based on looking at the natural world rather than the supernatural. Science is designed to be somewhat closed-minded as it helps keep us from thinking things like the Earth is the center of the universe or that the world is flat. If you would like to come up with a way to experimentally suggest that there is a supernatural being that created everything then by all means, please step up and collect your Nobel Prize. Science is not there to prove or disprove the theory of intelligent design, creationism, or the existence of any deity. That discussion is better suited for a theology class. If everybody believes that life is designed, then why write the article? We obviously all understand you. scientists don’t need to discuss other views when there is no scientific evidence to back them up, nor do we wish to involve ourselves in tautologies. The burden of proof is not on scientists. We don’t want it, and you may have it back now.

-Robert Adams

Tall bikes are weird but evil incarnate? Perhaps Bush or Exxon would be considered an evil incarnate. Since when did we discourage the use of pedal power instead of air pollution machines? What if everyone started only riding tall bikes? Would you, the mystery writer of “In Brief,” begin a campaign to encourage larger SUVs to offset the height of bikes? I will only guess and assume that you probably do own some sort of overtly large falice [sic] compensation vehicle.

Looking ridiculous? Apparently we should also boycott mall Goths and frat jerks. And again I would suggest you fall into the latter. So in limiting our freedom of expression we will create a society of a perfect and infallible race. Sounds pretty exciting. However, I am Jewish and it did not seem to work before.

I feel that answering the last poor researched and discriminating statement would waste more of my time but for the sake of decent human beings that like to entertain us I shall continue. The city wasting resources and applying them efficiently has nothing to do with ambulances. Is it not the city’s obligation to attend to our needs? Does the city rule us or do we rule the city?

I would conclude that the people who ride tall bikes probably do not even give a s*** about you or your opinion. And to say we should shun the encouragement of riding bikes instead of cars is completely ridiculous. The more bike power means less cars and pollution on the road, which in turn saves the city money for roadwork and cleaning.

The real evil incarnate is the unicycle. Who does he think he is that one-wheeled demon menace? Lets start a massive riot in Oregon Hill.

-Aaron L. Linas