MSA should not ignore parliamentary procedures

To the Daily:

I still don't understand why everyone is so scared of a group that calls itself "By Any Means Necessary." Last Tuesday's MSA meeting exemplifies several facets of this concept.

As I understand it, certain conservative elements of MSA ignored established rules of parliamentary procedure in order to carry out their agenda. Dave Burden proposed to reconsider the resolution to support yesterday's National Day of Action. If the resolution were to be reconsidered, the motion should have been made the day of the vote on the resolution, before it had been acted upon, and by one of its original proponents (not Burden). MSA President Trent Thompson overrode objections to these obvious violations by fiat.

The motion barely passed by simple majority, only to have these same conservative elements decide retroactively that the motion had actually been to rescind the resolution of support. This should have required a two-thirds vote, which the motion did not have. The result is a decision that nobody is taking seriously.

The conservatives' actions and the success of the motion may have been a reaction to DAAP's recent success with certain resolutions. The will of the student body was co-opted, as if Burden and Thompson and others had temporarily formed the Coalition to Shaft the Defend Affirmative Action Party Representatives By Any Means Necessary.

BAMN is up against these conservative elements like Ward Connerly, David Jaye and even Burden, who already pursue their agendas by any means necessary. Why are we debating the aesthetic pleasantness of someone's methods while our lives are being affected in ways we don't want? The conservative radical fringe is as militant as the liberal, and both are necessary in order to show those of us in the mainstream what it means to act on our convictions.

Geoffrey Ream

LSA senior

Public officials should be held to ethical standards

To the Daily:

I want to applaud the editorial of Feb. 23 calling for an ethics code for government officials ("An ethical plan"). I wholeheartedly agree that an ethics code that requires officials to be responsible and ethical in carrying out the nation's business is of the utmost importance. I was most encouraged by this statement: "If elected officials lack integrity, the representative democracy is compromised, and public interests are not upheld."

Not to harp on a seemingly dead issue, but there would appear to be a conflict between this statement and several editorials in the recent past regarding events in Washington. During the most recent presidential scandal - where it was revealed that the president lied at least to the nation, if not to a federal grand jury - the Daily continuously praised the president for fighting off those who would hold him accountable for his lack of integrity and character.

While the impeachment trial is over, the issue of ethics and integrity in government pervades. I hope that this editorial is an instance where the Daily has maintained its integrity, instead of giving in to the partisan politics of hypocrisy. Ethics and integrity are universal principles, and if we do not require them of our government officials - or our media - how can we possibly require them among ourselves?

Unethical officials may compromise our representative democracy, but in the end, our inability to place standards of truth and integrity on our government officials will not only sacrifice our representative democracy, it will compromise our ideals and our freedom.

Matthew Fogarty

LSA sophomore

02-25-99