Editorial: Close vote closes debate

Student Judicial Council votes 5-to-4 to rule resolution unconstitutional

IC Editorial Board

If you’ve been keeping up with Student Government news, you know that last week’s closed meeting was extremely controversial.

After the heated debate about the proposed resolution, the Student Judicial Council surprised us all last week by stopping the resolution before it hit the floor for voting.

The purpose of Student Government, at least according to their constitution, is to “represent the student body with authority derived from the students and recognized by the university.”

SG has set goals for itself, which include defending the student body and protecting them from discrimination. Any resolutions that violate these provisions can and will be ruled unconstitutional by the SJC, a power that must be used carefully.

A resolution sponsored last week by Students for Justice in Palestine called for UT “to divest from socially irresponsible companies that violate Palestinian human and legal rights.” The SJC ruled this resolution unconstitutional on the grounds that it does not protect against discrimination, according to Justice David Manor.

We are disappointed that Student Government did not ultimately vote on the resolution. Regardless of the decision, we think this was an opportunity for senators to rise to the occasion and represent the students, whether that meant voting for or against the resolution.

In a five-to-four vote, the council prevented this resolution from even making it to the floor. Clearly the opinions were split down the middle, and the opinion on deciding to rule the resolution unconstitutional seemed as divided as the senate itself.

Justification for this ruling came from the notion that if UT were to divest from companies that did business with Israel, then Jewish students on campus could experience an increase in discrimination.

Those on SJC who disagreed with this cited the constitution’s articles about accurately representing students and working towards a more perfect university as the reasoning to allow the senate to vote.

The authors of the resolution claimed the legislation was only about the moral and ethical ramifications of investing in companies that do business in Israel. Their goal was not discrimination against Jews on campus. The authors and supporters of the resolution advocated for peace, not for the creation of more tension and unkind feelings.

However, members of Hillel spoke about their fear of discrimination on campus, even if it was not explicitly stated by the resolution. SJC was divided on whether this argument was a valid one, but in the end, the majority decided the danger of discrimination was too great to ignore.

Let’s take a step back and look at the big picture. Here’s what we believe the problem is — if SJC had such a close vote, why not let senate vote on it? Since there are clearly strong opinions on both sides, letting the larger body of the senate vote might have brought more perspective to the issue than the nine members of SJC.

If the senate also found that passing the resolution would lead to discrimination, then they could have voted it down or proposed an amendment to the resolution that could have helped protect Jewish students from discrimination.

Generally, the idea is the more minds working together on a problem, the better. We will never know if the senate’s vote would have ultimately been a benefit or a detriment to the students. However, what we can do is look back on the issues this resolution raised and continue debating them as a university.

If we continue to promote peaceful dialogue and discussion, then regardless of the outcome, we have found a way to grow, both within our Student Government and in our UT community.

Print Friendly

Comments