SGA, you are public figures, so get used to mudslinging
Two weeks ago, The Cluster published an opinion piece by senior Gene Mitchell, who was at that time a Student Government parliamentarian.
Mitchell, who in the interest of full disclosure is a good friend of mine and regular contributor to the paper, criticized the current crop of SGA candidates, several by name.
Following its publication, president Locke expressed concerns about student reaction to the piece, and Mitchell was ultimately asked to resign from his position last Monday.
Mitchell spoke only out of a genuine love for his school and a desire to see students engage more strongly in their student government.
Yes, he spoke strongly about many students, but only with the hope of encouraging them to do the best they can at their jobs.
The fact that Mitchell was punished for the love of his school is absolutely sickening. I’m appalled at the backlash my friend faced.
Here’s the deal: if you are running for public office, don’t be surprised when people criticize you publicly.
You’ve made a decision to be the public face of your class at Mercer, and it should be obvious that not everyone will agree with you and want to express those opinions.
It is literally your job to listen to those complaints and use them to better Mercer’s campus.
It doesn’t matter if the critiques come from a student, faculty member, or another SGA member.
Getting upset about criticisms is childish, entitled and a testament to the fact that Mitchell was right all along.
A real student leader wouldn’t get offended at criticism. A real leader would listen to those complaints and do something about them.
And I don’t mean trying to silence anyone with a dissenting opinion.
Presumably, many of these SGA members are interested in pursuing a political career in the future.
Do they think they will never be called out by name in that line of work?
Professional politics is comprised of nothing but mudslinging. Mitchell’s criticisms are positively compliments by those standards.
And at the end of the day, pretty much everything Mitchell said was correct.
The junior class and senator-at-large representatives are running unopposed, and none of the candidates have campaigned particularly hard or impressed me in any way.
When it comes down to it, Mitchell was trying to spur the school into action.
I’ve talked to him many times about SGA, and it’s clear that he loves the organization.
He wants nothing but the best for the school, and is in a uniquely qualified position to assist it.
Mitchell is a veteran, and has served his country on the battlefield and as an ambassador.
He maintains good grades and has spent time volunteering with Mercer On Mission. And yet we would rather have students that put no effort into their campaigns on staff?
It makes me glad I’m graduating this May, because I would be fearful of some of the new representatives coming into SGA.
Criticize me as much as you like for what I wrote. I put it out there publicly, and I understand the implications that come with it. But I won’t be resigning as an editor of The Cluster.
Comments, questions or concerns about this opinion can be emailed to [email protected]
Everything I am about to say here is my personal opinion. I have had many cordial and friendly interactions with Gene Mitchell, Eric Brown, and a large majority of SGA. I make no secret about this. My opinions on this issue are limited to this issue alone. I do not extend my feelings attached to this incident to the character or morale fiber of any particular individual. That said, I have to say something.
There are a few things I feel compelled to mention. The first being that Mitchell was writing an opinions piece, not a news article. Next, if those mentioned in the article felt offended perhaps they could have gone through less severe and permanent channels in lieu of wasting no time to call for his abrupt resignation. Mitchell is within a stone’s throw of graduation. It is an insult to him and the journalistic profession for him to be called to resign for speaking frankly about an organization that is dear to his heart. Especially considering that his year-long role as parliamentarian, according all the evidence I have heard, was overall considered nothing but great service.
If someone told me that Gene Mitchell has more real world political experience than any other Mercerian, I would not bat an eye. His C.V. is so astounding that it is too much for me to list here. If there were going to be sanctions placed on him for inappropriate behavior, perhaps lesser actions would have been more appropriate than something this grave? I have seen no evidence of nor have I even heard a single allegation of additional misconduct from Mitchell.
While I am not well versed in SGA procedure, I can not help but think there must have been a more judicious approach to this controversial issue. Even if what he did was inappropriate, if lambasting the political process which would allow several individuals uncontested access to allocate huge sums of money as they see fit was a breach of Senate rules, was this really the best and only course of action? Does removing Mitchell improve SGA? What if he was asked to present a public apology or recant his statements in The Cluster? I would have rather seen more deliberation and a more merciful application of the law. Do we want to foster a political environment that responds to passionate candor with execution?
You can please everyone some of the time, some people all the time, but never everyone all the time. There is a difference between doing the popular thing and the right thing. Gene was the only person who had the guts to speak out in a public forum over what he thought was a travesty for SGA. Muzzling any person’s first amendment rights is a miscarriage of justice. The student body would do well to listen when one of Mercer’s best and most experienced political scientists feels compelled to speak publicly. Gene Mitchell is an asset to Mercer University and I am proud to know him.
Well said. People need to stop acting so butthurt when they were elected to office.
And SGA members, don’t act so appalled that Gene brought this information to the student body in his article. Many of you were already saying this stuff anyway.
I would respect the opinions of Cluster writers more if they did research, interviewed senators, reported on real issues and stopped trying to create conflicts and scandals. It’s not watchdog journalism, its pathetic writing.
I appreciate your input Matt, but to be fair, I never claimed to be a watchdog journalist. I’m a music writer with a few opinions about the way my friend was treated for speaking his mind. I never want to present myself as anything but that.
Also to be fair, since it’s in the “Opinions” section, the pieces themselves never claimed to be “watchdog journalism.” It’s an opinion. It really would be pathetic writing if anyone was trying to pass it off as more than an opinions piece, but no one is. People are entitled to their opinions and this section of the newspaper–of any newspaper–is there for exactly this purpose.
This article was not written by Liz. Why is her name being brought into this matter when she had no input in the piece nor did she ask to have it written. Contrary to popular belief the editors of The Cluster are not puppets, we are students whose brains are capable of making our own decisions. Thanks though for implicating an innocent third party.
You know what arguments I really respect? Ad hominem attacks on my co-workers . If you have a legitimate rebuttal to my argument, however, I would love to discuss it with you.