I don't understand the motive behind Student Assembly President Danielle Moore '95's decision to step down from her leadership position.
She was hailed as the great hope to maintain (or regain) liberal leadership of the Assembly, and when the first sign of disagreement with those of the opposite point of view enters under her administration, she steps down, citing inability to work with the Assembly.
How did someone like this ever get elected to a power position in the first place? I've never been very political, but I think any junior high school student can tell you that the president of any association is not always going to get along with the rest of the group.
In the copious articles on the whole situation in Monday's Dartmouth, Moore was interviewed a number of times and tried to explain her reasons, which were overflowing with a number of contradictions and illogical statements.
One of them that caught my eye was her statement, "I'm not a politician, I'm an activist ... I thought this would be a good forum to act on my beliefs."
This is the Student Assembly, and those that the students voted into "power" should be there to represent the students.
Moore's statement was basically an admission of the very same essence that Secretary John Honovich '97 was accused of in the infamous letter that eight members of the Executive Committee wrote, asking him to step down from office.
To quote The D, "Among [Honovich's reprehensible actions], it said [he] disrupted meetings and used his 'powers and positions to promote what is thought by the below signed to be your own personal interests.'"
Sound similar? I think so. Moore apparently thinks she is allowed to promote her own beliefs, but no one else on the Assembly may. I think we've hit contradiction here.
Moore and her cohorts accuse Honovich of disruption of meetings and creation of grid-lock, but Moore herself stated that she must tear down the entire structure of the Assembly before she can do anything worthwhile.
"I've never believed in working within the system because I believe you have to deconstruct the system to change it." Can deconstruction realistically be achieved without confrontation from the rest of the Assembly? I think not.
In this whole chain of events, the only person I see really sticking to basic student representation is Honovich, repeatedly aiming to allow the entire student body a chance to voice its opinions in a student-wide referendum on the hotly debated Dartmouth Dining Services policy.
This is not a subject I would feel secure leaving in the hands of any one Student Assembly president, and definitely not one who is, by her own admission, looking to support her own beliefs.
Secondly, I find that bringing gender issues into play as significant reasons for Moore's resignation is utterly reprehensible. To cry foul when one cannot get along with others is a misuse of the public forum.
These accusations have absolutely no basis in fact, and serve to portray Moore as a victim of the same system that elected her and that she tried to manipulate in order to pursue her own agenda.
She said by staying, she was sending a message to women in the Assembly that they must tolerate disrespect. This is so completely infuriating to hear.
Just because she's having trouble getting along with the duly elected Assembly members, she has to accuse them of sexism. No one has mentioned anything about discriminatory practices but Moore herself, being the sole person who "distinguished between male and female forms of leadership."
I commend Honovich for his stance to support student inclusion in the process, and I admonish Moore for not being able to lead in the face of dissent.
