OUR VIEWS Consensus Opinion

SGA results

Congratulations to Alison Graab on her newly-acquired presidency and Paul Byrne on becoming executive vice president of the house (It is also safe to congratulate Mitch Keller and Ryan Bechtel, who are running unopposed for the same positions in GSS.)

This past year we had strong leadership in both the graduate and undergraduate portions of SGA. David Andersen has been a particularly visible figure on campus. In the past Vice Presidential candidates have had strong platforms but have not made themselves as visible during their terms in office. Graab and Byrne both have great ideas and should work together to achieve their goals. Also, they should strive to focus on specific objectives that are feasible for a one-year term rather than naming broad, impractical goals.

Graduate and undergraduate executives have collaborated well this year, but understanding between the two chambers needs improvement. Both houses have specialized issues to address, such as graduate health care or grade forgiveness for undergraduates. However joint issues such as campus life affect both graduates and undergraduates and require the collaboration of both chambers.

An uncivil action

Recent national press coverage has once again cast Tech in a negative light due to the actions of a few members of the community. The coverage does not seem reflective of the Institute as a whole, and offsets the positive strides the Institute has taken.

The American Defense Fund lawsuit filed against the Institute claims that, thanks to the Student Code of Conduct’s policies against harassment, conservative students on campus are not allowed to exercise their right to free speech.

The lawsuit claims that the code and other Tech policies limit the free speech of conservative students because they fear being labeled intolerant. However, the College Republicans’ recent resolution in support of the lawsuit shows that they are, in fact, not hesitant to make their position known.

As a media outlet, there is nothing we like less than frivolous lawsuits and limitations on freedom of speech. The suit traps the Institute in a lose-lose situation because of the high costs involved in fighting the lawsuit and the negative publicity garnered. The plaintiffs could have handled the matter internally and more maturely. However, we are confident that the legal system will do its job in determining the validity of the suit’s claims.