Audit the Executive Committee

The Executive Committee of W&L’s student body should submit itself to an independent review.

W&L students entrust their executive committee with managing the day-to-day affairs of student governance, and, far more importantly, adjudicating whether their peers have violated the community’s trust. Yet that body has been accused of vicious classism, a disregard for procedure, and a refusal to judge on the basis of evidence.

In a speech given during an Executive Committee (EC) business meeting on Tuesday, May 16, Jackson Doane, ’26,  former Student Body Vice President, leveled several serious allegations against the committee. He expanded upon his accusations in an interview with The Spectator held the following day.

Like a disillusioned Holden Caulfield, Doane suggests that the virtue of the Executive Committee, supposedly representing the best of W&L’s generally well-to-do, Greek-centric community, is a mirage. By his account, the Executive Committee is largely composed of Caulfield’s phonies.

He alleges that its president, Martha Ernest, ‘24, callously dismissed the funding needs of low-income student organizations because such students “already go to college for free.”

Moreover, Doane claims that the EC bungled its handling of his recusal and subsequent removal from his elected position, moves which he believes were motivated by the personal feelings of the EC president.

In recusing him, Doane said, the EC failed to follow procedures established in its governing documents. When he was later brought before the EC to defend himself as they considered his outright removal, he said that they were unable to provide him with evidence that he had committed any wrongdoing which would justify his recusal.

From Doane’s characterization, the EC appears to have just summarily recused and then removed one of its own members.

In light of such accusations, students can no longer trust the EC to act fairly or impartially. If the EC wishes to continue serving the student body, they desperately need to regain our trust.

In that regard, their statement released on the evening of May 17 was utterly insufficient. The statement explained only vaguely that Doane was removed for “multiple instances of misconduct, including breaching confidentiality, during the Winter and Spring Terms of 2023.”

Moreover, the statement lacked any affirmation of W&L’s low-income students, and the EC business meeting minutes, published the same evening, expunged all references concerning comments made by Ernest.

At this point, only a full release of the facts will clear the air and allow W&L students to judge for themselves who was in the wrong.

Unfortunately, the EC will be unable to publicly release the requisite information without violating the same standards of confidentiality that they accuse Doane of breaching.

However, there is a middle ground that could still help the Student Body find a sense of truth: President Ernest must authorize an independent commission to investigate the allegations made by both parties. The commission would then present the Student Body with an impartial (albeit still redacted) assessment.

Per the Student Body Constitution, as EC president Ernest has the ability to “appoint necessary Standing Committees to investigate matters of student interest or concern.” At the moment, there could not be any matter more concerning to the students than the allegations raised over the past week.

Ernest could ensure the commission’s independence by delegating its creation to a neutral university administrator. The administrator could then contract outside investigators or otherwise appoint community members to the committee.

Investigators would need the full cooperation of both the EC and Doane as well as access to EC communications and any evidence of Doane’s wrongdoing. Upon review of all the facts, the commission could issue statements about each of the three issues raised this week–Doane’s conduct, the EC’s treatment of Doane, and the classism of the EC.

For example, without entering into the specifics of any matter, the commission would state whether there was or was not valid evidence against Doane, and whether Ernest did or did not make classist comments.

From there, the Student Body could decide whether impeachment proceedings against Ernest and other members are merited, or if a Student Body vote to reinstate Doane should be initiated.

That all said, the preservation of EC power and authority, and specifically preventing administrative authority from increasing at the expense of the EC, is a valid concern of many students and alumni. The EC’s power, however, would not be undermined if Ernest authorized an independent investigation.

Rather, amidst the current allegations, allowing an independent investigation would go a long way toward shoring up the status of the EC. Submission to an external review would suggest the EC is confident that its actions were valid.

Refusing a further review, on the other hand, could imply that the EC is indeed hiding compromising information, as Doane alleges.

Either way, it is time the truth be revealed, even if through the still imperfect lens provided by an independent commission. President Ernest, Vice President Kumar, Secretary Morrison, and the other EC members, please do what is right. Submit yourselves to an external audit so that the students whom you serve can have the utmost confidence in your leadership.

The opinions expressed in this magazine are the author's own and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Spectator, or any students or other contributors associated with the magazine. It is the intention of The Spectator to promote student thought and civil discourse, and it is our hope to maintain that civility in all discussions