In the last two weeks the Association of Amherst Students (AAS) debated the merits of a flurry of proposed amendments. In the end, the AAS endorsed, 22-2, an amendment sponsored by Senators Emily Silberstein '06 and Josh Stein '08 that would make student-sponsored amendments via referenda more difficult to pass. While the proposal has been tabled until after Spring Break, proponent senators want to add requirements for passing amendments proposed by the student body at-large. Future referenda would not reach the ballot without some sort of public debate in hopes that the student body will better understand the merits of proposals before voting on them. Currently, student-proposed amendments must garner signatures from 10 percent of each class. Once a petition is filed the proposal is put to a student vote in the next scheduled election without any public discussion required.

We endorse an increase in open dialogue as a prerequisite for future amendments, but we do not understand why this condition should only apply to student-sponsored amendments. Proposed amendments to the constitution can also come from the senate. Senate-sponsored amendments also require student body approval via referendum and they likewise have no current requirement regarding open discussion. However, the AAS doesn't appear to believe that their amendments should be open to the same public discussion as those sponsored by students. Of course, senate-sponsored amendments do pass rigorous debate in the Red Room, but the issue of informing the students still remains: Students go to the polls without widely accessible knowledge of the amendment on which they vote.

Senators expressed concern about "rogue" students passing useless or even harmful amendments due to of the ease of the current referendum method. But this fear should also apply to senate-sponsored amendments. 160 students must endorse a student-sponsored amendment in order for it to reach the ballot, but the endorsement of as few as 15 senators are necessary for senate-sponsored referenda. Furthermore, by suggesting that student-sponsored amendments could easily be irresponsibly passed due to our online voting system, senators call into question the validity of the same process by which they were put into office.

The preamble to the AAS constitution declares the senate's "commitment to articulating student voices for advancing action and change." It also states that the senate should "[promote] the free interaction and exchange of ideas." Unfortunately, the Silberstein-Stein amendment limits such free interaction by giving unbalanced requirements to amendments based on whether they come from students or the senate. We agree with the spirit of the proposal, but there is no justification for not making the same constraint apply for amendments prosed by the AAS. We hope that after the Break the senate will alter the Silberstein-Stein amendment in order to provide equal access to all students.