For the first time in recent history, the Washington University Student Union (SU) Senate cast an anonymous vote (instead of vote by roll call) on a resolution asking the University to divest from Boeing on March 19. The resolution passed 15-5, with one abstention. This staff editorial is a response to SU Senate’s decision to hold an anonymous vote, not a comment on the resolution itself.

SU senators are elected to represent the undergraduate student body on a variety of issues, regardless of how divisive or uncomfortable they may be. The voting records of political officials in the U.S. are public information, to help inform their constituents about their stances when they go to the polls. Anonymity undermines individuals’ abilities, in a democracy, to make informed decisions about their representatives.

SU’s meetings are open to the public, a fact SU has historically emphasized, including at their most recent meeting. SU is an organization that preaches transparency, yet in one of the most controversial votes in recent memory, they strayed from their core messaging, choosing to conduct an anonymous vote.

The motion for anonymity, which passed 17-4, was not without controversy, with some senators and SU advisor, Sarah Edmondson, urging against it. Other senators argued that they did not feel safe having their vote public, due to previous threats made against them. 

Threats to any individuals, including those in student government, cannot and should not be tolerated. It is important to acknowledge that students who have spoken out about what is going on in Israel and Gaza have faced harm from inside and outside of the WashU community.

Regarding student response, the choice to stay anonymous is indicative of a greater student culture. Many people feel uncomfortable or scared about sharing their opinions on such a divisive — and personal, for many — issue, for fear of criticism, backlash, and hate. Without the existence of a respectful dialogue, we understand why SU wanted to vote anonymously on this resolution, especially as they live with their constituents, unlike other political officials.

Still, the choice to remain anonymous does not make things better, but instead, reaffirms this harmful rhetoric. By staying anonymous and creating a precedent for future divisive issues, SU validates, rather than takes a stance against, hateful responses by WashU students.

While SU Senators are students, they made a conscious decision to run for public office, and once sworn in, they chose to take part in that public political body. While student officials should not be threatened, they should also not shy away from tackling important issues, even if they are controversial.

During the SU meeting, many students publicly took the podium to voice their concerns on the resolution during the meeting, aware of potential criticism that may result. Over 50 members of the WashU community, most of whom were students, spoke publicly and on the record. Their names were recorded and added to the speakers list. The student body should be able to expect the same behavior from their representatives.

Students, like any other constituent body, want to know if their representatives not only share their beliefs, but if they will act on them, especially in tense moments like the vote to divest from Boeing. 

However, the impact of this decision spreads far beyond this single resolution. By breaking with precedent SU Senate has opened the door to having future anonymous votes on controversial issues. Anonymous voting could threaten the legitimacy of SU, as students will be unable to determine if their elected representatives truly represent each individual’s beliefs. 

Students deserve to know how their representatives vote, just as they deserve to know the voting record of any other elected official. The foundation of democracy is built upon the notion that representatives reflect their constituents. By voting anonymously, SU undermines not only its own legitimacy but also democratic norms at large. Rather than reacting to student backlash by remaining anonymous, SU should vote with their names attached, actively disavowing hatred on campus.

Staff editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of our editorial board members. The editorial board operates independently of our newsroom and includes members of the senior staff.

Lewis Rand, Junior Sports Editor

Via Poolos, Editor-in-Chief

Clara Richards, Editor-in-Chief

Jared Adelman, Managing Multimedia Editor

Reilly Brady, Managing Forum Editor

Sylvie Richards, Senior Forum Editor

Jasmine Stone, Senior Forum Editor

Jordan Spector, Junior Forum Editor

Amelia Raden, Junior Forum Editor

Riley Herron, Managing Sports Editor

Annabel Shen, Managing Scene Editor

Mia Burkholder, Chief of Copy