There is A Growing Gap Between Word and Deed Within The King’s Administration
From left to right, candidate Blake Ashley, Colin Phillips and Madelynn Kaufmann pose after the first SBP Debate of election season. || Photo credit to Shannon Mason
The opinions reflected in this OpEd are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of staff, faculty and students of The King's College.
We live in a community with an often comically over-emphasized focus on action-oriented leadership. With her first steps on campus, a prospective student encounters a barrage of phrases like “strategic institutions” and “leading in the ‘marketplace of ideas.’”
We have all heard the classic soliloquy pitched to students and donors, centered on the idea that The King’s College is a unique institution—that it empowers students to think freely and clearly, to seek the truth and stand up for it. I believe that pitch has some veracity. I have benefited greatly from my peers and professors. I have been continually challenged to avoid intellectual laziness or the sways of mere rhetoric and consider carefully the big questions—to think about beauty, and justice, and what it means to seek the City of God while we reside in the City of Man.
But, I worry about a growing discrepancy between word and deed on the part of the Administration. Students come to this community to think, to lead, and to advocate for what is right. Lately, they have been penalized for and discouraged from implementing the skills and virtues the institution has worked hard to teach them.
Last week, we had a highly unorthodox Student Body President election. After two consecutive ties between Ms. Madelynn Kaufmann and Mr. Colin Phillips, no official electee could be determined.
Luckily, the Constitution of the Student Council had the foresight to calculate for precisely this breed of oddity, Section 6 of Appendix A in the Student Handbook stipulates that: “In the event that a run-off election is conducted between two candidates resulting in a tie, an emergency meeting of The King’s Council will be called to determine the new Student Body President.”
The Administration contends that Section 5 of the same document, which stipulates runoff elections in the event that “no one wins a majority vote in the general vote and two or more candidates tie for second place in the general election,” nullifies Section 6.
I disagree with this interpretation for many reasons. The entire clause hinges on the terms “general vote” and “general election.” Runoff elections are standard procedure when no one wins over 50% of the initial SBP vote. This clause considers a case in which:
1) there is no majority winner and
2) two (or three, or four, etc) candidates in second place tie.
Runoffs are to be conducted until the final runoff with two candidates, when Section 6 can be invoked in the case of a tie.
Both of these clauses deal with highly unlikely circumstances. Another key indicator that the described interpretation of Articles 5 and 6 is the correct one is the simple fact that there is no other situation, other than a tie in the final runoff like the one seen between Ms. Kaufmann and Mr. Phillips, in which Section 6 could be implemented.
While I advocate for this interpretation and believe it is the only correct analysis of the articles, this argument remains secondary to a more central concern: 10 House Presidents disagreed with the Administration’s reading, thoughtfully stated their concerns, and were ignored entirely.
“10 House Presidents disagreed with the Administration’s reading, thoughtfully stated their concerns, and were ignored entirely”
No emergency meeting was called. Instead, voting reopened for students who had not yet cast their ballots by the election’s conclusion. While I contest this course of action in itself—reopening the ballots makes those without the initiative or involvement to vote in the first place the deciding factor—I worry more about the broader principle at play.
The decision to reopen voting was made without consulting any of the King’s Council. Not a single member of the student body was involved in deciding how the Student Body President ought to be determined.
All 10 House Presidents unanimously contested the course of action. Various combinations of Council members spoke with Jonathan Shaeffer, Dean Leedy, and President Gibson stating their case. This ubiquitous stand from the highest tier of House leadership proved entirely fruitless. It did not even wield the power to delay the SBP election long enough to have a thoughtful conversation about the Council Constitution and its interpretation. They were chastised for speaking out. They were told to get in line.
One House President, who requested to remain anonymous, said: “Seven presidents approached representatives of Student Development (with the blessing of the absent three) to voice our protest that the Student Government Constitution was being misinterpreted and that the controversial decision about a student election had been made with zero input from any student representatives. We were told that the decision had already been made and there was nothing we could do about it.”
While this all may seem very silly and unimportant, after all, it is true that the great SBP election of 2020 will retain little significance in five years or 10, the attitude behind the action matters. I worry about the principles and precedents at play here, and we are taught that principles and precedents matter—that they far outlive any action or individual.
This upheaval comes at the conclusion of a year full of unilateral decisions from the Administration with little regard for student opinion.
Last spring, finals week was removed from the academic calendar for the foreseeable future, and several notable upperclassmen published a meticulously crafted op-ed in protest. No response or public conversation was had.
Fall Retreat is cancelled, Basketball Competition is gone, Interregnum has changed, and students are entirely unheard.
I am not contending for a complete, institutional democracy. I, and most students, understand that the Administration has legitimate authority. But, an institution that prides itself on treating students like adults should perhaps take that mission more seriously.
Women and men who are elected and encouraged to lead their Houses and advocate for their interests, and those of the broader student body, should not be chastised for doing so. Legitimate concerns about the application of the Student Council Constitution should not be pushed aside at a school that exists to teach students how to think critically and lead publicly.
This school promises to send students into the world who can influence strategic institutions. Perhaps it should start by cultivating that influence within its own doors.