Archives
April 2022
Categories
All
|
Back to Blog
THE FREE PRESS EDITORIAL STAFF
On Tuesday, the Student Assembly (SA) of the Undergraduate Government of Boston College (UGBC) drafted articles of impeachment against UGBC President Christian Guma, CSOM 2021. The article charges that Guma released a statement to the UGBC Instagram account without official approval from the SA, in violation of the UGBC Constitution. The impeachment, however, is on account of a farce. Guma, a UGBC outsider who triumphed in a hotly contested election last year, has drawn the ire of his colleagues for daring to be a more effective leader than they had been in years past. His administration has been highly effective and genuinely useful to the student body, and so the SA is resentful and is trying to get rid of him. Guma’s statement was released in the wake of vandalism that took place on the Multicultural Learning Experience (MLE) floor in Xavier Hall. The MLE floor was subject to vandalism, as a couple students punched in ceiling tiles, knocked over trash cans, and caused a commotion in the middle of the night. The incident has been met with the contempt of the student body. In Guma’s statement he noted that UGBC had offered support to the students directly affected, met with senior administrators, and stressed that there “must be accountability” for those who perpetrated the “intolerable, unacceptable” actions. Since then, the University has apprehended the students, and disciplined them for multiple violations of University policies, according to an email sent out by Executive Vice President Michael Lochhead. Despite Guma’s strong words, his statement was subject to intense criticism from his peers in UGBC for failing to explicitly say that the incident was a “hate crime,” which brings us to the point about impeachment. It is not evident why impeachment is a sound option of dealing with the situation. According to AHANA+ Leadership Council member Mitzy Monterroso-Bautista, MCAS 2022, the SA could deal with Christian’s statement in a number of ways, including impeachment, censure, or refraining from any disciplinary action. If that’s the case, why are they taking the nuclear option of impeachment? Christian admitted he made a typo in not making clear that the statement was from himself. He quickly fixed it. It was a mix up—anyone with a brain can understand that. So why are they going after Christian on impeachment charges for making a typo? Would a censure not be enough to achieve justice and make clear that UGBC does not endorse the since-deleted statement? The real motivations for this political hitjob are much more cynical and vicious. They are really impeaching him because, in his statement, he did not refer to the MLE incident as a “hate crime.” Members of the SA believe it was a hate crime, and are furious that he did not call it that. If that’s really the case, why not impeach him for that? Why hide behind some farcical charge that he maliciously violated the UGBC constitution? It’s a simple answer: the logic of impeachment for failing to call an incident a hate crime is too flimsy. It is not clear what the motivations of the perpetrators were, which is crucial to determining if it was a hate crime. Moreover, not saying that it was a hate crime is not the same thing as saying it was not a hate crime (for logicians, ~Sh is not the same as S~h). He was waiting for the disciplinary process to play out before making such an accusation. A hate crime is a heinous act, and people who perpetrate them are contemptible, but we cheapen the meaning of the term if we attribute it to every single case without proper evidence. Furthermore, the presumption of innocence is baked into the core of our moral sensibility, so why is the SA impeaching Christian for following a principle that protects the rights of the student body? It’s because they do not care about the truth of what happened. They want to virtue signal to their constituents and score political points with their friends, and railroad Christian’s administration in the process. Let’s also not forget the radical racialist orientation of some members of the SA. Monterroso-Bautista, for example, expressed her displeasure with Christian’s statement because it came from a “white man.” Evidently, it is a crime to condemn vandalism if you’re a white man. This is the purest form of racist identity politics, openly championed by members who claim to represent the undergraduates of Boston College. They put us all to shame with their racist personal attacks against a man trying to help while also suspending judgment until all the facts are in. Like hate crimes, such personal attacks are also contemptible and vile. The SA is also jealous of how successful and effective Christian has been this year. In a statement posted to his personal instagram account, Christian listed his accomplishments this year. Christian’s track record boasts achievements that show he has worked in a bipartisan fashion, staying true to his goal of making BC home to all of its students. This year, his administration has:
Christian Guma is the best UGBC President in school history. Highly effective and a principled reformer, he showcases the potential that UGBC could have as a useful organization. His impeachment is a sham, motivated by resentment, racial animus, jealousy, and contempt. It represents the worst of our student body: unbridled ambition in a student government. How pathetic. |