Time and again this semester, the ASPC Senate has failed to make strong movements toward addressing key issues on campus. In the most recent example, however, the Senate has committed the gravest error of all: with regard to the Bernard Field Station controversy, they have turned their backs on both the wants and needs of the students of Pomona College.

At Tuesday’s Senate meeting, ASPC President Brian Andrews ’01 presented an outstanding resolution, the main points of which being that the Keck Graduate Institute should be located somewhere other than on the BFS, alternative institutions better suited to the purpose of the BFS should be explored, and the student code violations should not be filed against protesters arrested outside of the Pendleton Building of the CUC. Had the resolution passed, it would have been the most important statement the Senate made during the semester. Unfortunately, large parts of Andrews’ resolution came up against unanimous opposition, leading to numerous amendments that shot down every groundbreaking implication in the resolution. By approving a dramatically weakened version of the resolution, the Senate once again backed down from taking any matters into their own hands, refusing to do anything of importance. Let’s look at how the Senate justified their inaction.

First, South Campus Representative Adam Rick ’02 questioned whether the Colleges really wanted to preserve any part of the BFS, insinuating that he would just as soon bulldoze over this area devoted to "preserving and studying the unique indigenous ecosystem and cultural heritage of the Los Angeles Basin," as Andrews’ resolution describes the Field Station. Rick’s unsympathetic stance toward the BFS was a clue as to how he would vote on this issue, although his views did not represent the rest of the Senate.

Next, a coalition of Senators led by Rick and Freshman Class Representative Mike Rush ’04 struck all paragraphs from the resolution that concerned the fate of student protesters. Andrews’ resolution stated that charging these students with student code violations was an arbitrary form of justice, since none of the students who participated in a similar protest outside of Alexander Hall last spring were brought up on charges. Junior Class Representative Jake Oken-Berg ’02 accepted Dean Quinley’s argument that justice is sometimes arbitrary, stating that arbitrariness alone was not a problem with these charges. Other Senators chimed in, claiming that the protesters should have known what they were risking. Other Senators were swayed by the argument that the Senate was not in a place to infringe on the Judiciary Board’s territory.

The clear implication of this sort of logic in the Senate is that the Senators are not concerned when students are disciplined for a peaceful expression of their opinions. The Senate’s action shows that they think the protesters should have voiced their opinions elsewhere (presumably, in a less confrontational manner), ignoring the fact that the protesters have voiced their opinions elsewhere for years, only to have their opinions fall on deaf ears. If free speech means ensuring that dissenters’ voices can be heard (as I believe it does), then the Senate has abandoned, and even discouraged, all ideals of free speech by turning their back on the students of Pomona College who are now facing disciplinary actions.

As if showing disregard for the well-being of students was not enough, the Senate proceeded to remove all wording from the resolution that could be construed as anti-KGI. Andrews’ resolution proposed that "the College...reexamine the option of other possible academic institutions which would promote and utilize the inherent benefits of the field station and have a small impact on its environment." The justification was that whether construction would happen on BFS was the issue, not what the possible construction would be. No values were placed on KGI, even though several Senators (North Campus Senator Grayson Schaffer ’01 and Senior Class President Lauren Shawn ’01, in particular) expressed deep reservations about the new college’s purpose. Again, the Senate’s reasoning was that they were not in a position to take a stand on the value of KGI. Many, if not most, of us would argue that KGI is antithetical to Pomona College’s view of a liberal arts education. By not opposing KGI, the Senate has turned its back on liberal arts education.

It seems unclear to this writer what the Senate finds itself in a place to do. In the best situation, the ASPC Senate would be the voice of student concerns at the College, the most important of which are the well-being of students, students’ free speech, and the well-being of liberal arts education. If the Senate will not protect the students on these issues, what is the Senate supposed to be doing? Regrettably, the answer is that the Senate sees itself not as the representative of the students to the larger College, but as a mediator between the administration and the students.

This is what we find in exploring the fate of Andrews’ resolution. Finally, somebody on the Senate does something that is in direct opposition to what the administration wants. Instead of taking this cue from Brian Andrews and realizing that it’s time to wake up and do something of substance, the Senate unanimously acted as a brick wall to Andrews’ positive action by approving a meaningless resolution that does nothing to challenge the administration.

We as students depend on the Senate to represent us, and the Senate, in an action that is disheartening, angering, and, in the end, reprehensible, has let us down severely.