Charges Against HRC Unjustified

While we've always known that the The Crimson is not a friend of Republicanism, we were still surprised at the level to which the The Crimson "news" staff will sink. Reporter Michael Luo's article "Republican Groups Trade Insults, Allegations" (news story, May 8, 1995) was nothing more than a forum in which members of the Republican' splinter group could air specious grievances against the Harvard Republican Club (HRC). And, thanks to the selective reporting of Luo, the charges could be made without the fear of a serious response by the HRC.

Lest anyone think that something more than Luo's shoddy journalism allowed many of the accusations to go unchallenged, I would like to answer some of the charges leveled at the HRC by "friends."

Amanda Williams accuses us of having padded the membership with our friends just to win the election. Her evidence? Some of our members have not attended a meeting since the election. While I would ask Williams to find me any large organization on campus which attracts every member to every general meeting, I would also question her criterion for making this accusation. If we use meeting attendance to decide who is "padding," then Williams herself, as well as eight other members of their 14-person executive board, could be included in this category--they have not attended an HRC meeting since elections.

And as for the charges of election fraud in general, we have only to refer Williams to a document with which she should be more familiar: the HRC constitution. In Article VIII, Section 7a, the constitution states that "if any member...shall contest the results of the election upon reasonable grounds, he must present his grievance in writing to the chair of the election committee within 24 hours."

As Williams made no attempt to contest the elections after her defeat in February, we must assume that her charges have no merit. But not only did Williams refuse to seek an official investigation after the election, she has also waited three months before coming forward with her charges. Why such charges could be considered newsworthy in light of such information is a question that only. The Crimson can answer.

Scott Tribble alleges that the HRC has only had two meetings this year and that we have recruited "virtually no speakers." Perhaps Tribble only attended two meetings this year, but the club has held general meetings on the average of every two weeks this semester. In addition, we have sponsored numerous events: we hosted speakers such as Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Masnfield, Jr. '53 and Institute of Politics fellow John Schall; we debated the College Democrats on ROTC; we traveled to New York City to see Rush Limbaugh. Our records show that Tribble received e-mail notification for all of these events.

Tribble goes on to charge that the HRC has pressured members to choose between clubs. I am unsure what may have given Tribble this impression. I would suggest that any opposition which Tribble may have received from HRC members may be for reasons other than ideological differences. And as for the charges that the atmosphere at our Mansfield dinner was not welcoming enough, I cannot understand how Tribble came to this conclusion--he wasn't there. Does Tribble have any idea what he is talking about? Is someone telling him what to say? Unlike The Crimson, we won't engage in idle speculation.

William Zerhouni, upset at his removal from the executive board due to his own negligence, charges that he was removed from the board due to political differences with Brian Malone and Brad Campbell. In fact, Zerhouni was removed for excessive absences. As per our constitution, any executive board member who tallies four unexcused absences from club functions is immediately removed from the board. Zerhouni's absences are well-documented. Zerhouni's notifications of the meetings are well-documented. We do not need Mr. Zerhouni's roommates to tell us about his conduct on the board--Zerhouni's negligence was painfully obvious to our officers.

Unfortunately, responding to every one of the false accusations against us would take more space than I have in this letter. It is a shame that the The Crimson has chosen to prostitute itself to opportunists seeking an outlet for their frustrations. If some students on campus and at The Crimson fear a vital and active HRC, I have one response: too bad. Jay Dickerson '98   President, Harvard Republican Club