Questionable Ethics?

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The lack of ethics among some members of the Freshmen Council warrants a re-examination of the Council's procedures and a reassessment of the Council's purpose. During the recent CRR referendum, not only did certain members act in a less than scrupulous manner, but they also tried to manipulate the opinions of the Freshmen class. Their behavior deviates from political maneuvering to a sheer lack of ethics, for it reverses the role between the Council and the constituency. Freshmen are no longer represented; they are led or misled by activists within the Council.

Prior to Thursday's vote, the Freshmen Council directed little effort to informing the Class of '80 about CRR. A responsible council would have allowed the two opposing sides, those for boycotting and those against boycotting, to disseminate information, draw up coherent political statements, and make these statements readily available to the Freshmen class. Although this suggestion was proposed by some of the more conscientious members, it failed to pass.

As a result of this inaction, the Council introduced the "I don't know" response (referring to whether or not to boycott CRR), in order to accommodate the lack of viable information. Initially, this clause seems reasonable, for it allows voters not interested in the issues to allow for a more rational vote. And about 20 per cent of the voters exercised this option.

A more thorough analysis, however, suggests that this alternative was designed only for manipulation of the Freshmen. At first, a faction within the Council proposed that the "I don't know" response be regarded as a negative vote. The deviousness of the scheme is obvious: those without an opinion would in effect be casting a negative vote. Fortunately, the more conscientious members of the Council defeated this proposal.

But certain members of the Council opted to leave nothing to chance. The long-awaited information about CRR was plastered across the walls next to the voting bench; activists remained in the voting areas for considerable amounts of time. Although officially there are no laws governing this behavior, the ethical question remains.

Now that the tally is complete, certain activists refuse to abide by the results of the CRR vote, even though the referendum is binding. Primarily, the results have been labeled as "inconclusive." Members of the Freshmen Council now labeling the results as such are also responsible for the "I don't know" controversies and the general lack of information prior to the voting. If the results are indeed "inconclusive", the same members of the Council are responsible. Though the majority is not substantial, due to the lack of information perhaps, the majority still exists, and the Council should abide by the decision.

Presently, there is a suggestion to postpone the CRR selection process until after further discussion. If this proposal passes, the selection process can be delayed indefinitely.

The problem remains. Is the Class of '80 represented by the Freshmen Council? Or is the Class of '80 dominated by distinct groups within the Council? Norbert Vonnegut '80