The author is a volunteer for the Senior Gift.

Crimson Unqualified To Impeach Burton

Advertisement

To the editors:

The vicissitudes of The Crimson's "logical contradictions" with regards to the Burton affair are profoundly disturbing. Your editorial "The Students Should Decide" (Editorial, Feb. 7) states that "the students should decide whether or not" the alleged misconduct of Undergraduate Council Vice President John A. Burton '01 was "truly serious enough to warrant removal from what is a primarily bureaucratic office." Your editorial "Burton Should Step Down" (Editorial, Feb. 14) also claims that such "a decision should be left to the students" but refers to the alleged misconduct as "fact" and confidently claims that because "a majority of the Council has called for [Burton's] expulsion" it is in the students' interest that Burton resign. It claims that the "student body will" in fact "hold the current administration in distrust" until Burton resigns.

The editorial claims the council's "trial" of Burton was "ill equipped" and yet it has the audacity to convict Burton based on its own trial and on behalf of the student body it previously claimed should be the sole judge of whether Burton's actions merited removal from office. From what oracle does The Crimson derive its authority to speak on behalf of the student body? The Crimson is confident in its assumption that students mistrust the Undergraduate Council's current administration; I am as confident that the student body mistrusts The Crimson's presumption in these matters.

The one voice that has not been properly heard either in the noise of the council's "circus" or The Crimson's coverage of this farce is that of the student body which voted overwhelmingly for the Driskell/Burton ticket. Unlike The Crimson's editorial staff, I am sure that if presented with the "facts" and not The Crimson's "semantic manipulations" the student body would reiterate its support of Burton as vice president of the council.