The Observer, March 3, 2006
Volume XXXVIII, Issue 19
USG resolution requests delay of the faculty vote
Undergraduate Student Government passed a resolution referring to the School of Arts and Sciences' vote of no-confidence to have taken place yesterday. The resolution originally called for the vote to be stopped and specifically mentioned Professor Lawrence Krauss a number of times.
The approved version was much more toned down, asking for the postponement of the vote so that students could be given information about the situation and a dialogue between the faculty and students could occur.
The resolution, in its original form, listed five points that explained the request to cease the vote: "the stability of the office of President and Provost of the University are vital to the continued education and overall quality of life of the Undergraduate Student Body," "a vote of no-confidence taken against the President and Provost of the University during this transitional stage in the University has the potential to disrupt many new programs which remain at a critical point in development yet at present have a profound effect on the daily lives of the Undergraduate Student Body," "a vote of no-confidence if used unwisely sets a dangerous precedent for resolving differences between the administration and faculty and should therefore only be used in the most severe of circumstances," "the timing of Professor Krauss in seeking a vote of no-confidence is opportunistic in the light of the recent resignation of the President of Harvard University after similar threat had been made."
The recommendations of the bills were for both Krauss and the faculty of the Arts and Sciences school as a whole to cease the vote and to distribute the resolution to the administration, the Board of Trustees, and the Arts and Sciences faculty.
Discussion on the bill began largely in favor of it in that form.
In reference to the Board of Trustees coming out in support of Hundert and Anderson, Alex Hamberger said, "if it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us."
Stephen Lionetti felt that vote was too much just a move by Krauss.
"From talking to people it sounds like it is mostly a PR move for the people involved," Lionetti said.
Others disagreed. One member argued that the bill as originally written appeared to be attacking Krauss despite the note being a choice by the faculty as a whole. Director of Technology Brian Latko amended the bill, changing the wording to not name Krauss specifically.
Vice President of Academic Affairs Nick Bonazza started the conversation that led to the final version of the bill.
"I feel it is important for the students to show their support for the administration in time like these but there were mistakes made. There were reasons behind [the faculty] being upset," Bonazza said. "We are very lacking in information on the issues."
Vice President of Development Neil Ursic also brought up another point that affected the final outcome.
"Your vote represents your constituents, not your own thought. You are representing not just yourself but the students of arts and science or engineering."
USG President Brian Sauer then spoke, reminding the General Assembly that voting yes or no on the bill, as it was written at the time, would be taking a side. He said that if members felt that there is a lack of information, they should vote to postpone passage of the resolution until information could be dispersed.
Sauer ultimately introduced an amendment that changed much of the wording of the resolution. The final resolution requested a postponement of the vote until the student body could get more information on the subject. The goal of the amendment was to allow time for a dialogue between faculty and students and for the members of the USG to find out how the student body truly feels about the situation.
The resolution passed 25-4-2.
The general assembly also called an emergency meeting for Wednesday night in case the faculty did not postpone the vote, so that it could take a side if need be. That meeting was cancelled on Wednesday because there still was not enough information to make an informed decision and there was no accurate way to gauge the opinion of the student body as a whole.
