From the moment we submitted our Phaedrus proposal to the cabinet, we were told it would fail. The news of our impending failure began circulating before the proposal was even introduced to the student body as cabinet members began to spread the information throughout the school. The Phaedrus proposal, designed to streamline procedure and organization within the magazine, failed before the student body even saw it. From the start, it was strongly opposed by Upper School history teacher Jeanne Barr and, by extension, the rest of the cabinet. I had multiple conversations with five different cabinet members discussing the proposal, and each individual relayed a similar message. “We have been told to do everything in our power to ensure this proposal fails,” one said. To their credit, they have done everything in their power to stall and eventually fail the proposal, but it brings up concerns for Parker’s Democracy.
The main complaint regarding the Phaedrus proposal was the lack of democracy: a vote being taken from the people. The people, however, don’t seem to care about this specific instance of a lack of democracy as less than 62% of students exercised their right to vote (only 213 students out of the 344 student body voted), showing that the Assembly did not have concerns about their democratic rights being stripped away. Instead, the faculty advisors and Cabinet members did.
In fact, throughout the process of writing the proposal, the cabinet frequently foreshadowed their decision regarding the proposal with both their actions and their words. After turning in the proposal, the cabinet made comments and edits on the document. This in itself was not evidence of corruption, but unbeknownst to the student body, they also began to slowly push voting on the proposal back. We engaged in dialogue but never met in person, and only after we introduced the proposal to the student body were we invited to a cabinet meeting to discuss it. This was after the questions period, an event from which the student body only had one takeaway: the questions period was unregulated and deeply inappropriate, with a cabinet member pandering to the crowd while engaging in verbal altercations with the four heads. These actions were so inappropriate that for the following week, teachers were discussing the mistreatment that the current cabinet and faculty advisors allowed to take place.
Interestingly enough, only three out of the fifteen to twenty people who spoke at the microphone across the three plenary sessions about the proposal have submitted to Phaedrus, begging the question of where this interest in Phaedrus came from.
The results of both the questions period and the discussion that followed in a cabinet meeting afterward were extremely disheartening. The cabinet suggested further revisions to the proposal, and the faculty advisors encouraged us to rewrite it and change the very basis of our proposal altogether. We had a quick turnaround of three days to make the changes. This was because we had to return the “new” proposal to the cabinet to reintroduce it to the Senate before the next plenary. If the cabinet had spoken with us before introducing the proposal to the student body, we could’ve made changes beforehand and wouldn’t have needed to revise it so quickly. Ultimately, we met the deadline, though it was very tight and not without difficulties. Throughout this entire time, the message had remained constant: the cabinet was not offering support on this proposal unless it was changed to match their views, and they did not approve of our overall goal to change the voting procedure for Phaedrus heads. It was during this time frame that cabinet members began to pull me and other heads aside, accusing their faculty advisors of poising them against us and apologizing for the drama that was likely to ensue.
Then, we had to sit through another plenary session, in which we still did not vote on the proposal. This in itself is not a marker of foul play. However, when, after the fact, we heard that a faculty advisor was encouraging students in the crowd to remake their failed amendments after they had been voted down, we wondered, when were we going to vote, and why were they stalling for time? Furthermore, I question the logic that failed amendments to the proposal can be revoted on but a proposal that failed after the quorum wasn’t met can’t because that would not be democratic.
Finally, when moving to vote on the proposal, there was an emphasis before the vote on the importance of democracy made by a faculty advisor. This once again showcases how it was not the greater student body concerned about democracy but a small subset of individuals. Overall, the audience appeared to be unreceptive. Despite this opposition, those who filled out the Google form overwhelmingly supported the proposal; 78% voted to pass the bill. This was then invalidated by a constitutional loophole,, claiming the proposal failed due to the lack of a two-thirds of the Assembly “yes” vote. When a revote was called for, the response was denial, along with a message from senior and Executive Advisor Zarin Meta in an email that “it is undemocratic to perform a revote, and so this final result will stand as is.” While that decision didn’t go our way, it was neither shocking nor surprising. With the results of the Phaedrus proposal standing as is, the philosophy behind its failure is flawed. Ultimately, the issue boils down to a lack of a system for appeal and a greater problem of lack of voter turnout.
As outlined in the email sent by Phaedrus heads to the cabinet and the rest of the student body, the lack of quorum in a digital space and the lack of policy regarding online voting call for the need to revote. While this point has been debated multiple times, you can not change simple facts. The problem is not with our argument but with the cabinet and their faculty advisors’ interpretation of the Constitution. They have interpreted it so this proposal will fail. Meanwhile, members of the student body and I (evidenced by the student government social media post, in which 75% voted in the online poll for a revote) believe it should be reconsidered.
Furthermore, denying the student body, who wants to revote, the right is evidence of voter suppression, which is one of the main reasons to call for a revote. Digging even deeper, it is clear that the reasoning behind denying a revote is flawed. The cabinet claims a revote is unconstitutional, undemocratic, and unnecessary. As outlined in the email I sent to the student body, direct quotes from the Constitution and Robert’s rules of order contradict the cabinet’s claims. The cabinet argues that the quorum was met when we held the initial vote to vote in the auditorium. They have stated that 306 people were present, creating the Assembly total and meeting the quorum required.
Meanwhile, on the Google form, they counted all 344 individuals as present as they had access to the form. This indicates a shift in the Assembly total, which I believe implies that the quorum required to vote would shift as well. The cabinet maintains that 344 people were still present on the online form because they had access to it even though they had exercised their right not to vote. Although this is true, we do not know the intention the student body had when not filling out the form, as there were a litany of issues that could prevented voting, such as bad wifi in the auditorium and being on a school trip in Spain I disagree as I do not believe that 344 individuals were present on the form–only 213 people voted–but that is up to the interpretation, which is where bias comes into play. Ultimately, the issue does not lie with the Phaedrus proposal but with the system of approval and the cabinet that was clearly influenced and affected by said bias. In the end, this series of events has led me to question my understanding of our student government and how it functions, and leads to the overall question: Who cares about democracy when its biggest champions do not respect it themselves?
