Today, I am disappointed in my alma mater.
Though I didn’t care much about student elections when I attended BYU, I think what occurred in your BYUSA elections is a travesty.
Jason Smith, the most-likely winner of the BYUSA presidency, is a friend whom I have known since his high school days, and in whom I have always seen great potential for honest leadership, even on a national scale, where we sorely need such leaders.
I’ve spent the last 25 years in the Washington D.C. area as a nationally-syndicated columnist and journalist reporting on too many national and international leaders who have fallen short of the mark. So I pushed Jason hard to contest the administration’s fiat declaring the probable non-winners as the winners. In my view, Jason should not have abandoned the fight before, at the very least, the administration abandoned its entirely indefensible policy of keeping the vote tally secret from the student body.
We know a late-hour (pun intended) informant reported that Smith’s running mate, J. Griggs, had violated the honor code by committing curfew infractions vis a vis opposite-gender residences. Griggs admitted it; he withdrew. Because they ran as a team, Smith must be disqualified, the administration decided. The qualifications application seems to infer that might be the case.
The problem is that if this is the policy, it must be administered across the board. I have little doubt that others among the ten candidates have committed similar infractions which have not been reported by informants or self-reported.
So, before declaring Larson and Sant winners by default, why weren’t they asked if they had ever similarly broken the curfew part of the code (or any other part) in the last three years?
And if they were asked, and admission made by either, why weren’t they summarily disqualified as a team in the interests of fairness? Following the administration’s own declaration of policy and principle, which they say is fair, there is little allowance for degree of seriousness of honor code violation to disqualify someone.
My recommendation: Make it clear to applicants that there will be a faculty member who will point-blank ask them if they have ever committed an honor code violation, and if so, what and when? I trust that that official will use good judgment and evaluate the particulars of any “yes” answer. For more minor infractions, they would be cleared to move on in the elections. The Honor Code office would deal with other issues, and the candidacy would not be qualified.
At least the candidates would have a one-on-one understanding that they cannot violate the honor code in ANY WAY while running for office or, if elected, while in office. Disqualification would occur for the team. The university’s position would be better maintained: the need for students who are exemplary Honor Code-abiding leaders.
If the administration continues to keep the tally secret, shame on them. As a student, I would not vote again — and would laugh if another administration official told me after-the-fact that I should vote because it mattered, daring to have a full expectation that there would be a public reporting of the results. The administration should realize their swift and autocratic response to behind-the-scenes events regarding the recent election was imperfect, and move to correct it, possibly with a new election and better-enunciated guidelines and practices.
Dale Van Atta
Ashburn, Va.
Class of ’73
