Your editorial (“Weed-whacking,” Dec. 7) makes plain what I have suspected: that the editors of our campus newspapers may be eager to maintain the ineffectual GUSA system to amplify their own (unsigned) editorial voice.
But I will give you the benefit of a doubt you did not give me. Rather than impugn your motives, as the lead drafter of the Yard constitution, only the first page of which you apparently read, I will assume you were just being off-the-rack cynical or attempting to be clever. You were, however, inordinately unfair and personally abusive, focusing entirely on the motives and character of people you do not know and did not have the decency to contact before you launched your vitriol.
Rather than being “illusory,” “mysterious” or “hidden” about my identity, unlike the manly author of your “ego-pumping” editorial, my name appears plainly on the cover letter of the website you visited. As that website recorded, Yard supporters quite visibly staffed tables in Red Square during a week in November. And you could have emailed us.
While I realize you were no less kind to GUSA, according to your speculation, I am an “underhanded,” “power-grubbing,” “juvenile,” “self-righteous” resume-builder with “GUSA-envy” and probably a failed GUSA candidacy. Oh my. I guess I should be ashamed of myself. But the truth is that no one involved with the drafting of the posted constitution fits your cynical profile. Nor do I or anyone who offered comment stand to gain a seat in the reconstituted Yard. I have never run for GUSA anything and have never even thought to, but I am involved in several communities at Georgetown which are unserved and unrepresented by GUSA and SAC.
Those who support the Yard believe sincerely that it is a good idea not only in principle but because it worked well as a Georgetown tradition for 94 years. Its principles of constituent democracy are proven. The new Yard proposes to improve on this by empowering students with direct allocation of resources and other rights and by uniting student constituencies into one unifying and responsive institution, while removing administration handlers. I see it as a way to revolutionize and improve Georgetown’s student culture. And I love Georgetown, as I am sure you do.
Your churlishness aside, rather than arrogate to ourselves the writing of a constitution, we posted a third draft on the web for three months to invite wide comment and input. Over 500 people have visited the site; and we have received constructive input on the constitution from all corners, including newspaper editors, GUSA Assembly representatives, SAC commissioners and even students abroad. Of those participating in our poll, over 75 percent of respondents rejected GUSA. We would welcome your constructive comments also and, if responsible, your support to replace GUSA with the more inclusive Yard Student Association. You clearly hold GUSA in contempt as everyone else does, and you clearly think GUSA is a “puppet of the administration,” so what is there to lose?