“It would be irrational to give a person a position just because the student body constitution has a loophole which allows him to have it,” is equivalent to the statement made by the chief justice in the Hawkins trial.
It is truly absurd to deny what is supposed to be defended.
When dealing with the student body constitution, deontological ethics should take place.
Mistake or no mistake, Hawkins should be crowned.
This decision invites questioning of the effectiveness of the constitution. Does the first point of the Preamble have meaning?
Imagine the government taking similar action on amendments clearly stated.
We as citizens, and more so as blacks, would be in a lot of trouble if the government suddenly felt they had the power to ignore amendments or interpret them based on emotion.
The statements made by the chief justice and the attorney general imply that our Student Government Association operates in the ideology of statism.
Though Hawkins’ reaction was unruly, it does not justify the verdict, as some have said.
Referring back to deontological ethics, the end never justifies the means. His reaction is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Also, definition of what some think a “FAMU Man” should be is irrelevant to the situation.
This implies that emotion took a big role in this decision, which denies the statement that this trial was just and fair.
It is not an obligation of the student body to respect any of the Supreme Court’s decisions unless they stand parallel to the student body constitution.
Having a job or holding a title does not make one sovereign.
It is not the title that has meaning; it’s the action that gives the title its meaning.
Considering the actions that took place, I question, does the constitution have meaning?
Darren Luster is a sophomore political science student from Fort Lauderdale. He can be reached at DDDL610@msn.com.