There is controversy presently over a failed bill that would have mandated the Pledge of Allegiance at Student Council meetings. The bill has left many students seeking the dismissal of its author, College Representative Justin Pfeiffer. In light of his recent and past indiscretions, Pfeiffer should resign his post before he is removed by the students he represents.
What has caused most of the recent controversy is the inclusion of the phrase, "our forefathers who wrote the federal Constitution, who built the schools and churches, who hewed the forests, who dredged the rivers and harbors, fought the savages, and created a republic under God" in the pledge bill.
|
Pfeiffer correctly has pointed out that he attributed the wording of this bill, including the phrase "savages," to Sen. Robert Byrd, (D-W.Va.). He has apologized for offending Native Americans, but has said in his apology letter, "Had I not been quoting, I would not have used the term savages." Quoting or not, Pfeiffer deemed it necessary to include these words in a bill that he sponsored. In essence, these words were his own.
It also is worth noting that this exact quote appeared in a bill last year sponsored by Pfeiffer (FR99-13), with the phrase "fought the savages" omitted.
Putting aside the obviously offensive "savages" remark, many constituents may personally support the patriotic and religious statements made by Pfeiffer. But the University, and especially the governing body representing it, should not take a stance promoting the presence of religion. We should not force anyone who may not agree with the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance, such as international students, to recite it at Council meetings. The proposal is ludicrous, and appropriately was rejected by Council.
Pfeiffer sponsored other controversial bills during his first term that would merit removal from office as well. Last fall, he proposed abolishing the Student Activity Fee, a $39 dollar charge to all students (FR99-11). These funds go towards Contracted Independent Organizations, which, as Pfeiffer correctly points out, may be "political and ideologically motivated."
All of these organizations, however, abide by the guidelines set forth by Council, i.e. non-discriminatory practices. Therefore, they should rightfully be given this funding, and in exchange, all students are allowed to join these groups. After this proposal was defeated, he still attempted to limit the use of Cultural Programming Board funds (FR99-16), which would have had the same effect as the first proposal; this bill was similarly defeated.
Pfeiffer also has brought up a bill that would have required prayer at all Council meetings (FR99-13). The bill states, "this is a nation under God and has been favored by divine Providence ... with a deep religious tradition." The bill also recommended that an "invocation" be given before the Roll Call.
In all due fairness to Pfeiffer, he did say that the Executive Vice President "shall attempt to make sure that different denominations and religions are represented in an appropriate fashion." But what about those who do not believe in God or belong to smaller religious minorities that might not be represented in an invocation? Appropriately, the bill was dismissed.
As controversial and offensive as many of these views may be, Pfeiffer is and should be allowed to have them. But Pfeiffer is also an elected official, and he is representing over 9000 students with these views.
Pfeiffer defends these bills by saying, "resolutions when introduced are purely a place to start debate." Still, one should not introduce legislation that insults constituents simply for debate purposes.
And now, Pfeiffer suddenly has supported creating an Ad-Hoc Committee to advocate for a living wage at the University. One must consider, however, the fact that many members of the Labor Action Group (LAG), strong advocates for the living wage, are involved in the campaign to remove him from office.
Pfeiffer does say that his reasons for backing this are based on "personal reasons, mostly scripture and economics. It is the moral thing to do." But one can't help but question the timing behind the proposal.
According to the Student Council Constitution, there are two ways that Pfeiffer can be removed from office. The first would be to impeach him, which is used, by Council, in cases of "neglect of duties and malfeasance." Not only is this unlikely, it is also not applicable.
The other is in the hands of the students. If a petition signed by more than a quarter of the College is presented to Council, there will be a recall vote, where the entire College will vote on the removal of Pfeiffer.
This way is not "impeaching" Pfeiffer or even saying that he did anything wrong. It has nothing to do with whether you like him or not -- it is about whether you think he still represents you accurately.
A student involved in the campaign to remove Pfeiffer from office has said that they are "very confident" that they will get the number of signatures necessary. If this happens, there will be a recall vote for Pfeiffer's removal soon.
Pfeiffer has shown that his priorities not only differ from, but insult and offend many of his constituents. Instead of prolonging this controversy and distracting Council from important business, Pfeiffer can and should resign from his position; for himself, for his constituents and for the University.
(Brian Cook is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 2 days agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 3 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 3 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
