Dear Editor:

As former Chief Justice of the Student Court, I feel it is my responsibility to reply to the letter printed in the last edition of The Commentator, entitled "Order in the Court." While my letter is not meant as a quid pro quo retaliation, I feel that it is absolutely necessary to defend the integrity of the Court. While the Court prefers to deal with these types of conflicts internally, in light of Shlomo Herman's public critique, I have been left with no choice but to respond publicly.

While, ideally, all Court proceeding take place with all the justices present, in this situation I opted to hold proceedings with the requisite majority. This decision was not made a priori to exclude Herman, but rather, was made in light of extremely extenuating circumstances. We struggled numerous times to meet with all the parties involved in the Shilo case, only to have our plans fall through due to scheduling difficulties, and upon learning that Shilo was finally available, we held proceedings as soon as possible. Admittedly, I could have pushed off the proceedings in an attempt to gather all the justices, but I assumed that the other justices would realize that the circumstances called for an immediate meeting. I apologize to Herman, and I trust he will rejoin the Court and continue to serve the students in a professional and competent manner.

Regarding Herman's opinion regarding the unanimous decision, I offer several retorts. First, the decision does not contradict Article 2, Section 7 of the YCSC Constitution, which states that "no student may be a member of student council while holding the position of Editor-in-Chief of The Commentator, Editor-in-Chief of Masmid, Editor-in-Chief of Tempo, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Station Manager of WYUR, student senator, or any member of a student council of another Yeshiva University school." The words "student council" throughout the article seem to refer to the Yeshiva College Student Council consisting of positions such as President, VP, Secretary, and Treasurer, but not to a position in a particular class council. Therefore, the Court unanimously voted to allow Shilo to keep his post on both the sophomore class council and on the IBC student council. Associate Justice Philip M. Green added, "In light of Shilo's persecution by the canvassing committee, a removal of Shilo from his post would aid the bureaucratic manipulation of the students and their representatives and further corrupt the Yeshiva political scene." The Court recommended that the constitution be clarified and that the canvassing committee elucidate such rules to all candidates prior to all elections.

Herman accused the Court of failing to release a decision and failing to present a copy to the defendant. For the record, the unanimous decision was released within one half-hour of the close of Court proceedings, and Mr. Shilo opted to waive his right to view a copy of the decision. Herman claimed that the Court's failure to produce a written decision indicates disregard for procedure or lack of reasonable basis. This is nothing more than a baseless insult to my associate justices and me, who have together worked tirelessly in an effort to do what is best for the student body while strictly adhering to the letter and spirit of the law.

Finally, I would like to thank my fellow justices for their honesty, integrity, and devotion to the Court. I wish you all luck in the future.

Monty Steckler
Chief Justice, Student Court YC '01