Yesterday morning, on the eve of a recall election campaign seeking to remove him from the Harvard Undergraduate Association’s co-presidency, John S. Cooke ’25 penned an op-ed in The Crimson defending himself.

In that piece, Cooke told us, in his own words, everything we need to know about him. We are deeply unimpressed.

The op-ed begins with a laundry list of professional accomplishments. He has helped us institutionalize funds for our summer storage, he tells us. He created student organization grants and advocated to keep the add-drop deadline later. He sat on a panel.

This rebuttal falls flat. Nobody is dissecting Cooke’s resumé nor his performance in his amateur office — he is under scrutiny for allegations of serious misconduct.

Cooke proceeds to characterize the criticisms against him as levied in bad faith, likening them to “mudslinging” and politically-motivated scheming aimed at discrediting his administration, damaging his reputation, and scaring him and others like him — whatever that means — “into abandoning our aspirations for public service.”

This claim is as vague as it is self-aggrandizing. In suggesting that people are smearing him in the way they would a national politician, Cooke incorrectly assumes that people care about his role nearly as much as the serious allegations against him.

This is not a witch hunt.

In reality, it is clear that so many of our peers, in their scrutiny of Cooke, are acting out of empathy and legitimate concern for accountability. To dismiss them so completely could not be more callous, audacious, or disrespectful.

Cooke writes in defense of his ego — not to engage seriously with his peers or the claims before him.

There is a right way to respond to these circumstances. We understand that Cooke is in a challenging predicament, but that cannot excuse how greatly he has failed to meet this moment with the dignity and grace it requires and that we should expect from someone in his position.

In focusing on himself and his recent discomfort, Cooke cripples the case in his defense. His piece reads as a call for pity rather than an earnest engagement with the sincere concern motivating his recall.

As we place our votes in the recall election today, we must ask ourselves one simple question: Is John Cooke a good leader?

A good leader is gracious, he treats his constituents with respect, and he always puts himself second. A good leader can defend himself without disparaging his critics or their motivations. A good leader does not cast anyone aside.

There are nine days left in Cooke’s term. Removing him from office will have no real impact on the HUA’s functioning or campus life. But this is not an election about tangibles; it is a referendum on the principles of the undergraduate community.

We must consider whether Cooke’s response is befitting of the HUA co-presidency or the character and values of the student body he purports to represent.

John Cooke has had his word. Now we get to have ours.

E. Matteo Diaz ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Grays Hall. Layla L. Hijjawi ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Grays Hall. Lorenzo Z. Ruiz ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Greenough Hall.