ISU student court stops student government’s big mistake

The recent impeachment of the Student Body President at Iowa State University lasted all of two days. But if the school’s Supreme Court hadn’t stepped in and put a stop to it after determining that it was ideologically motivated, the student government might have continued putting on a masterclass in violating First Amendment rights.

STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT IMPEACHED ON SHAKY GROUNDS

Seemingly out of the blue, seven articles of impeachment were introduced and passed against Student Body President Colby Brandt, a senior majoring in agricultural and rural policy studies, at the student government’s Feb. 18 meeting.

Brandt is also employed as a recruiter for Campus Victory Project, a nonprofit that seeks out conservatives to run for student government positions. CVP’s parent organization is Turning Point USA, the group dedicated to engaging conservatives on college campuses that was founded by Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated in front of a large crowd in Utah on Sept. 10.

The articles of impeachment accused Brandt of using his position as student body president to enrich himself by securing the CVP job, which accusers said was tied directly to his position as president; and of bribing other representatives in student government to follow the organization’s agenda with free trips to a leadership retreat.

Those would be serious violations – if any of Brandt’s actions actually constituted such.

They didn’t. No policies currently exist to prohibit Brandt from working for a political organization or recruiting people who share his values to run for student government. The 19 student senators who sponsored the articles of impeachment couldn’t show supporting evidence that Brandt’s CVP job was contingent upon his being student body president. Nor could they show that he was using CVP resources to improperly influence his student government peers.

The strongest claim they could make was that CVP’s interests are “incompatible with the independent governance of the student body,” and that Brandt wouldn’t be able to serve the interests of the student body while working for CVP.

That’s awfully subjective, given the political employment of some other members such as Josie Pursley, the Student Government Speaker of the Senate who spoke in favor of impeaching Brandt. Pursley is currently an intern for Rob Sand’s gubernatorial campaign. Up until last week, the computer she used during student government meetings was adorned with a bumper sticker promoting Sand’s campaign.

Grace Gaarde, a student senator listed as a co-sponsor of the articles of impeachment against Brandt, is a finance intern for Sand’s campaign. Quinn Margrett, another student senator also listed as a co-sponsor of the impeachment articles, is currently employed by the Iowa House Democratic Caucus as a full-time legislative clerk for State Rep. Elizabeth Wilson of District 73 in Marion.

None of them have faced the same allegations as Brandt.

IMPEACHMENT PRECEDES CONTENTOUS ELECTION

Discrimination notwithstanding, it seems additional factors could have been at play in Brandt’s impeachment.

The Feb 18 articles of impeachment relied heavily on information provided by Nolan Klemesrud, who said he was recruited by Brandt last fall as a potential running mate for Josie Kelly, who Brandt was encouraging to run for student body president.

Klemesrud and Kelly both currently serve in the student government’s executive cabinet. In December, at Brandt’s invitation, they traveled together to a leadership development retreat for potential student government candidates that was organized and paid for by CVP. At the time, both were undecided about running.

Brandt told The Gazette Thursday that the trips to the retreat were not contingent on any actions, including running for office. Text logs provided by Klemesrud as evidence for impeachment do not contradict that.

Texts also show that Kelly notified Klemesrud shortly after the retreat that she did decide to run for student body president – with a different running mate. Klemesrud later joined the opposing ticket as the vice-presidential candidate.

The race has been contentious, with no fewer than 14 complaints of election violations lodged between the two slates of candidates. Brandt said he has not endorsed a ticket or provided campaign support to either slate since campaigning began Jan. 31.

Voting for the student government election begins on Tuesday.

Klemesrud has apparently fallen out with the CVP, denouncing the organization on no fewer than five separate occasions during the Feb. 12 vice-presidential debate, when he first made the allegations that preceded Brandt’s impeachment six days later. Statements made during the student presidential and vice-presidential debates form the bulk of the supporting evidence for the impeachment articles.

With Brandt’s impeachment, CVP is further polarized, thus benefiting the ticket that denounces the organization if more students find its mission to get conservatives elected to student government odious. Welcome to politics.

Frankly, I don’t care about the drama going on in a college student government election any more than I care about the spats between Jessica and Stephanie on the PTA or Helen and Pearl in the church kitchen. I’ll assume readers feel the same.

It’s when the drama crosses the threshold from interpersonal clashes to viewpoint discrimination, that it becomes relevant to Iowans who don’t want their taxpayer dollars spent on litigation and damages.

‘WOULD VIOLATE HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS’

The Court said in a Feb. 20 statement that after consulting with the school’s legal counsel, “We determined that because the articles of impeachment are largely surrounded by President Brandt’s political ideology and associations with organizations related, impeaching him on such articles would violate his First Amendment rights as defined in the United States Constitution.”

The Court also acknowledged that because the articles were “not content and viewpoint neutral,” it didn’t have the jurisdiction under the Student Government Constitution to consider them.

The university issued a separate statement supporting the Court’s decision and reaffirming the school’s commitment to protecting students’ First Amendment rights.

Shockingly, some students serving as members of the Court have publicly objected.

Last Monday, Chief Justice Pro Tempore Daniyal Shahbaz issued a dissenting opinion in which he attributed dismissing the articles of impeachment to “undue political pressure” and implied that the ISU student body was deprived of an opportunity to deliberate an important issue.

What he apparently fails to realize is that the government does not have the right to put a person through the ordeal of a trial when it has already been determined that the government’s case against them will fail.

Associate Justice Michael Briesemeister said during open forum at the Feb. 25 student government meeting that the dismissal of Brandt’s impeachment “has called into question the integrity” of the Court and its ability to function.

Even worse, Briesemeister, a senior majoring in genetics who is originally from Eastern Iowa, suggested that the student senate should consult with the student court before drafting articles of impeachment.

“Different wording of these documents could have at least allowed us to hear the case,” he said. For that reason, said, “please allow the court to review your filings before they are actually filed. Once they’re official, the wording is out of our hands.”

This cannot be understated: courts cannot advise parties on how to word the same filings on which they are to rule. Such would be the antithesis of the impartiality that is required of them.

In continuing his remarks, Briesemeister didn’t exactly help dispel the notion that Brandt was being targeted for ideological reasons.

“The nation of Israel is committing genocide, and if our student government president is part of an organization that actively supports that nation, we cannot effectively serve the student body,” he said.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that by arguing that CVP’s campus activities shouldn’t be tolerated, those who supported impeaching Brandt are demonstrating – better than he could, perhaps – why his organization exists.

But they’re also showing the public how quickly and easily they would be willing to steamroll the rights of a student with a different political worldview than theirs.

The university is an institution of learning. And these students have a lot to learn.

Comments: 319-343-8222; althea.cole.writer@thegazette.com