[Vision2020] NSA CUP Appeal Hearing

[Chasuk]

On 6/1/06, g. crabtree <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:

> It would seem to me that there is a considerable difference between
> "expressing an opinion" and being belittling and insulting. There can be
> little doubt that Mr. Ament has absolutely no regard for the interests of
> the faculty, staff, and students of New St. Andrews. Since he is elected to
> represent ALL the people in Moscow, not just the folks who enjoy his
> vitriolic and intemperate comments and cast their misguided vote for him, he
> should, indeed, recuse himself.

Aaron Ament, it is reported, referred to NSA students are "androids,"
to New Saint Andrews as the "android college," and to Doug Wilson as
the fat "android in
command."  This doesn't seem to be disputed, so I will accept these
reports as true.

Does it follow that he should recuse himself?  Not in my opinion  (I
will explain why shortly).  Aaron Ament should be ashamed for sounding
like an inarticulate boob, and he should definitely attempt to save
face by apologizing, but that is another issue.  If he has already
apologized, and his head is already hanging low, then I apologize to
him now.

As for the recusement: we all have strong opinions, which some of us
express inelegantly.  When we are in the public eye, it is politically
wise to keep those opinions unarticulated.  However, it is also
dishonest.  I would rather have a politician express himself honestly,
if inelegantly, then tell an expedient lie.  We elect politicans for
their opinions.  We elected Aaron Ament for expressing his, so it is
disingenuous (though not suprising) for his foes to be calling for his
recusement, especially when their only justification is that his vote
might lead to a result which they would find unsatisfactory.

Aaron Ament has no conflict of interest.  In other words, he is not in
a position to exploit his office for personal benefit.  He does have a
difference of opinion, but this is not sufficient grounds to call for
recusement.