(Re)calling ASUC Senator John Moghtader
Five Boalties are attempting to initiate a recall of ASUC Senator John Moghtader.
According to the Daily Cal, the recall follows an altercation in Eshleman Hall on Nov. 13 between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli students, after which three people were charged with battery. Though Moghtader was not charged, he has been criticized for his involvement. As one Boaltie put it: "I believe he has created an atmosphere that is detrimental to balanced debate."
Moghtader disagrees: "The bottom line is that the people who are trying to recall me are people who didn't think I should get elected in the first place."
(Correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't that perfectly compatible with the possibility that he has been a bad apple from the get-go? He may not be, but surely he could have come up with a more persuasive counter-argument, no?)
To be honest, I don't know much about the story, though I do remember the Cal articles after the fight. Here is one, and here is another. I'd love to learn more.
According to the Daily Cal, the recall follows an altercation in Eshleman Hall on Nov. 13 between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli students, after which three people were charged with battery. Though Moghtader was not charged, he has been criticized for his involvement. As one Boaltie put it: "I believe he has created an atmosphere that is detrimental to balanced debate."
Moghtader disagrees: "The bottom line is that the people who are trying to recall me are people who didn't think I should get elected in the first place."
(Correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't that perfectly compatible with the possibility that he has been a bad apple from the get-go? He may not be, but surely he could have come up with a more persuasive counter-argument, no?)
To be honest, I don't know much about the story, though I do remember the Cal articles after the fight. Here is one, and here is another. I'd love to learn more.
Labels: Elections
posted by Patrick Bageant at 11:28 AM
35 Comments:
I feel like I'm missing some information. Who is Moghtader? Is he a Boaltie? Did we elect him?
Otherwise, why do we care? Why do 5 Boalties care?
Agreed. It's kind of sad when graduate students can't let go of undergrad student politics.
There's bigger fish to fry now. What a huge waste of everyone's time.
You mean fish like locker fees and debit cards in cafe zeb, right?
TJ,
That's a pretty stupid thing to say. For two reasons:
1. ASUC is in charge of doling out a lot of money. And a lot of that is ours, or goes to us.
2. The value of our degrees depend more on the pedigree and name of this fine institution than the undergrads.
It's good to see that graduate students are involved in their campus politics, and it's sad to see that so many are so occupied with their own insular grad-student world that they don't pay attention.
But Matt, this looks like it's just about petty politics -- 5 people are using a fight, which may or may not have included Moghtader (please tell me we're giving him the benefit of the doubt here, since he wasn't charged), to make a lot of noise about a candidate that they probably didn't vote for.
I don't see how this in any way will affect how much money ASUC doles out to Boalt, and the only thing this is doing for our name is putting some Google hits out there about Boalties petitioning to remove some student gov't guy.
I was pretty heavily involved in student government at my fairly large undergrad school, and after three years of watching it, I have to tell you: it's just a bunch of kids playing statesmen. It deserves about as much attention as the power that they ultimately have, which is almost none.
Let's not pretend that these are grand issues that Boalties should be spending their time paying attention to.
Patrick: those are two good examples, but I was thinking bigger - like things that actually pertain to the real world.
Matt: I'm not saying ASUC is pointless. I am saying that a recall of one senator, based primarily on political disagreements, is a huge waste of an otherwise talented and intelligent law student's time. How about moving beyond the minuscule importance of how our school spirit dollars are spent and think about bigger issues? Where's the motivation to address ineptitude on the Berkeley city level? County level?
Hell, does anyone here even care what's going on in the State Capitol? That shit impacts more people simply deciding which clubs get money for their pizza. In a budget crisis, issues on that level impact whether a poor kid will get sufficient preparation and financial assistance to one day seek a higher education and a stable career.
After undergrad graduation (hell, even before it), I've decided to think about THOSE problems.
You should too.
So how about we leave the picket signs and the student slate politics to the kiddies - where it belongs?
Undergraduate politics are hilariously funny at Cal, which is why I pay attention.
That said, Matt's suggestion that Boalties should worry about it because of their money is misplaced, since all the fees they pay to the ASUC go to the Graduate Assembly.
My point is that I'd rather have people caring about politics - on any level for any reason. I'm not going to stand on a pedestal and say 'you should only care about what's going on statewide' or 'you should only care about what happens locally' - that's just silly.
From my experience, graduate students (for the most part) tend to occupy the insular world of whatever they're studying, and tend not to know or even acknowledge that things are happening in their communities. I appreciate the fact that five people care about something. And I don't feel as if I'm in a position to judge the value of it.
So, Mike, your point is that people should care about politics because they should care about something?
I don't think this is about a disagreement with his politics in and of themselves; it's a disagreement with his behavior. I think it's notable and accurate to say an elected official participating in thuggery (or a fight) is not an adequate representative of the principles of democracy, free speech, and democratic participation.
No one else sees a problem with arguing about whether its a waste of time to follow something? No one? That seems like a good allocation of time?
Keep some perspective, kiddies.
Despite all of this important and relevant debate, I think we are all missing an important point. Namely, one of the kids involved in the altercation is named "Weiner." Yes, Weiner.
As a Boaltie, I oppose the petition to recall John Moghtader from his post in college government and think reasonable people of all political persuasions should be skeptical of an attempt to unseat an elected student leader on the basis of his political affiliations and a one-sided account of his actions.
To the extent that the facts are known, it sounds like John was trying to keep the peace. Reports indicate that cops arrested the guys who attacked John and his friends. Neither John nor his friends have been charged with anything. In fact, they may have been the victims of a battery and a racial hate-crime.
Values rooted in due process and cool-headed fact-finding suggest that we shouldn't use the drastic measure of recall in this situation, certainly not at this early stage. Let's wait for all the evidence to come in before we start demanding someone be expelled from representative student government. I would hate to think that due process means less to Boalt students when they're going after someone whose politics they disagree with.
10:13,
According to one of the articles linked to:
"Though Moghtader has not been cited, UCPD Assistant Chief Mitch Celaya said police are asking the Alameda County District Attorney's Office to file battery charges against him based on witness statements. "
I agree with anon at 10:13. The petition to recall John is premature and hasty.
Anon at 10:30: the fact that there are conflicting accounts of what happened that night amply demonstrates how premature the petition is. More fact-finding needs to happen before we railroad a student leader and oust him from office. The recall petition is based on thin gruel if the best "evidence" are charges against John that haven't even been filed (especially when only one party -- not John -- has been issued a battery citation). Accusations which have yet to be critically examined by a judge or jury (or even a prosecutor) ought not be the basis of a recall petition. It's an unfortunate state of affairs that Boalt students are ready to effectively convict and sentence a student leader when the authorities haven't even figured out what happened.
The SQUELCH! Party, John Moghtader's former party, wrote the following unpublished letter to the Daily Cal:
We, as former officers of the SQUELCH! Party, want to assure our friends, peers, and fellow students that the recent transgressions of Gabe Weiner and John Moghtader sadden and disgust us. They, and their actions, do not in any way represent us or our organization.
Many people don’t think of the SQUELCH! Party as ideological. We understand. If you saw a penis chalked on the sidewalk during ASUC elections, then that was probably our handiwork. But, for the past five years, we have worked very hard to build the SQUELCH! Party into a legitimate voice for change (and dick jokes) on the Berkeley campus. Vibrator races and civil war water balloon fights have always been a comical way for us to represent our true ideology: the protection and promotion of free expression, reducing ASUC inefficiency, and increasing the resources for student publications on campus.
Now, none of us were at Eshleman Hall on the night of the incident, and everything that we have been told has been second-hand. But it’s irrelevant to us who hit whom first, and who called whom what names. As soon as Gabe Weiner and John Moghtader went into Eshleman Hall to confront those inside, they violated the promises they made to voters that elected them and failed to uphold the ideals of the party they represent. The current representatives of our party have not only forsaken our founding ideal, but violently intervened against it. That is not who SQUELCH! is, and John Moghtader and Gabe Weiner do not represent us.
To the students who were physically and emotionally harmed by the conduct of John Moghtader and Gabe Weiner, there is nothing we can say that would begin to convey our shame, embarrassment, and sadness over this whole affair. We are in disbelief that such an incident could occur, particularly by those masquerading as our representatives. Their actions were unacceptable by any standard. We hope that you are all alright and continue your work at Berkeley with pride for the rest of your student career.
To the ASUC senators who have served this university diligently alongside current and former members of the SQUELCH! Party, we apologize for introducing a representative who is not up to our standards as a party or to the standards that we would expect from our colleagues.
To the campus community, we assure you that next year we will be more rigorous in our search for candidates that live and exude the Party’s values of free expression and respectful debate.
Above all, we strongly condemn the actions of John Moghtader, Gabe Weiner, and anyone else involved in the instigation of this incident. Each one of us continues to feel a deep connection to the campus community, and we are available to anyone in any capacity that could begin to heal the situation or foster a healthy dialogue.
Regards,
Lauren Karasek – ASUC President-Elect Presumptive, SQUELCH!, 2006
Ben Narodick – ASUC Senator, SQUELCH!, 2004-2006 & Party Signatory, 2004-2007
Andrew Ratto – SQUELCH! Party Signatory, 2004-2006
Joseph Rothberg – SQUELCH! Party Signatory, 2006-2008
David Wasserman – ASUC Senator, SQUELCH!, 2006-07
A quotation from Barack Obama on the eve of the New Hampshire primary seems apt as the Boalt recall drafters scramble to hit Moghtader in this comments section with whatever dirt they can scrounge up on him: "The dump truck is backing up," said Senator Obama when his political opponents started to hit him hard.
The unpublished letter from SQUELCH! doesn't persuade me that the recall is in order. The letter is evidence of a political party running for cover when an undesirable controversy hits one of its members. Of course, SQUELCH! members be genuinely disturbed by the reports about their senator at Eshelman, and I don't blame them. But the party doesn't even call for the senator's recall or resignation. They merely say they'll pick better candidates next year and apologize for alleged conduct of one of their members. The Boalt petition, in stark contrast, assumes allegations are entirely true and, based on those untested allegations, recommends the ultimate political punishment of expulsion from the senate. The SQUELCH! party members, at least in that unpublished letter, showed far more judiciousness than the Boalt students did in deciding to petition for expulsion.
It's lame that the petition supporters are making the case (and a weak one at that) against the student leader through anonymous comments on this blog. The petition, as it stands, is a vaguely worded document with little evidentiary support. The petition alleges, in vague language, that the senator in question has violated a variety of norms and codes, but it fails to cite a single example. Instead of making their case against the senator out in the open, instead of alleging specific, concrete incidents that justify the senator's expulsion in the text of the petition or some other supporting documentation that the petition references, we get anonymously posted quotations from newspapers and cut-and-pasted letters from political parties (a letter that wasn't even published). Even if the senator in the end merits expulsion (and the case is far from clear at this point), the conduct of those in support of the petition is troubling on a procedural level. We can do better than this.
Good point, 1:06 AM. The Boalt students who wrote the petition should have been more specific and fact-based in the document itself. They were eager to use the name and prestige of Berkeley Law School in the petition's preamble and affix mention of their J.D. candidacies (shock and awe!) under their signed names, but they didn't outline the specific factual support for the petition that bore their names. Sad.
I haven't really looked at this thread since I posted it but, wow. Just, wow. No offense, but some of you people are nuts.
I still don't understand all of the facts and allegations, but it is hard to see anything wrong with having this debate, or a recall. The petition demands not a recall, but a recall vote. To me, that's tantamount to saying "we think there might be an issue here, and are calling it to the UCB community's attention." It's not the same as saying "he's a bum -- kick him out." Isn't that a relevant distinction to you? It is to me.
I guess I have three other thoughts.
If involvement with undergraduate politics is trivial, isn't it even more trivial to attempt to lampoon those people (who are your peers, friends, and classmates) anonymously on a widely read blog? A modicum of civility is worth a mountain of cleverness.
Due process is so incredibly irrelevant here that I only hope it was brought up tongue-in-cheek. The Boalties who wrote the petition are not the state, and they are not depriving the Senator of property or liberty. If you want to get all constitutional up in here, your best bet would be the First Amendment: the Boalties in question are engaging in a protected speech act.
As 7:12 pointed out, it is important not to lose sight of the big picture, which is that one of the guys involve in the altercation is named "Weiner." In fact, that's probably the root of the whole problem, if experience has taught me anything.
Ah, I was waiting for the "weiner" joke. I have to say, Patrick, I didn't think it'd be you!
As for 1:06 and 1:25, I think the lack of specific factual allegations was an attempt by my classmates to remain as objective and professional as possible. If the petition had said "We want to recall this guy because he's a douchebag and a thug who still thinks it's cool to start fights when you're 22 years old," that might have come across as a little unfair. Instead, they leave it to the voters to research the facts and hear from both sides. That's how we roll at Boalt.
So, there is not yet a thread or a discussion of the law school's bar passage rate from the most recent exam. Other schools (Chapman Law for example, which pulled an amazing 75% percent) have already done it. Where's our administration?
Patrick:
I agree with you on a couple things. First, I'm a staunch opponent of anonymous and unwarranted blasting of peers on this blog. I'm also in agreement that the "due process" arguments are a bit silly.
However, I disagree in a couple areas:
(1) Publicly blasting peers who chose to bring public attention to themselves is not a problem. They chose to go public in a MORE widely read media source and tie themselves to our school when they launched a student politics battle in the school newspaper. And for that, I'm embarrassed to be associated.
(2) Arguments for due process are silly, but the motivation behind those arguments is not. These Boalt students decided to take advantage of some incident in order to kick out of school politics some dude they don't like.
While you're right that a recall asks for a mere vote, the timing of the vote should sufficiently allow intelligent voting. The facts of the incident have yet to come to light. And how can someone make an intelligent decision on whether to have an intelligent vote without having the facts?
And what's worse is that these Boalt students have effectively smeared this guy - recall or no recall. Any of his future employers who choose to run a google search will come up with the recall website. You're worried about these Boalties getting called out in the comments of a blog? Their names aren't even mentioned on this page. This dude is forever marked now - and it's not entirely decided whether or not he's deserving of such yet.
Who knows, maybe the guy is a dirt bag and did all the awful things of which he is accused.
But let us keep perspective: he's one of a dozen student reps that decide such pressing issues as the date and location of vibrator workshops and pizza dollars.
As such, I return to my original position: I'm disappointed our school's talent isn't being channeled into a more productive manner. Wouldn't it have been cool if we would have seen those same five signatures (name, school, "j.d. candidate" and all that jazz) on a amicus brief or something? No. It's in the Daily Cal caught up in the pressing issue of whether or not some undergrad should be removed a couple months early.
Teej, what can I say? I think you are mistaken on this one.
The kid is a "public official" (tongue slightly in cheek) and this discussion is incident to that title. Welcome to the grownup world.
And speaking of that world, let's just take stock, since we are apparently so concerned with "issues that matter":
California is facing an 16 BILLION dollar budget gap;
We are fighting two wars;
The economy is beyond tanked;
College education is predicted to become unaffordable;
The planet is rapidly warming to an unsustainable temperature.
. . . and yet what makes Boalt students passionate? Debit cards in Zeb. Class registration times. Locker fees. Noise in the precious library during exam time. Members of the public (god forbid) in our public school.
Oh, please. Don't try to kid me about our fixation on "important issues" and don't try to preach from a high horse about taking "advantage of some incident" and things with which you are "embarrassed to be associated." Tell me, Teej, which of the aforementioned pressing GLOBAL issues have you associated yourself with?
Finally, please stop insulting my (our) peers. Its exam week, some of them are 1L's, and they all took time out to engage in an issue that they feel is important. I wish I could say as much for myself this semester.
Actually, Dan, the petition was supposed to say pretty much what you wrote (it's supposed to include "a specific statement of the reasons for the proposed removal"). Calling for a recall election is fundamentally not objective, so it seems silly to talk about staying neutral.
Looking at the recall process they use is actually somewhat odd. Recalls make a lot more sense in winner-take-all elections than in proportional representation elections like the Senate using. As it stands, any party able to get 2/3 of voters can entirely subvert the proportional representation system through the recall system if they feel so inclined. (Then again, I'm also opposed to the idea of Congress being able to throw out representatives, since it can effectively mean a district can only choose a representative acceptable to representatives of districts)
Given that John is one of the most hated Senators, and since the petition doesn't actually state much in the way of specifics, and taking a look at the people supporting the recall effort, the conclusions that this is an attempt to take advantage of the incident to purge a political foe are quite reasonable.
Patrick: you took a shot in the dark there and lost on that gamble. I spent the better part of 4 years working with the state on budget issues and access to higher ed. So, in comparison to doling out pizza dollars, I feel entitled to my "high horse" on that one.
And by your logic, the Boalt students made the same decision as the senator in becoming subject to public criticism when they chose to broadcast their opinion in the Daily Cal. Comes with the territory.
And how is it "insulting" to appropriately state the [lack of] importance of the cause by which they decided to take up? I neither know them personally nor ever directly attacked their intelligence (in fact, I have assumed they are quite intelligent - stating that this should be below them).
And I can't help but notice the inherent conflict among your stated goals. You believe in Boalt students acting as part of the larger Berkeley community. However, then you say Boalties should look out for each other - even if it means the quiet support of a pack of Boalties attacking another Berkeley student (before the facts have been established).
Which is it? To me, it's simple: don't draw any more negative attention to Berkeley than necessary. If it comes to light that this dude is a dirt bag, then we could re-approach how to deal with it appropriately. But by no means would a mass recall campaign be the best means of accomplishing your stated goal (of not attacking members of our own institution's community) at this point in time.
And don't even get me started on the specific manner with which they decided to do it - that whole "J.D. Candidate" part of their signature reeks of some nasty sense of their own superiority. I don't want to see any [more] of that around at my school either. I thought a lack of that kind of crap is what is supposed to differentiate us from the rest of the nasty law student world.
God. This thread is getting way to heated.
Let's actually start one about signing your name with "J.D. Candidate" as your title. Really?
Matt: just call it pent-up resentment for his part in taking away my sweet sweet pass time. haha-jk
But seriously. "JD Candidate"? What the fuck is that shit? Can't we come up with something that doesn't make it look like we're running for office, or participating in some silly charade? Oh, wait...
"Moghtader" kinda sounds like a nickname for "Weiner."
I think that generally sums up my interest in this issue. I'm not saying that there should't be a vote. I just don't care one way or the other.
On a side note, I think it's fine to write "J.D. Candidate" in certain circumstances, such as in an email to a firm.
Here, the only purpose is to say, "Hey! Look at us! We're more mature and learned than you measly undergraduates. And our legal knowledge makes us authorities on the First Amendment aspects of a campus fist fight."
In other words, I think it's a little dickish. But that's just me.
Beetle, thanks for the response. I think "objective" was the wrong word. After hearing a little more about this issue, I think the real reason for a lack of specific factual allegations was that the students did not want to say anything they couldn't back up with something beyond just their word. Word on the street is there's been some trouble obtaining the police report on the incident in question, so I think the students were attempting to avoid alleging anything that might be in conflict with what later comes out. And I hesitate to spread rumor, but there's also word that the senator has a reputation for litigiousness, so there is reason to be extra cautious.
I just want to make one point: I think the people who simply ridicule their classmates for caring about student politics are trying to cover up their ideological bias on the particular Israel-Palestine issue.
I think it's bogus to talk down people who might care about something you think is trivial. There's no monopoly on opinions - any random student can spend hours trying to get credit cards in Zeb, and that won't preclude them from giving a damn about some local political issue, or about the Iraq war, or anything else.
We are smart people here. We care about a host of things - some with great international import, and some with more idiosyncratic significance.
Please limit critiques of what these students are doing to the merits of the issue, as many of the comments on this post have done.
Just so I know who I'm biased against, which side of the debate were the Boalt students on? I assume this senator was on the other? haha
It actually has nothing to do with Israel-Palestine debate. The Senator who is subject to a recall is making that allegation to rally support for himself as a martyr. Students on both sides of the issue strongly support the recall because they have witnessed his tendency to viciously attack and silence everyone he disagrees with, be they too soft from a pro-Israel point of view, or too vocal from a pro-Palestine point of view. It looks like the Senator in question is also President of another undergraduate group called Students for Israel, which Hillel and the Jewish Student Union had disaffiliated themselves from even prior to this particular assault because of previous incidents where the Senator demonstrated the same behavior described in the petition. It looks to me that all this talk of the petition being ideologically motivated is just a last-resort defense mechanism. I find it hard to believe, any way, that 1,059 signatures would have been gathered if there was no credibility to the petitioner's point of view.
I found this thread by googling Moghtader in the face of the upcoming recall, and the only thing I really found out is I've lost a lot of respect for so-called "Boalties." Most of you just seem like dolties.
Post a Comment
<< Home