The Boston University Constitution Reform Committee did not reach an agreement on a constitutional referendum during a Monday night meeting and eventually voted to maintain BU Student Government’s current structure and constitution.
Committee members Jacob Brewer, College of Engineering Senator Nadia Asif and SG President Andrew Cho each wrote a proposal, all of which were presented at the meeting. Approximately 60 BU students were in attendance.
After shortlisting the choices to Asif and Cho’s proposals, the vote failed to reach the required two-thirds majority vote and the CRC decided to pursue the status quo.
Unlike SG’s existing unicameral legislative body, all proposals presented advocated for a bicameral student government.
“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested a bicameral legislature consisting of the Upper House and the Lower House,” Asif’s and Cho’s draft constitutions stated.
Staffed by the Student Council, a new body of elected student representatives according to the proposed constitution, the Upper House would have functioned similar to SG’s current Senate and convened bi-weekly. The Lower House would have included every undergraduate student “in good judicial standing” and convened in the weeks between the Upper House’s meetings, according to the drafts.
Asif’s proposal, however, differed to that of Brewer and Cho’s, with the former emphasizing the “buddy system” and the latter emphasizing contributions through town hall meetings, said Desmond Molloy, a freshman in the Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences.
“Under Nadia’s proposal, any student can choose to send a proposal they write either to the Lower or Upper House,” Molloy said during the meeting. “They only need 26 people to vote, as opposed to the circumstance of the student body. Normally, the smaller body — the Student Council, the Upper House — [conducts] the oversight. The larger body votes on proposals.”
Cho, a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences, said after the meeting that the bicameral system “guarantees that students can win” and would have benefited all parties at the cost of minor inefficiencies.
“We shouldn’t be thinking ‘Upper House versus Lower House,’” Cho said during the meeting. “It’s not meant to be oppositional.”
Responding to the meeting’s outcome, Cho said he was “pretty disappointed,” as the outcome did not embody the efforts spent over the past six weeks.
“But again, I can’t argue against it,” he said. “We weren’t able to reach compromise.”
The CRC had started a weekly discussion to produce a new SG Constitution since its first meeting Jan. 25 until its fifth Feb. 23.
BU Students Against Silence member Noor Toraif said a lot of time and compromises had been put into preparing the proposals.
“It is really disappointing, because we all [have agreed] from the task force that the Student Government, especially the Senate, was no longer representative [of the student body],” Toraif, a senior in CAS, said. “Because it doesn’t mean two-thirds and says ‘Nothing should happen,’ [it] doesn’t really represent the majority of the task force just because we set a rule that there should be a two-thirds vote.”
The CRC was created during a Senate meeting in response to problems within SG following the impeachment of two SG Executive Board members, The Daily Free Press reported Dec. 1, 2015.
Several attendees said they disapproved of the meeting’s outcome, as it failed to reach the CRC’s objective.
Molloy said the committee “copped out” and did not produce the outcome it had been striving for.
“The student body expected a result, and the Committee basically threw up its hands and said, ‘We weren’t feeling like it,’” he said. “It’s not the result the majority of the committee was hoping for. It feels, though, that there were many members who did not want any outcome at all.”
Hanaan Yazdi, a sophomore in CAS, said the entire reform process attempted to ameliorate SG’s current situation, but all efforts ended up futile in the meeting.
“I think it’s very, very unfortunate that this body was built, was created to fix a broken system, not just to go back to an old broken system,” she said. “We don’t have enough trust in the current system.”
Lauren Blackburn, a Warren Towers senator and a freshman in CAS, said the meeting could motivate SG to reflect on itself and improve in the future.
“I’m kind of disappointed that we weren’t able to reach compromise, but that’s just how democracy works sometimes,” she said. “It’s not necessarily what anyone wanted, but there’s nothing we can really do at this point to change it.”
Here is what happened – At the beginning of this process, SAS members attempted to keep current student government members away from CRC membership because Senate’s ability to amend the constitution alongside the CRC’s creates a huge conflict of interest that was put on display last night.
Nobody voted for Asif’s proposal because they supported Asif’s proposal – they voted for Asif’s proposal because it became a proxy for “internal senate reform.”
Asif is running for e-board and is interested in this process being dictated, unilaterally, by her and the members of her slate.
The proposal raised by Cho last night is almost identical to an SAS proposal from week three – before SAS compromised with SENATORS Asif and Schwartz.
Had student government members not been allowed in CRC, it would have been more efficient, and proposals a lot like Cho’s last night would have been being passed all semester.
So, it is up to the not obstructionist and self-serving Senators now to get through a REAL reform program for students to vote on come elections time.
I am not optimistic about their ability to do so.
1) “Asif is running for e-board and is interested in this process being dictated, unilaterally, by her and the members of her slate.” ummmm…. I plead the 5th…
2)”Had student government members not been allowed in CRC, it would have been more efficient”– well that’s just undemocratic, my dear…
3)” it is up to the not obstructionist and self-serving Senators now to get through a REAL reform program.” Please tell me more about this “REAL reform program” you speak of? I am totally unaware of this concept.
4) “I am not optimistic about their ability to do so.” 4 words for u m8: To each, his own.
If senate would have dissolved like SAS asked them to last semester, Asif wouldn’t have been able to orchestrate this.
Yup, you caught me! I am the mastermind behind everything!! (but shhhh it’s a secret…)
What upsets me about some of the attitudes expressed about the outcome of the CRC is that they underline the very reason that there was no meaningful reform passed last night.
Continuously, CRC members are referred to as “SAS members” or “Senators”, as each side tries to play the “good guy/bad guy” game. I firmly believe that both viewpoints had a very important place in the CRC, as they both represented feelings of segments of the student body.
However, rather than being united and open to compromise, the committee ended up split over minor differences between two very similar proposals, because no one was willing to deviate from their group’s expressed sentiments.
Let me be clear: the failings of the CRC are not the responsibility of one group or the other, but rather of the committee as a whole for failing to find common ground in the interest of the betterment of Student Government.
I think we should keep in mind that the SAS proposal WAS the compromise between Andrew Cho and Nadia Asif’s proposals. While I do agree with you that the results of last night’s meeting were on the part of a few who wanted nothing to do with the other group, I do not think that attitude can be applied to SAS since they worked and met with nearly every person who participated on Trello.
I think you misunderstand my position. I am not blaming the few, I am saying that every member is at fault- no matter their external affiliation.
In fact, I think that your statement further underlines my point; by excusing SAS members, you assign blame to one party, rather than accepting that it was everyone’s fault the CRC didn’t succeed.
Collectively, it was the duty of every single member of the CRC to come together and enact reform. The lack of willingness to see beyond groups and labels (on all sides) was the one of the biggest obstructions to this.
Rather than pointing fingers, every CRC member should be ashamed that they themselves were a part of that.
“I do not think that attitude can be applied to SAS “– you, sir, are a de facto hypocrite.
“Here is what happened – At the beginning of this process, SAS members attempted to keep current student government members away from CRC membership because Senate’s ability to amend the constitution alongside the CRC’s creates a huge conflict of interest that was put on display last night.”
Am I the only one who finds it interesting that SAS, Students Against Silence, attempted to keep current student government members away from CRC even though that group was established so that every student can openly speak and participate?
“Had student government members not been allowed in CRC.” Love the exclusivity that SAS is trying to impose. Though they often post inspiration phrases like “As students, we are not exempt from this duty and from this right. We, too, must remember our responsibility and our capability to effect change.” does this not include student government members? Are they not apart of the student body?
You are bae. Let’s grab a drink sometime! Are you a wine enthusiast??
Aren’t you underage…
Cho ought to resign. In the face of the most profound crisis in BU government most of us can remember, he dithered, pontificated, and allowed the meeting to stop because it was getting late, while producing no result. He has failed to fulfill the role to which we elected him.
Do you remember the “Golden Rule” from kindergarten?
SAS and Student government members both lined up behind Cho’s proposal. The votes for Nadia’s proposal were all from a contingent in the CRC who, from day one, did not want the CRC to succeed. Don’t twist the situation to make it seem like all sides have fault here.
You’re twisting the situation the already twisted situation. Stop, please.
Cho ought to resign….. he’s done a horrible job….. two impeachments…one resignation….no strength….What did Student Government even do this semester besides bicker? Sick of it…..
I’m unclear as to how the SG controversy is a direct result of Andrew’s position as President. Care to elaborate, Emily?
He decided that keeping students up late was just too much to ask of them, and decided to scrap the whole process. In the CRC meetings, he was completely milquetoast–no authority whatsoever.
There is a select group of students involved in the task force whose only purpose there was to obstruct a new constitution from happening; Andrew himself admits to making mistakes as we all have, but he is not to blame for last night’s decision, and we all know who is.
Ouch… Shots fired… but I’m wearing Kevlar. Sorry m8.
Look, maybe Andrew didn’t do the best job in handling Monday’s meeting, but he genuinely cares about EVERYONE in the student body. Please don’t disrespect him like that in PUBLIC on the INTERNET. He has worked too hard to be treated this way and is huge reason why we had the CRC meetings in the first place!
That’s what comes with being President. If he can’t handle it then resign!
Hello, fellow haters! This is Nadia Asif, the senator that you are so nobaly bashing anonymously in this comment thread. If there’s something you want to talk about in public, please at least have the courtesy to leave your name, instead of cowering behind a shield of anonymity.
Thanks for making me look like the female Frank Underwood of BU– I love House of Cards and Kevin Spacey, so I’m truely honored!
Did you write this comment yourself, or did you just lift it from another article?
Yeah, I wrote it all by myself!
As a recent graduate you all are an embarrassment and I hope none of you ever become politicians.
BTW, Noor Toraif graduated and has zero say in the UNDERGRADUATE Student Government! Also, when all of the interviewees in this article were part of the group that made the proposal that didn’t even make the short list, it is clear that there is immense bias in this article.
BTW all of the people who decided not to vote for a proposal to move forward were the ones whining when it got to be 10:34 that we were 4 minutes over time–some left early in fact. All of these students left as soon as they could and showed no common courtesy for the dozens of others who put hours and hours and hours of time into this process and were literally brought to tears at this decision, Nadia did not even have the decency to show up to present her proposal at all. The comments which were coming out of *some* of the people who walked out early were horrendous and v Trump-like, so consider it a blessing they were not quoted! If they had cared enough about the cause or the article, they would have spent the extra time to be interviewed
I did not have the decency to show up because I was ineligible to vote and would rather study for an exam than be verbally assaulted in-person for an hour (+20 minutes).
Noone voted not to move forward with the proposal. I voted for proposal B both times because i thought that proposal was the better of the two. Thats how it works. It’s called an opinion. I apologize that your SAS/SJP brainwashing leads you to think otherwise.
I don’t know where SJP comes into this. They are in no way affiliated. You clearly do not understand diplomacy if you think voting B when you knew that it wouldn’t gain a majority would serve any purpose, it was essentially a throw away vote. That type of thinking is exactly why the US government gets government shut downs when no one is able to negotiate. The truth is, the final vote came down to voting for Andrew’s proposal (SAS’s original proposal) or voting for no constitution.
You are, by far, one of the most educated students on this thread. I respect you. Let’s grab a drink sometime! Are you a wine enthusiast?
Aren’t you underage…
The comments made were made because these folks stayed behind to talk to the press afterwards. I have responded to the comment regarding me graduating below. Also the meeting is open to the public and there are many people there who were not necessarily undergraduates. I did not get to vote though, rightfully so.
SAS essentially authored all three of the proposals besides the upper house portion, which Hamilton wrote, and 3 points of Nadia’s proposal, which SAS did not condone. We would have been happy if any of them had passed, but we were voting for Andrew Cho’s because it was our original proposal before negotiating for weeks. The ones who are responsible are the ones who in the end, strategically (and ignorantly) voted against Andrew’s proposal, when it was clear that if they did so, no new constitution would pass. Whether this was intentional on the part of individual voters is irrelevant, any one who voted against a new constitution failed our student body. The group who intended for this to be the result of the task force is obvious, what is shocking are the few who were unaffiliated with that block of voters, but whom still willfully decided to coddle their hurt feelings from senate last semester and vote based on their short term emotions rather than long term change for the student body. What more, I feel sorry for the uninformed people who thought they were “friends” with that block of voters, but were really just being used as pawns.
Nadia is not smart enough to have realized she was being used as a tool for Schwartz and his clan to orchestrate this. She is not responsible. Nadia was nothing but a pawn and had no greater impact on this campus than creating a vehicle through which Schwartz could obstruct change to our constitution
Yeah, I’m kind of dumb. Sorry. I iz who i iz.
I don’t know what you know or why you think this but Schwartz asked Andrew during the meeting to clarify what would happen if no proposal went through and I believe he actually wanted one to go through, or at least that is what he told me.
Pointing fingers at “Nadia” when none of you have successfully accomplished a thing.
I did not know Boston University supported cyber bulling.
College has truly gone down hill. Where are the people who promote change without blaming others?
I don’t know who you are, but we need to get a drink sometime. Are you a wine enthusiast?
Aren’t you underage…
Nadia, I urge you to act like a senator. If you want to be President of SG [as you’ve told so many people] then grow up and act like it. You’ll get criticized, don’t call those people haters and cowards because you failed.
Thanks, John. I will try to amend my ways. You are awesome. Stay awesome.
Why is Noor Toraif even being quoted about this? She GRADUATED, she isn’t part of the UNDERGRADUATE Student Government! Heck, she resigned from her SG post BEFORE she graduated last semester. Please, leave it to actual BU undergrad students to solve our own problems. Don’t meddle! Shame on you.
My name is Nadia Asif and I endorse this message.
Anonymous,
Firstly, the reason why I resigned from Student Government is precisely the reason why I chose to become involved in this process in the first place. Additionally, it does not matter if I resigned before I graduated because the Task Force is open to ALL students and not only students affiliated with Student Government (that is actually kind of the point).
Now, I became involved before I graduated and made the decision to stay involved because of the concerning interactions I had with many members of StuGov last semester. Alumni often do stay involved in organizing, but I rightfully had no voting powers. I was quoted in this article because I was present. As for your worry about undergrads solving their own problems, many undergrads in that room (all of them, actually) were working on solving the problem.
It is silly in my opinion to be centering this conversation on my involvement merely because I graduated a few months before everyone else when there are far more pressing issues surrounding the outcomes of the CRC.
Noor was quoted because she was present at the meetings. Though she did not have voting power, though she already graduated, she was still invested in making sure the student body would be heard and she truly believed in change with no desire for credit or for position. She was quoted because it was her, SAS members and fellow distressed members of the student body who stayed back in the room long after the meeting ended. We were in tears at the outcome of the CRC because we had so much hope that a new Constitution would be passed. Regardless of whether it would be Brewer’s, Cho’s or Asif’s, we wanted a resolution after months of reaching out to all sides and making countless compromises. If you want to know why other members of the CRC were not quoted, it was because they were not at all concerned that the CRC amounted to nothing. They left right after the vote declared that there would be no change, satisfied that they had blocked any progress from being made. Even with the vote ending in less than 2/3 majority, we all could have sat down longer and discussed how we could compromise further to get the 2/3. We could have decided to schedule another meeting to make amends to our proposal.
I was behind Cho in his role as a mediator and as a president who could oversee change for the student body. But, he really disappointed me in the last meeting. He had proposed that we vote on the constitution line by line and if we had done just so, then we would currently have a new constitution to put forward to the student body. He has gone back and forth on his decisions leaving the students dumbfounded as to how they can trust him anymore.
1) “Noor was quoted because she was present at the meetings.” I was present in all the meetings except the first and last. Why am I not quoted any where?
2) “Though she did not have voting power… she truly believed in change with no desire for credit or for position. ” I had no voting power and was willing to credit SAS with everything if it meant peace (but they thought my proposal was disgusting…so…), yet I am not revered in the same way you revere Noor.
3) “She was quoted because it was her, SAS members and fellow distressed members of the student body who stayed back in the room long after the meeting ended. ” Countless of non-SAS members– myself included– spent COUNTLESS of hours outside of CRC meetings negotiating with SAS and drafting and re-drafting proposal after proposal ( what you see on trello is just a final product)– it is peculiar that no senators were awarded with being quoted on this free press article.
4)”We were in tears at the outcome of the CRC.” I am in tears right now because of all the heat I’ve gotten online, in-person, and on my phone. You do not have my sympathy.
5) “we wanted a resolution after months.” We ALL wanted a resolution.
6) You say that people who left Monday’s meeting early (despite it being AFTER 10pm) were “satisfied that they had blocked any progress from being made.” Can you prove that? If so, I’m all ears.
7) “Even with the vote ending in less than 2/3 majority, we all could have sat down longer and discussed how we could compromise further to get the 2/3. We could have decided to schedule another meeting to make amends to our proposal.” I agree. 100%. (no sarcasm intended)
8) Please don’t disrespect Andrew. He really tried. What would you have done in his position?
1) You were not quoted because you were not there at the last meeting. The FreeP interviewed the members present.
2) No, at one meeting you clearly emphasized that your proposal was all “written by me.” You overlooked the fact that 70% of your proposal came from Brewer’s original proposal. Time and again, you have reiterated that this proposal is yours instead of crediting the work done by ALL CRC members.
3) Countless of compromises were made at the behest of who? Who was the one reaching out to CRC members to make compromises. Once again, the FreeP interviewed those who stayed behind after the meeting. Almost all of the senators left right after the meeting.
4) If you feel that this is a personal attack then I’m truly sorry. I want those who say that they held up the mission of the CRC to be held accountable for their words and their actions. I am critiquing your actions as a member of the CRC, I am not attacking your character.
5) No, your actions have time and again showed that you wanted your proposal to pass through. Andrew came through with a compromised proposal that he thought best bridged both yours and Brewer’s proposal. SAS backed this proposal as it’s number one choice but as the votes demonstrated, other CRC members were unwilling to compromise and chose to stick to your (or should I say a collective CRC’s) proposal.
6) We asked if we could do anything but leave it at a null decision. The multiple members who left replied with sentiments of “Nope, it’s all over. We can’t do anything.” and with smiles on their faces.
7) Nadia, this is one thing we agree on and I hope we can urge the Senate and CRC members to push ahead for a compromise. A democracy is not set by rules but by the will of the people. If we are all compelled to work at a compromise, then we can come up with a constitution that we promised to bring to the student body.
8) Once again, I have not attacked Andrew’s character. I am voicing my concern as a CRC member for the actions that led us to producing nothing. I commend Andrew for the effort he put in, as did all of the CRC members. I am, however, allowed to express disappointment at critical actions that I believe hindered the process of us producing a constitution.
Nor GRADUATED. She should be looking for a job or something? Speaking of which…. student groups are for students. She is no longer a student. That’s a school rule. SAS and her crave for power are illegitimate. Such a FARCE!
SAS is not an official student group. SAS is a loose group that organically formed in response to some injustices we all witnessed last semester, and of course I am affiliated with that group.
However, if you see my involvement as a “crave for power,” merely because I graduated early, I urge you not to extrapolate that to my peers who still attend this university and who work hard whether within SAS or without.
Nadia, Nadia, Nadia, that’s all I hear from these comments .
There were fundamental differences going into the CRC, and we all know it. This is honestly the reason why no consensus could be reached. However, my fellow colleagues in the comments section have decided to blame the outcome of the CRC, which involved a vote of over 40 people, on one person: Nadia.
No one should be too surprised this is happening. People always want someone to blame, and Nadia happens to be that scapegoat. It’s childlike behavior, sure, but sometimes it’s much to ask people to act like the adults they’re suppose to be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Nadia was only a pawn for one group of people to block a new constitution, she was only important to the decision because they used her to push forward their selfish agenda,
OMG I LUV CHESS! TY FOR COMPARING ME TO ONE OF MY FAVORITE PIECES!! You know why I love pawns? They take one for the TEAM. Say what you want about me, but I respect and value my friends.
And yeah, I was totally used by them; I bet they’re snickering about it right now. I mean, how could Daniel Schwartz and the senate do something sooo terrible?!?
Oh, and it’s not like I spent hours writing the proposal, despite being sick and having and incredible amount of work or anything… And it is definitely not like I didn’t show up to the meeting because I was deemed ineligible to vote or anything…
Nadia, from the hours spent writing your proposal, what portion of that time was dedicated to copy and pasting?
Dear Black Hat, tomorrow I will wear a black hat in your honour. Live long and prosper.
Oh god… if this Nadia girl is going to be student president… and go troll on everyone who has an issue with her…
I just read the comments on this article and would like to address some of the things directed at me and then some of the misinformation in my opinion.
1. I graduated early from BU in January and never really tried to conceal that, but I am still doing coursework at the university and still actively involved with BU Students Against Silence given my involvement last semester. I was committed to going to the meetings of course, especially because I had spent much time working on making our government structure more democratic and representative well before the impeachment trials and the task force committee. If anyone has issues to take with my involvement, please direct them to me and I would be more than happy to talk to you about it.
2. Secondly, yes, the failure of this process is not to blame on Nadia Asif. But Nadia, you yourself did tell me that now you would be able to implement change more efficiently within the existing structure. Now it might not be Nadia’s intent to say that she did not believe in the mission or goal of the CRC, but she did assert she believed the most “effective change” would come from within the current Student Government. Months before this process had started, many of the senators signed a letter apologizing for their mismanagement and bad decisions last semester, and the student government leadership had personally told me (including Andrew Cho and Akiko Endo) that the senate was no longer legitimate. I have documentation of this for those interested. As a result of weeks of pushing for the Task force, it was formed and members of the task force had a mission to do one thing: write a new constitution.
3. Members of BUSAS (myself included) were approached by Andrew at the end of the second meeting and told that were efforts to obstruct the progress of the CRC so that the status quo would be maintained. This is why we keep bringing up the apparent conflict of interest with StuGov members being in the CRC. This is not some fiction that we just decided to make up, we were informed by the leadership. It is not surprising, further, that members of a current power structure would seek to maintain it. Yet, I have personally had countless hours of conversation with many many members of the CRC including the ones who disagree with me the most (Daniel, Nadia, Hamilton and others). Many of us in BU students against silence did this, while being continually painted as too aggressive to work with and too caught up in our own agenda. We compromised and rewrote our proposal four different times to address as many concerns as possible, and when we asked for a mediation to sit down with Nadia before the last meeting, Nadia didn’t even respond to Andrew Cho’s.
4. This is a failure. On all our behalves. We failed to deliver to the student body what we promised them we would. We are all to blame for this. But to say that we all equally refused to work together is just frankly not factual. Speaking for some of my colleagues at SAS, we did everything in our power to work with as many people as possible.
5. Finally, to anonymous, the committee was not split over minor differences. We as SAS all supported Andrew Cho’s proposal because we believed that it was the best way moving forward to bring all parties together. The split in the committee was over allowing the student body to ratify a radically new constitution, or just reverting back to the status quo, and some members of the CRC made the active decision to revert back to the status quo as if that dichotomy was the only option. If we wanted to do that, we should have presented the old constitution as an option set against the new one.
Finally, to the students who were there on Tuesday watching this on the sidelines, I am sorry for failing you. I tried everything in my power but that was not enough. I hope that you do not feel discouraged from organizing in the future to make this government more representative and democratic any way you see fit. Please don’t let the discourse that we are apathetic or uneducated or incompetent prevail, and please contact me if you have any questions.
Wow…..Nadia just wants to run for president…… she just admitted it on this thread. The fact that you can’t handle criticism without lashing out at your fellow terriers is disqualifying….. SAS will run against you!
I don’t really understand why this is a critique on Nadia, so what if she wants to run for president? It should be celebrated that women (of color) are looking to fill positions of power. There’s literally nothing wrong with her running for president.
Secondly, stop using SAS as a weapon, there are plenty of other very capable groups that will run, such as True BU.
Thirdly, let’s focus on the big picture and stop cutting Nadia down. Would she make a good class president in my eyes? Aaaaaabsolutely not. But does she have the right to run and have her voice heard? Sure. The purpose of this article was not even about Nadia, it was about the failure of certain individuals to push forward a new constitution, Nadia being just one of those individuals, and I don’t think it’s fair that she is taking all the heat for what other people in the CRC orchestrated under her name.
YES! I CAN’T WAIT TO HELP MARWA RUN AGAIN, as I told her! WE WILL WIN!! #TRUEBU
I just read the comments on this article and would like to address some of the things directed at me and then some of the misinformation in my opinion
1. I graduated early from BU in January and never really tried to conceal that, but I am still doing coursework at the university and still actively involved with BU Students Against Silence given my involvement last semester. I was committed to going to the meetings of course, especially because I had spent much time working on making our government structure more democratic and representative well before the impeachment trials and the task force committee. If anyone has issues to take with my involvement, please direct them to me and I would be more than happy to talk to you about it.
2. Secondly, yes, the failure of this process is not to blame on Nadia Asif. But Nadia, you yourself did tell me that now you would be able to implement change more efficiently within the existing structure. Now it might not be Nadia’s intent to say that she did not believe in the mission or goal of the CRC, but she did assert she believed the most “effective change” would come from within the current Student Government. Months before this process had started, many of the senators signed a letter apologizing for their mismanagement and bad decisions last semester, and the student government leadership had personally told me (including Andrew Cho and Akiko Endo) that the senate was no longer legitimate. I have documentation of this for those interested. As a result of weeks of pushing for the Task force, it was formed and members of the task force had a mission to do one thing: write a new constitution.
3. Members of BUSAS (myself included) were approached by Andrew at the end of the second meeting and told that were efforts to obstruct the progress of the CRC so that the status quo would be maintained. This is why we keep bringing up the apparent conflict of interest with StuGov members being in the CRC. This is not some fiction that we just decided to make up, we were informed by the leadership. It is not surprising, further, that members of a current power structure would seek to maintain it. Yet, I have personally had countless hours of conversation with many many members of the CRC including the ones who disagree with me the most (Daniel, Nadia, Hamilton and others). Many of us in BU students against silence did this, while being continually painted as too aggressive to work with and too caught up in our own agenda. We compromised and rewrote our proposal four different times to address as many concerns as possible, and when we asked for a mediation to sit down with Nadia before the last meeting, Nadia didn’t even respond to Andrew Cho’s.
4. This is a failure. On all our behalves. We failed to deliver to the student body what we promised them we would. We are all to blame for this. But to say that we all equally refused to work together is just frankly not factual. Speaking for some of my colleagues at SAS, we did everything in our power to work with as many people as possible.
5. Finally, to anonymous, the committee was not split over minor differences. We as SAS all supported Andrew Cho’s proposal because we believed that it was the best way moving forward to bring all parties together. The split in the committee was over allowing the student body to ratify a radically new constitution, or just reverting back to the status quo, and some members of the CRC made the active decision to revert back to the status quo as if that dichotomy was the only option. If we wanted to do that, we should have presented the old constitution as an option set against the new one.
Finally, to the students who were there on Tuesday watching this on the sidelines, I am sorry for failing you. I tried everything in my power but that was not enough. I hope that you do not feel discouraged from organizing in the future to make this government more representative and democratic any way you see fit. Please don’t let the discourse that we are apathetic or uneducated or incompetent prevail, and please contact me if you have any questions.
As a senior who attended the final meeting but was unable to vote because the CRC was largely presented strictly to former senators and those affiliated with student government, which has for years alienated MOST students on campus, I would just like to say, I feel failed by the entire committee. I feel that anyone who decided in the end to selfishly vote against passing a new constitution when Cho’s proposal was only, two? three? votes away from a 2/3 majority failed. I have lost hope in our student government.
Thank you. I also feel that the student government has failed me. I understand that there were senators on the committee as well. If they had seen for the better judgment of the BU community, then their votes for Cho’s proposal would have been the two or three that was needed. I see that they simply wanted to retain power within their current government. How exactly is this a representative government??
Nor stop attacking individuals that disagree with you as racists and misogynistic. They were prosecuted for failing to do their jobs by the senators WE ELECTED. We never elected you. Yes, Stephen Chang had some problems but most of the senators are good people with good judment.
Now Nor wants to run True BU with these people again, and again, and again? Ad victims? Just keep attacking everyone as racist. I’m sure that will do well for you in the real world, whenever you stop obsessing over UNDERGRAD issues. Oh, and I’m not white but I hate people making excuses for their own problems.
Annoyed Student, I’m not quite sure where you found that Noor was calling people that disagree with her racist and misogynistic, but saying that “most of the senators are good people with good judgement” does not negate the fact that at the time of the impeachment, over half of the student body believed that senate was unrepresentative (see the Stugov poll). Regardless of their intentions, they have failed the student body and as Noor said, even wrote an apology letter admitting that they had made bad decisions and even Andrew and Akiko told her that senate was illegitimate.
And yes, senators impeached them for “failing to do their jobs” (which, according to them, meant that delegating tasks to others is “failing to do your job”), but Andrew said at the beginning of the trial, that he was fully aware and had permitted Marwa and Kim to delegate their tasks so the complaints were not valid.
To your last comment, Noor has every right to be concerned with undergrad issues. She was a member of student government for all 3 and 1/2 years and was present at the impeachment trial and all of the meetings thereafter. Don’t discredit her opinions just because she graduated a few months ago.
No one is making excuses for their own problems here. Unlike many in Student Government, Noor is genuinely interested in making real changes for the student body instead of being involved for personal gain.
See? You just lied. Half the student body didn’t take the poll–unless over 8,000 students took it, which they did not. A super small portion did, who follow Noor and SAS. Its absolutely ridiculous for you to claim otherwise.
Secondly, the President doesn’t have the authority to override the constitution and give permission for his cabinet to negate their duties. Again, another lie.
Noor supporter True BU in the election and therefore got appointed to her position. That is personal gain. Again, another lie.
This whole circus of ‘reformation’ is based on lies from people who can’t stand not getting their way. First it was the House of Rep, then the Think Tank, and now this whole mess. The bottom line is that the majority of the student body are embarrassed by these students acting like petulant children. Please, get back to actually working for the people
Noor is not the leader of SAS; there are about 25 core people who equally take part in its leadership and hundreds of other contributors and supporters but we agreed from the start not for there to be any leader so the fact that you are 1). associating SAS with Noor is just not accurate; 2). essentializing SAS to one person rather than the very wide variety and range of humans who are a part of it is also misinformed. In regards to the rhetoric you are using here, it’s very overused and elementary, “lie”? please.
Dude I don’t know what you are talking about to be honest. I was not a part of True BUs campaign staff and actually disagree with them as of late on many things( you can go ask any of the True BU Members or affiliates). I got appointed to my position cause I was a senator, then an associate director and then applied to be a director and was qualified for the position- did it ever occur to you that I actually deserved my position and it wasn’t just some form of favor?
That survey that was sent out was sent out by the senators not by me or SAS. In fact we didn’t even receive notice from the senators about it.
I had nothing to do with the formation of neither the think tank nor the house or whatever and you can go ask anyone in true BU to corroborate this
Enough with the misinformation about my involvement.
Is Bahrain a democracy? I don’t think it is……..
“The government called in the Saudi military to crush protests by demonstrators demanding a greater say in government in early 2011. The Shias claim there is systematic discrimination against them in jobs and services.”
When Bahrain supports silencing people.
How does Bahrain being a monarchy have anything to do with this? Is Noor responsible for her entire home state’s political system? This keeps being brought up over and over and over and not only is it a ridiculous argument because this university has THOUSANDS of international students (and to discredit their participation in an on-campus event based on their country of origin would completely gut the student community at BU), but it is also blatantly xenophobic. I really hope this kind of discourse is not sustained.
There you go again, always calling people out for being racist or sexist or xenophobic whenever anyone disagrees. I agree that there is good irony in the situation
Agreed. How did a discussion about another country be misconstrued to becoming xenophobic? Looking at the comments, the two posters were merely posting facts about the political climate in Bahrain. Jake perhaps, and I daresay, that you might be taking this a bit too personally? I cannot believe that you, being a part of the Students Against Silence congregation, are silencing this discourse.
A discussion about another country’s political climate to discredit a person from that country!!!!!! No one held responsible or silenced or disregarded and discounted for the political climate of an ENTIRE country!!!!!! Is your work or opinion less valid because you come from a country that over whelmingly now supports the bigot who is Donald Trump????
Shame on you guys for this blatant bigotry seriously, as if Noor is responsible for a monarchical regime. Jeez
I have watched my people die fighting for democracy and I have fought right by their side. Your comment is insensitive at best and offensive at most.
Your people have done nothing more than cause traffic disturbances.
pro-government trolls from the Persian gulf always find their way eventually ha. Where did you even dig up this article in a frenzy to discredit democratic movements?
She just told you that she has literally watched people die for democracy and this is your response? You have no heart.
I am prior Military there is no way she fought literally for democracy. It is an insult for her to toss that out for us who actually have been to war in representation of “democracy”
there’s this thing called soft force; educate yourself
This is hilarious! I was sent this article and the fact you are graduated and have nothing better to do but tear down your prior student body is pathetic. So is all the people masquerading as anonymous. I hope this is a poor reflection of Boston Univeristy quality.
– Hedge Fund Manager & CIO, Quantum Capital
Actually, Noor is someone who works a full-time job and still manages to find time to support students involved in SAS and student government that have been continuing to organize after she has graduated. She is not “tearing down her prior student body”, but rather lifting us up by helping us restructure our oppressive student government.
Yes, support Nadia so you can get your hedge fund up and running with our student fees – she’s spoken enough about you, Matt, that your comment is all too expected. Keep on looting the financial system!
My apologies Marlo! It does seem a tad biased that a group called SAS would silence any opinions? I may be misunderstanding and if so feel free to enlighten me.
@ Anon/ Jacob(?)
1) I do not wish to manage anything from BU? I was being upfront of who I am unlike yourself. Its structured for acceptance of accredited investors (again a limited number) not students but feel free to lecture me when you work wall street and actually know what you are talking about.
2)I voice moral support for people who deserve it and feel you are being harsh and biased when you all are supposed to represent an entire student body. Again come speak to me as a mature adult and I’ll gladly respond. I do not see how anonymously tossing dirt puts anyone from you university in a positive light..
Have a great day
#legacy
This comment thread is exactly why I regret wasting my time as a student at BU. I don’t understand how so many book smart people can act like children 24/7. I cringe at the thought of anyone here actually attempting to lead in the real world. The best thing I did as an undergrad at BU was get high enough grades to attend an Ivy next year. Grow up and get some class.
^^^This guy (or girl)! Get it together guys! WHERE IS THE LEADERSHIP? (Cho, Akiko, Courtney Bold, David C….). Like, seriously?
The students who are complaining about Noor or anyone else not being “affiliated” with the BU student body are entirely mistaken and deluded if you all truly do not see that BU stu gov is a microcosm of the wider institution. I’m a graduate student at BU, and I can tell you for a fact that the silencing tactics and bureaucratic hoops that Noor and so many other hardworking students, seeking to change the campus culture of this white supremacist, hetero-patriarchal, nationalist institution, is the same red tape that other students of color like myself have been hindered by. The reason why efforts to reform the constitution were discouraged after the meeting is because the RICH WHITE MEN who were in charge heavily benefit from leaving the constitutional infrastructure as it was and effectively silencing the presence of the student body–also known as the Lower House.
It’s fine if you’re going to hold biases about international/domestic students of color, and it’s fine if you also truly believe that this oppressive “post racial” #alllivesmatter rhetoric is truly promoting equality–as long as you acknowledge that you are racist or xenophobic, and truly you don’t want to see things change. You to keep brave, brilliant and resilience womyn of color like Noor Turaif and Marwa Sayed in their place. I mean half of you “liberal” *read closeted* racists already showed your true colors for voting for Trump. Might as well stand by it. Stop slaughtering the true essence of what democracy should be.
Meanwhile me and the rest of the hard working, passionate, honest radical/aggressive/unrelenting rebels at SAS will continue fighting, pushing, working for a better BU. Undergraduate, graduate, faculty, union workers–we ALL belong here. This is our homeland, too. Just because your people stole everything you now own does not change the fact that we cannot challenge your narrative of being deserving of it.
Just because students support Trump does not make them racist anymore than Noor being from a non-democratically elected country makes her some sort of monarch. I would expect more tolerance from BU students for people with opposing political views. If you are against silencing people then don’t intimidate them with accusatory-language. This is our homeland, too.
Here we go again, throwing labels around like racist and xenophobic. Here let me give a few more labels so you can include the whole list next time in your tirade: “classism, sexism, cis-sexism, ageism, ableism, heterosexism, misogyny.” I honestly cannot believe you’re a graduate student here since you believe that by labeling people these things will actually work to silence them. I honestly thought you, a more “educated” individual, would come up with more original arguments. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But I guess BU does have an eclectic mix of people.
Trump is a racist. So if you support a known and notorious racist, I’d say you’re racist. Noor doesn’t rally behind the statements and movements of the oppressive monarch, she and her people protest and resist against it. So no, it’s not the same thing at all. That’s like telling me that just because white people black people as slaves doesn’t mean they support slavery…
Actually, Trump might be a big supporter of any movement against silencing people. He’s standing up for the ‘silent majority.’ To find out more and learn how to get involved, please go to: https://www.facebook.com/BUStudentsforTrump/
If youre a cis normative white male with some money, then sure.