Last night the Student Council rejected a motion that would have prohibited its officers from holding office in "ideological or political organizations". The rejected motion was the child of a hasty and vindictive petition circulated during the day by opponents of S.C. president Howie Phillips. As a move in a partisan dog-fight between Young Republican factions, the motion merits no consideration at all, but insofar as it represents an attempt to solve what is becoming an historic Council problem, it deserves serious thought.

The problem, of course, is how to prevent student politicians from exploiting Council offices to further their own political careers. Yesterday's motion was an attempt to legislate temptation away; like most such attempts, it was too extreme. Aiming at a total and legalistic reform of what is admittedly a bad situation, it ignored the possibilities for action within the existing framework of the Council's rules.

The Council should not try to legislate propriety. Rather, it should conduct an investigation to determine whether its president has in fact transcended the bounds of taste, judgement, or honesty. In doing so it will by implication draw what it considers the proper line between a Council officer's official actions and his political activities. If Phillips has crossed this line the Council should impeach him. There is no cut and dried formula for deciding a question like this; the Council has to treat it as a question of fact, rather than as a general legislative proposition. But the inquiry itself will give the Council a chance to state clearly for the record what it considers improper behavior on the part of its officers. It will serve as a precedent for future inquiries of the same kind. And it will serve as a warning to ambitious politicos on the make.