This is the letter I distributed via my social media accounts, to St. Lawrence students on September 24th.
I am a last semester, Senior. I was elected to the Thelmomathesian Executive Board three times, once as Secretary and twice as President. I am opposed to the recall election in the strongest possible terms. The logistical difficulties of the recall outweigh any merits. Most importantly, the Thelmo Constitution, in having the Vice President of Senate Affairs assume the role of President, should the President leave office before their term is over, is designed to prevent a lapse in effective advocacy of Thelmo on behalf of students.
I have been disgusted to see the insidious, anonymous campaign of intimidation and harassment being utilized against Hannah Crow. As I explain below, I lived through three years of sexism in Thelmo. The same playbook used against me, is being used against Hannah Crow. I will not sit idly by and watch anonymous students, students too afraid to make their arguments under their own name, tear down such an exceptional leader.
As the one student on this campus with the most Thelmo experience, and the most knowledge of the Thelmo Presidency, I hope you consider my arguments against the recall.
The foundation of a liberal arts education is the expression of ideas. For an individual to have the skills to articulate their claims and vigorously defend them to those who question the logic and merits of their arguments. I’m surprised the Hill News has enabled two anonymous articles to be published, arguing for the recall of President Hannah Crow. Allowing students to hide their identities, when making a claim that will have such a widespread impact on students, to me at least, is the antithesis of a liberal arts education. Further, I’m perplexed by the individuals behind the recall, as at the point of writing this, they refuse to come forward and publicly make their case to the student body.
On the 21st I spoke at the Thelmo Senate meeting, regarding the merits of a recall election. I was not invited; it was not coordinated with Thelmo Officers. As a student, it is my right to attend student government meetings and raise my hand to give my input on the issues.
Most interesting to me now, is the most recent article published on September 23rd, is a futile attempt to rebut my arguments against the recall, from days prior. Evidently, the person who wrote the article on the 23rd, was in the room when I made my case or received an update from someone who was. At the meeting, I asked the individual(s) in favor of the recall to speak up- not one person spoke on the topic besides me. I know the individual who wrote the first article at least, was in attendance for the Thelmo meeting, yet they did not speak up. As this person who wrote the first article has not come forward, I don’t believe it’s fair for me to name them publicly.
My first point I made was that in Thelmo and politics in general, it is one of the most well-known responsibilities that the Vice President takes the position of President if the President leaves office before their term is finished. The attempt of the author to rebut this claim of mine is a moot point.
They say in their article, “Our leadership is not an appointee simply because one President has stepped away. Our own national system forces the same principle, as Truman was elected with FDR, which after the remainder of his term, he was forced to an election.”
I’m happy the author brought forth this example because it perfectly illustrates my comparison I was making to American Politics. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in November 1944, with Truman as his Vice President. When FDR died in April 1945, Vice President Truman became President for three years and then, in a regularly scheduled Presidential
election, ran for President in 1948. Truman wasn’t “forced to an election” like the author says. Truman ran in a regular Presidential election, after finishing the term of the deceased FDR.
Truman appointed William Barkley as his Vice President per the 25th Amendment, “Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.”
Through this pertinent example, the author rather inadvertently illustrates my point of the merits the Thelmo constitution follows. When the President leaves office before their term is over, the Vice President takes the position of President for the remainder of the term. A Vice President is then nominated and confirmed in the Thelmo Senate. Exactly like in American politics.
Next, the author has not explained to students in detail the process of the recall election, so I will take it upon myself to do so. I can only imagine the author has not done this, because they know the details will give students pause in petitioning a recall.
The most important facts are this, the individual who is elected in the recall will only be President until Dec. 7th, as that’s when the 2022 term expires. All elections take a minimum of 16 days.
How the election process works. Electronic petitions from candidates need to be solicited from the student over five to seven days. There will be a candidate’s meeting on a Sunday night to explain the rules, and the debate the following evening on Monday. Polls will open on a Wednesday and close the following Wednesday after 7 days of campaigning. This is assuming there are the necessary 622 votes needed- this is the number because to close the election, we need 40-percent of the student body MINUS half the fully matriculated Senior Class. If there are not 622 votes, the election remains ongoing until we hit this number. After polls close, there is a 48 hour hold period to verify all votes are legitimate (no technical issues, no one voted twice, etc).
If the necessary signatures to start the recall are obtained ASAP, the election would start on the 28th. At the absolute earliest, the recall election results would be announced on Friday, October 14th. For some context, last year the election took 17 days from start to finish. The Thelmo Executive Board sent three reminders to students, because we did not reach the necessary number of votes when polls closed on the seventh day.
The election for the 2023 Thelmo Executive Board, including the President, begins on October 26th. Electronic petitions will be made available on the 26th. I would imagine the applications would be open for 5 days until October 30th. The candidate’s meeting could be held on the evening of the 30th. The debate on the 31st. Polls will be open from the 2nd to the 9th of November. If 622 votes are reached, polls will close. If not, polls will stay open until the number is hit. After a two day hold, the results will be announced. The 2023 Executive Board will be announced on or after November 11th.
The turnover to a Thelmo President is not immediate. It takes one month of training to bring the Thelmo President up to speed. The President-elect then does another month of planning on their own, over the winter break.
The Thelmo President between mid-November and mid-January must: learn the constitution, learn how to administer Roberts Rules (the rules for running Thelmo Senate meetings), learn about the shared governance structure of the University and how they fit into it (his is how students, faculty/staff, trustees, and alumni work together for the good of the institution), learn how to effectively communicate with students, faculty, and staff, learn how to bring forth problems from the student body, learn how to write both a report to the Board of Trustees and present a compelling verbal report (these reports are presented four times per year), develop a master plan of initiatives and how to implement them for the organization (the seven to nine standing Thelmo committees and the
Executive Board), develop organizational “norms” for communication and collaboration to avoid conflict and mismanagement.
Let’s say a person different from the current President is elected on or after October 14th- who is going to train them? How are they going to accomplish all these tasks that in every other year takes two months of critical thinking to develop, to ensure the success of Thelmo for the remainder of the semester? To ensure there is little to no disruption in the ability of Thelmo to effectively address the needs of students?
That’s why, the Vice President takes over for the remainder of the President’s term, if the President leaves office. The Vice President knows the rules, norms, and policies of Thelmo and can start immediately with very little training.
Let’s say a person different from the current President is elected on or after October 14th, how are they going to train the 2023 President, who will be announced on November 11th? How could they do this when they have been in the office for less than one month?
After three years on the Thelmo Executive Board, I don’t know how this is possible. If the organizers of the election believe it is, again, please come forward publicly and make your case to students like myself who have serious issues with your campaign.
Finally, I’d like to end with a discussion of sexism.
The author of the article on the 23rd states a component of my argument calling the recall sexist was, “shameful in many ways.” Why did they not speak up, if they were in the Thelmo meeting? Why have they not contacted me since to explain their concerns to me? I know the primary motive of the recall is not sexism; however, the actions being taken to accomplish the motivation, anonymous articles, and intimidation tactics, are deeply sexist.
I’d like to begin this by saying, female students aren’t exempt from perpetuating sexism. Just because you yourself are a woman, that doesn’t mean you can’t perpetuate gender based harassment against another woman.
Shocking to me when reading, Why A Recall Is Right, is how the author employed Thelmo’s most recent female President as an example, as to why the accusation of sexism was untrue. If Thelmo elected a female President for multiple years, how is it sexism? I understood this to be the essence of their argument.
Who was Thelmo’s most recent female President? I was. Who made the claim the recall efforts are sexist? I did.
Interesting…
According to the author, “To claim it is based off sexist’s reasons is an absurd claim, considering only two years prior, Thelmo had a president, which was a woman for nearly four years. During that time, not once did one complain of the idea a woman in leadership was wrong. Rather it was quite the opposite. Many were proud of the fact that our student body elected a woman to the highest leadership position, considering SLU’s history regarding gender in leadership positions.”
I served two years, not four years as the author incorrectly states. Second, my term ended one year ago, not two.
There are two false components in this section. First, how does a prior female Thelmo President prove the current female President isn’t experiencing sexism?
Second, of the prior female Thelmo President (me), I couldn’t help but laugh at “not once did one complain of the idea a woman in leadership was wrong.” Clearly, the author lives in a vastly different reality than I do.
Rewriting history, telling my story without my permission, to erase the three years of sexism I faced at St. Lawrence, all to rebut my “absurd” claim that efforts of the recall aren’t rooted in sexism, is asinine.
Let’s say the author didn’t know of the harassment I experienced in Thelmo for three years, as I will detail below. Do they think it’s merely a coincidence, that in 159 years, at an equal opportunity institution like St. Lawrence, Thelmo has only had ten female Presidents?
What then is their explanation of, “SLU’s history regarding gender in leadership positions.”
Most disturbing to me, why is the author comfortable making this failed rebuttal, with zero research or evidence? I have my evidence, as I will describe below. I’m failing to see theirs.
I experienced it all throughout my time in leadership in Thelmo, insults, interruptions, and degradation. An anonymous student rewriting my story, one of which sexism is deeply ingrained, to fit their narrative as to why their own actions aren’t sexist- is truly appalling.
If your only defense against an accusation of sexism, made by a female Thelmo President, is to point to the continued reelection of that specific female Thelmo President, I’d argue it’s time to return to the drawing board.
I’m rarely without words, but this paragraph left me truly stunned.
In my first semester as President, the Spring of 2020, our number of Senators dropped by at least one third. Largely in part of a cohort of male members refused to return to Thelmo because I was, “incompetent.”
I was frequently called a bitch and a prude. The way I dressed, spoke, even how I sat in my chair during meetings, was criticized. To those who criticized me, they didn’t critique the substance of my policy proposals, to them I was only a bitch, or I was incompetent. Or an incompetent bitch- my favorite insult.
My first semester, male senators attempted to railroad over me at the meetings, speaking without being called upon or asking a follow-up question, knowing all too well they needed to raise their hands again to do so. These individuals didn’t do this so blatantly to the two previous male Presidents. Why did they assume the rules had changed with the gender of the President?
When I ran for a second term, the individual who I ran against didn’t seem to have many original ideas. The substance of his campaign platform was a critique of my policies and ideas. I’ll never forget how he started the opening statement at our debate, “I’m extremely disappointed with how Thelmo has been run the last year.”
It’s a uniquely female experience in Thelmo, having to retain composure when individuals who have said nasty insults about you behind your back, are critiquing you with a live audience watching for your reaction.
Of all the insults and diatribes launched against me, not one incident occurred to my face. Every incident was relayed to me “through the grapevine,” passed along three or four students until it got back to me. Not one individual had the courage to insult me to my face.
Where I label the recall sexist, is at this juncture. The individuals attempting to organize a recall, to this point, have only utilized anonymous articles and anonymous social media posts. They haven’t spoken directly to the individual
they want to recall, publicly defended the merits of their argument, or made their case to the Student Government Senate. They haven’t once attached their name to their efforts.
I lived through three years of the nastiest sexism at this institution. The playbook used against me is the exact same playbook now being used against Hannah Crow. Students now hiding behind anonymous items like Hill News articles and Yik Yak posts, others indirectly involved in the situation attempting to intimidate Hannah Crow. I wish I could say I’m surprised, but I’m not. As I’ve experienced this before, it’s my responsibility to call it out for what it is.
I hope I’ve proved how the logistical realities of a recall outweigh the merits. Second, that the current system in effect works. Third, that the anonymous efforts of the recall are deeply disturbing to an institution that is far too slow in putting women at the highest levels of leadership.
I absolutely believe students should elect their representatives, but this is not a normally occurring situation that we find ourselves in. For exceptional situations like these, the Vice President takes over the role of President until the term is over. The Vice President knows the student body, the organization, and the institution. This is done to ensure the least amount of disruption to the student body, so Thelmo can continue effectively advocating on their behalf.
One note I’d like to make. In the Spring of 2021, I wrote and presented a constitutional amendment to require the election of Senators and Committee Chairs, by the student body. The alleged argument of the recall, to be democratic and to give students a voice, is one I believe deeply in. So deeply in fact, I attempted to make this true for all Thelmo positions.
Not one Thelmo member voted for my amendment. It failed with 100% in opposition- it stood to be the worst day I had in Thelmo. The author of the most recent article states they were in Thelmo for, “nearly two years” Then, they would have most likely voted against the amendment to make Thelmo fully democratic. In stark opposition to the point they so eloquently made, “Our leadership should be voiced by us, selected by us, and focused on us.”
To those organizing the recall, some of whom are Thelmo members, how do you believe Thelmo could effectively advocate for students if a minimum of 32 of the coming 49 days will be in election periods? With all the issues this semester- dining, mental health, Title 9, I know students can’t afford such a massive disruption to Thelmo as two elections within the same month.
President Hannah Crow has my full vote of confidence. She leads with kindness and is exceptionally resourceful- she can bring forth viable solutions with limited time and resources. At the meeting on the 21st, I was astounded at the progress President Crow reported with 7 days on the job- I can only imagine what she will lead Thelmo to accomplish in the remainder of the semester.
Instead of a recall, I’d encourage the students to instead focus their efforts on producing a robust list of candidates for the 2023 election to begin on October 26th. Let’s ensure students truly have exceptional candidates to choose from, so we don’t find ourselves in a similar situation in the future.