You are on page 1of 9

Memorandum

TO: The Student Association Senate, Executive Vice President Martin, Chief Justice
Arminavage
FROM: Vice President O’Brien
DATE: November 18, 2019
RE: The Censure Hearing of Senator Corsi

Introduction
On September 23, 2019, The George Washington University Senate voted to censure
Senator Jake Corsi on the grounds of Dereliction of Duty and Creation or Continuation of a
Hostile Environment.1 Following the initial charges, Senator Brandon Hill circulated a
document containing charges against Senator Corsi.2 Included in this document were charges
added after the Senate had already voted on the charges against Senator Corsi. They had been
added solely at the discretion of Senator Hill without Senate approval or consent.3 Also included
were exhibits which were made out to be proof of the charges made against Senator Corsi.4
These exhibits constituted conduct from both before and after the Senate had voted to censure
Senator Corsi. These exhibits were strewn together in an intentional attack against Senator Corsi
without actual proof of the conduct alleged in the charging document. While Senator Hill
presents numerous exhibits as “proof” of Senator Corsi’s wrongdoing, Senator Hill has failed to
demonstrate exactly how these exhibits establish that Senator Corsi has violated any provision in
the SA Constitution, Bylaws, or Code of Student Conduct.5 As Senator Hill so acutely pointed

1
See Wayne Arminavage, “The Censure Hearing of Senator Jake Corsi, Charges and Rules,” (2019).
2
See Brandon Hill, “The Censure of Senator Jake Corsi,” (2019).
3
Brandon Hill, “The Censure of Senator Jake Corsi,” (2019).
4
See Brandon Hill, “The Censure of Senator Jake Corsi,” (2019).
5
See Brandon Hill, “The Censure of Senator Jake Corsi,” (2019) (in Exhibit A Senator Hill just states that
Senator Corsi has made a Facebook comment and comments at a Senate meeting without reasoning how
these statements violate the rules of the aforementioned documents. In Exhibit C, Senator Hill alleges that
Senator Corsi is the reason for Caroline Beason’s resignation, a conclusion solely based on statements
Ms. Beason allegedly made to other members of the SA, without any indication as to whom those
members are, or any direct evidence regarding their substance. Exhibit D fails to contribute any basis of
proof, because Senator Hill merely attaches an e-mail with no explanation of its significance or relevance.
In Exhibit E, Senator Hill alleges that Senator Corsi attempted to censor Senator Bao’s presentation of
flags, which incidentally is not dissimilar to the acts of Senator Hill against Senator Corsi, but did so in
manner that fails to provide an adequate summarization of the proceedings, while providing no official
meeting minutes to attach as “evidence.” In Exhibits F & G, Senator Corsi criticized the validity of one
method of determining bias out of the three diversity and inclusion resources mentioned in the e-mail.
Senator Hill has failed to show how disagreeing with the validity of a test while providing corresponding
academic support indicates a lack of respect for diversity and inclusion overall. In (the first) Exhibit H,
Senator Hill alleges that former Vice President Mchoes’ reaction to statements made at the Joint
Committee of Faculty and Students are attributable to Senator Corsi. This is alleged despite Senator Corsi
not being in attendance at the time those statements were made and despite the fact that Senator Corsi is
not personally known by a majority of the members of the committee. If Senator Corsi is going to be held
to censure charges based on a public comment resulting from his actions, then Senator Hill should be held
to censure charges for my public comment. In (the second) Exhibit H, Senator Hill blames Senator Corsi
for the questions asked by another Senator, without actually showing how Senator Gunter’s comments
were motivated by Senator Corsi. Again, in Exhibit I, Senator Hill attaches an e-mail with no explanation
out, “misrepresenting facts is very dangerous.”6 Despite his own admission of this fallacy,
Senator Hill seeks to do that exact thing and misrepresent Senator Corsi’s statements without
providing him an opportunity to defend himself or with knowledge of what he was being charged
of. While the “charging document” issued by Senator Hill will not be considered as “proof” for
the purpose of the proceedings, the publication and circulation of this document is highly
prejudicial against Senator Corsi.
Senator Hill points to the Student Association (SA) Constitution and GW Code of
Student Conduct as primary basis for these allegations, specifically Section IX, Subsection B of
the Constitution and Section VII, Subsection C of the GW Code of Student Conduct.7 Article IX,
Section 1 of the Constitution guarantees certain rights to all members of the Student Association,
including, at a minimum, due process and equal protection.8 Article IX, Section 2 of the SA
Constitution provides that “all active members of the Student Association will be held to the
highest professional and ethical standards.”9 This includes upholding the laws of the United
States and the laws of the District of Columbia.10
In censuring Senator Corsi, the SA Senate and Senator Hill have discriminated against
Senator Corsi for his political beliefs and for his status as a Graduate Student. Procedurally, the
censure has created a hostile environment within the SA towards Graduate Students.
Additionally, the entire censure proceeding discredits the legitimacy of the Student Association
and irrevocably damages the reputation of the Student Association.

Discussion
I. The Censure of Senator Corsi discriminates against the Senator for his political
beliefs and status as a Graduate Student.

The Student Association and University is predominantly liberal.11 And while there are
more Graduate Students than Undergraduate Students, the Graduate Students are

of its relevance. The e-mail contains Senator Corsi’s response to Senator Hill’s attachment of the
charges, which inherently could not have been contained in the original charges submitted to Senator
Corsi because a screenshot of the e-mail accordingly appears in this document. Despite what Senator Hill
may like, calling someone a “clown” is not an actionable offense).
6
Brandon Hill, “The Censure of Senator Jake Corsi,” Exhibit H (2019).
7
Constitution of The George Washington University Student Association, July 3, 2019,
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnWKFUNbLbtkgqsHksishuTjRFjoQam0BD5uGLfzaXM/edit;
The George Washington University Code of Student Conduct and the Statement of Rights and
Responsibilities,
https://studentconduct.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs1151/f/downloads/190517%20Code%20of%20Student
%20Conduct%202019.pdf; Brandon Hill, “The Censure of Senator Jake Corsi,” (2019).
8
Constitution of The George Washington University Student Association, Article IX, § 1, July 3, 2019,
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnWKFUNbLbtkgqsHksishuTjRFjoQam0BD5uGLfzaXM/edit.
9
Constitution of The George Washington University Student Association, Article IX, § 2, July 3, 2019,
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnWKFUNbLbtkgqsHksishuTjRFjoQam0BD5uGLfzaXM/edit.
10
Constitution of The George Washington University Student Association, Article IX, § 2, July 3, 2019,
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnWKFUNbLbtkgqsHksishuTjRFjoQam0BD5uGLfzaXM/edit.
11
See Student Association Demographics Survey 2019-2020.
disproportionally underrepresented in the Student Association.12 Leadership positions within the
SA are predominantly Undergraduate, with the Pro Tempore of the Senate only recently being a
Graduate Student. This puts Graduate Students in a disadvantaged position within the SA.
There has also been a continued lack of effort to include Graduate Students in the election and
decision-making process, continuously keeping Graduate Students from more active
participation. Leading up to the 2019 President and Executive Vice President Election, there
were little, if any, efforts to engage Graduate Students in the process. Moreover, in the 2018
Student Body Election, there were 3,303 undergraduate votes cast, yet only 884 Graduate votes
cast.13 The Student Association has admitted that the Constitution does not offer Graduate
Students proportional representation.14
As demonstrated through the pervasive attitude towards Graduate Students and the
rhetoric levied against Senator Corsi, it is clear that this censure it motivated, at least in part, by
Senator Corsi’s status as a conservative and as a Graduate Student.

a. Political belief is a protected class in the District of Columbia and this


censure violates his rights to political expression.

Under the DC Human Rights Act of 1977, political affiliation is a protected class in the
District of Columbia.15 While this law mainly considers employee-employer situations, it
extends to private organizations that operate in the District. The First, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution guarantee the right to speech without
infringement from private or public entities.16 Regardless of if the laws directly or indirectly
apply to the operation of the Senate, it is the duty of all members of the SA, including Senators,
Cabinet Members, and Justices to uphold the laws of the District and the Constitution of the
United States.17
Senator Corsi has continually expressed conservative, and often Republican beliefs both
in his personal capacity and in his capacity as Senator. Despite the strong disagreement
members of the Senate might have with Senator Corsi’s statements, he is entitled to his beliefs
and the right to express them. Section I(A) of the Statement on Student Rights and
Responsibilities states:

12
As of 2019, there are 12,031 Undergraduate Students enrolled and 15,205 Graduate Students enrolled at
GW. See https://irp.gwu.edu/dashboard-enrollment-dashboard. Despite there being more than 3,000 more
Graduate Students (approximately 25% more than Undergraduate Students) there are 21 Undergraduate
Senators and 22 Graduate Senators. On the Cabinet, there are 30 Undergraduate members and 2 Graduate
members.
13
Link v. Student Association Constructive Record, R. 50 (2019).
14
Link v. Student Association Constructive Record, R. 49 (2019).
15
DC ST § 2-1402.11 (2019).
16
U.S. Const. (The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and expression, including political
expression. The Fifth Amendment incorporates the First Amendment to the Federal Government and
District of Columbia through the Due Process Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal
protection of the laws). See also GREGORY E. MAGGS & PETER J. SMITH, CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW: A CONTEMPORARY APPROACH (4th ed. 2018).
17
Constitution of The George Washington University Student Association, Article IX, § 2, July 3, 2019,
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnWKFUNbLbtkgqsHksishuTjRFjoQam0BD5uGLfzaXM/edit.
Student organizations and individual students shall be free to examine and to
discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly and
privately. They shall be free to support causes by orderly means that do not
disrupt the regular and essential operation of the institution. At the same time, it
shall be made clear to the academic and the larger community that students and
student organizations speak only for themselves in their public expressions or
demonstrations. GW students have the rights and responsibilities of a free
academic community. They shall respect not only their fellow students' rights
but also the rights of other members of the academic community to free
expression of views based on pursuit of the truth and the right to function as
citizens independent of the university.18

In censuring Senator Corsi, the Senate is infringing on his rights to express his opinions publicly
and privately. Diversity of thought is essential to a free academic community, and by censuring
Senator Corsi the Senate is denying the academic community the opportunity to experience
diverse thought. Senator Corsi has an explicit right to function as an independent citizen, and
this censure hearing imposes the will of the undergraduate members of the Senate for that of the
University administration in promulgating this policy.
The Student Association and Senate has continuously reaffirmed its commitment to
Diversity and inclusion, to the extent that the Senate requires attendance at a diversity and
inclusion event as a condition of membership.19 Diversity and inclusion means all diversity and
inclusion. Not just diversity and inclusion that is deemed acceptable by the majority. This
includes political beliefs and thought.

b. This censure, and failure to censure other, undergraduate senators for their
actions discriminates against the Senator for his status as a Graduate
Student.

Senator Corsi has been an outspoken advocate for the graduate student community
throughout his time on the Senate. It is clear that there has been growing tensions between the
Graduate Students in the Senate and the Undergraduate Students on the Senate.20 By enacting
censure proceedings against Senator Corsi, the Senate is discriminating against him because of
his status as a Graduate Student.
Moreover, Senator Hill has demonstrated a clear disregard for the rights and opinions of
Graduate Students. Pursuant to Bylaw 201 Section 2(a), it is the role and responsibility of the
Chief Judge of the Student Court to preside over the Senate.21 This authority includes the

18
The George Washington University Code of Student Conduct and the Statement of Rights and
Responsibilities,
https://studentconduct.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs1151/f/downloads/190517%20Code%20of%20Student
%20Conduct%202019.pdf
19
The Bylaws of The George Washington University Student Association, Bylaw 514 §2 (d) (July 3,
2019).
20
See generally Wayne Arminavage, “The Censure Hearing of Senator Jake Corsi, Charges and Rules,”
n. 4 (2019).
21
The Bylaws of The George Washington University Student Association, Bylaw 201 §2(a) (July 3,
2019).
discretion to chair the senate, dismiss evidence, and rule on objections.22 The Chief Justice of
the Student Court is currently a Graduate Student. In the execution of his duties, the Chief
Justice has notified the members of the Senate with rules and procedural mandates that align
with University policies, SA policies, and the general laws of the District of Columbia and the
United States.23 In response, Senator Hill replied, “Just my hot take: I think you are digging to
much into the first amendment aspect of it. We are all already taking it into account and
recognize it’s importance. I think you stating it makes you partial and less objective. It implies a
certain outcome coming from you.”24 Despite the Chief Justice lacking a vote in the Censure
hearing,25 Senator Hill has demonstrated a blatant lack of respect for the Chief Justice. This also
contributes to Senator Hill’s disrespect for Senator Corsi’s right to a fair and just trial by trying
to stifle the role of the Chief Justice in the administration of his duties.
In the past month, an Undergraduate member of the Senate with similar, conservative
beliefs published an applicant’s resume onto social networking sites.26 Despite being a gross
violation of that student’s rights to privacy and the Code of Student Conduct, no censure
proceedings have been brought against this Senator. It is arguable that this Undergraduate
Senator’s actions are more outrageous and inducive to a hostile environment than the actions
alleged against Senator Corsi, yet there has not even been a discussion of censure proceedings in
this case. This leads to the conclusion that Senator Corsi is only being censured for his status as
a Graduate Student, and not because his conduct warrants such a proceeding.

II. The Censure of Senator Corsi creates a Hostile Environment in the Student
Association.

In the District of Columbia, a hostile work environment exists “when workplace


conditions are so suffused with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult of such severity
or pervasiveness as to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive
working environment.”27 To show a hostile work environment, the individual must have been
subjected to such discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is “sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working
environment.”28 While the definition of hostile environment would vary based on the context of
the Student Association, this general concept of hostility serves as a point of reference.

22
The Bylaws of The George Washington University Student Association, Bylaw 201 § 2(a) (July 3,
2019).
23
See also, Wayne Arminavage, “The Censure Hearing of Senator Jake Corsi, Charges and Rules,”
(2019).
24
Brandon Hill, re: Clarification on Tonight’s Censure Hearing (Nov 18, 2019 at 2:19 PM)
25
See The Bylaws of The George Washington University Student Association, Bylaw 201 §2 (d) (July 3,
2019) (requiring an affirmative vote of a two-thirds (2/3) of Voting Senators shall be necessary to impose
censure).
26
As the focus of this memo is on Senator Corsi, I have not included more information regarding the
actions of this Undergraduate Senator. However, there is an argument to be made that not only has this
Undergraduate Senator violated SA and GW policies, but also that he has opened the Student Association
up to civil liability. If a member of the Senate would like more information on this, I would be happy to
provide it at a later date.
27
Lee v. Winter, 439 F. Supp. 2d 82, 85 (D.D.C. 2006)
28
Hill v. Assocs. for Renewal in Educ., Inc., 897 F.3d 232, 237 (D.C. Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct.
1201, 203 L. Ed. 2d 257 (2019)
a. Based on the proceedings of this censure and the behavior by many of the
Undergraduate Senators, there is a hostile environment within the Student
Association against Graduate Students.

By discriminating against Graduate Students in pursuit of this censure, the Student


Association is making clear that Graduate Students are not welcome in the SA nor are they
treated the same. As is, the Student Association has a consistent problem in recruiting and
maintaining Graduate Students in the Student Association. Currently the SA makes little, if any,
effort to meaningful provide notice to Graduate Students regarding ways to be involved,
indicating a history of purposefully excluding Graduate Students from equal participation in the
Student Association.
Senator Hill’s memo on Senator Corsi’s charges contributes to the creation of a hostile
environment against Graduate Students.29 In issuing the memo, Senator Hill has violated
Senator Corsi’s due process rights and waged a personal attack against Senator Corsi. This
clearly indicates the consequences of disagreeing with Senator Hill or any other Undergraduate
Senator—the Senate will take any and all measures against you under the Constitution based on
allegations of misconduct that have little, if any evidence supporting them. Senator Hill’s memo
not only violates Senator Corsi’s Due Process rights, but also blames Senator Corsi for actions of
other Senators, 30 attacks Senator Corsi for disagreeing with the validity of a scientific study,31
and blames Senator Corsi for the resignation of a Senator.32 While Chief Justice Arminavage has
indicated that this memo is to be disregarded as actually stating the charges against Senator
Corsi, it is a clear tactic used by Senator Hill to intimidate Senator Corsi and any other Senator
who might disagree with Senator Hill in the future. Senator Hill’s actions in circulating this
memo are akin to strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP suits) commonly
deployed against members of the public and journalists who oppose the operations of big
businesses in an attempt to intimidate them into silence. If Senator Corsi has made a ‘hostile
environment’ from one Facebook comment, then Senator Hill most certainly has as well from his
memo.33

b. As a Graduate Student I personally feel like as if there is a hostile


environment towards me and all Graduate Students.

As the only Graduate Vice President and only active Graduate Student member of the
cabinet, I personally do not feel welcome in the Student Association. There is clearly a hostile
environment within the Senate, created both by Undergraduate and Graduate students. As of
tonight, this will be the first Senate meeting I have attended. While part of this is due to

29
See Brandon Hill, “The Censure of Senator Jake Corsi,” (2019).
30
Brandon Hill, “The Censure of Senator Jake Corsi,” Exhibit H, (2019).
31
Brandon Hill, “The Censure of Senator Jake Corsi,” Exhibit F & G, (2019).
32
See Brandon Hill, “The Censure of Senator Jake Corsi,” Exhibit C, (2019). Despite Senator Hill
admitting in the memo that former Senator Beason does not mention any Senator by name, he points to
her “telling members of the Student Association that the rhetoric of Senator Corsi when confronting a
nominee and when responding to the Black Town Hall was the main cause for her resignation.” Without
Former Senator Beason actually testifying to this, Senator Hill is blatantly making unfounded allegations.
33
Brandon Hill, “The Censure of Senator Jake Corsi,” Exhibit A, (2019).
scheduling conflicts, it is also because I do not feel welcome at Senate meetings or in the SA. I
do not feel comfortable in the SA office with Undergraduate members of the Senate, and now I
especially do not feel comfortable sharing the space with Senator Hill.
Senator Hill’s memo has demonstrated that if you do not agree with him he will go to
extreme lengths, including violating due process rights, to be deemed as ‘right.’34 I have not
responded to Senator Hill’s Facebook friend request for fear that he would use whatever is
posted or shared to my Facebook in a manipulative way against me if I were to disagree with him
in the future.
In the past, Undergraduate Senators have openly made disparaging comments about me
in the Student Association office, including calling me “power hungry” despite meting me
(maybe) once at the Retreat, never having had a conversation with me, nor taking the time to
actually collaborate with me or learn anything about me. The Senate and Cabinet share one
working space. In commenting about me, the Senators have made the SA Office a hostile place
and harmed the working relationship between the Senate and Cabinet that is essential for an
effective Student Association.

III. This Censure proceeding disrespects the Student Association and weakens its
legitimacy.

Senator Hill’s memo contained an exhibit in which then- Vice President Mchoes
commented on how he and members of the Joint Committee of Faculty and Students found the
SA to not be “mature” and not ready “to have ‘grown-up’ conversations.”35 Despite what
members of this body may claim, it is hard to disagree with the statements made by the Joint
Committee. Graduate Student Umbrella organizations have traditionally not been engaged with
the Student Association. It is not unlikely that this is because they view the Student Association
is a hassle, immature, and self-important. Graduate Student Organizations do not take the
Student Association seriously, nor do they value its contributions.
The behavior of Senator Hill and his colleagues in pursuing charges against Senator Corsi
has reflected poorly on the entire Student Association. Senator Hill’s memo was so disrespectful
of Senator Corsi and of the laws of the United States that he has discredited himself, the Senate,
and the Student Association. The actions of Senator Hill and the Senate have been petulant, and
I have been appalled at the blatant disregard Senator Hill has had for the rights of Senator Corsi.
While Senator Hill may disagree vehemently with the beliefs of Senator Corsi, that does not
justify the actions Senator Hill has taken through this process. While the Chief Justice has said
that Senator Hill’s memo will not be taken as “proof,”36 it is highly prejudicial against Senator
Corsi. By circulating this memo to the Senators, Senator Hill has irreversibly impacted the
Senator’s understanding of the “facts” and has denied Senator Corsi the opportunity to defend
himself to these allegations.

34
See generally Senator Hill’s comments on his Facebook page (dated September 24 and October 11)
regarding his position on The Hatchet. Despite a long history of criticizing the student-run publication, his
position changed once a more favorable article about him was published by the news site.
35
Brandon Hill, “The Censure of Senator Jake Corsi,” Exhibit H, (2019).
36
Wayne Arminavage, “The Censure Hearing of Senator Jake Corsi, Charges and Rules,” (2019).
Throughout the censure process, there has been continual procedural violations.37 Most
recently, the Student Court has decided that hearsay will be presentable evidence during the
Censure proceedings. Allowing hearsay to be presented in these censure proceedings makes this
entire proceeding a witch-hunt. Chief Justice Arminavage indicated in the SA Censure Hearing
Rules that “hearsay evidence is permitted. Any concerns on hearsay evidence must be resolved
based upon the credibility of the witness.”38 This standard allows Senators to make any
allegations and claims they so please, so long as the other Senators decide that the witness is
“credible.” However, there is no standard to decide credibility. Senator Hill has clearly
demonstrated a personal attack against Senator Corsi, and based on a standard of credibility,
should be deemed as not credible. On the other hand, if Senators are inherently decided as
credible, that would include Senator Corsi, and make the comments he has made about the IAT
test valid and therefore not problematic.39
These actions weaken the legitimacy of the SA by making a mockery of any sense of
decorum previously possessed by the Senate. By not having a firm legal and procedurally sound
basis for the censure proceedings, the Senate has fed into the belief that it consists only on
immature undergraduates whose only goal is to get their way and be “right.” Even when
presented with the realization that bylaw inconsistencies have harmed the entire censure
proceedings,40 the Senate affirmatively denied to make changes that would improve the
process.41
Moreover, the role of the Senate is to advocate policy changes that seek to better the
entire GW Student Population. By using up a significant portion of this semester on the censure
hearings, the Senate has failed to prioritize their constituents and act in their best interests. The
GW student body continues to lose faith in the Senate to be productive changemakers when the
Senate continues to waste time and efforts on directed censure proceedings.

Conclusion

The censure proceedings against Senator Jake Corsi discriminate against Senator Corsi
because of his political beliefs and status as a graduate student. The proceedings have created a
hostile environment against other graduate students and I personally feel as if a hostile
environment has been created by Senator Hill from his actions in this censure proceeding. The
censure proceedings weaken the legitimacy of the Student Association.
Many Senators and members of the community have discussed dissatisfaction with
Senator Corsi’s statements. While that sentiment is valid, the censure proceedings have been a
witch hunt designed to condemn Senator Corsi for his beliefs. Senator Corsi is entitled to his
political beliefs, and to express himself accordingly. To punish him for these beliefs is a
violation of D.C. law and the Constitution, which all members of the Senate vowed to uphold in

37
See Dylan Sapienza & Lizzie Mintz, “Bylaw inconsistencies delay SA censure hearing, senators say”
The GW Hatchet, (Nov. 14, 2019). https://www.gwhatchet.com/2019/11/14/bylaw-inconsistencies-
delayed-sa-censure-hearing-senators-say/.
38
Wayne Arminavage, SA Censure Hearing Rules, (g) (2019-2020).
39
Brandon Hill, “The Censure of Senator Jake Corsi,” Exhibit G, (2019).
40
See Dylan Sapienza & Lizzie Mintz, “Bylaw inconsistencies delay SA censure hearing, senators say”
The GW Hatchet, (Nov. 14, 2019). https://www.gwhatchet.com/2019/11/14/bylaw-inconsistencies-
delayed-sa-censure-hearing-senators-say/.
41
See A.J. Link, The Censure Process Act, Governance and Nominations Committee.
taking up their positions. It also sends a clear message that Graduate Students are not welcome
in the Student Association, despite their right to equal participation in the Student Association.
Senator Corsi does have a responsibility to the Senate, but more importantly he has a duty
to his constituents to represent their interests. As of this point, there has been no efforts to
remove Senator Corsi from his position by the members of the student body that elected him to
his position. His constituents have the right to elect a member to the Senate that they believe
will represent their interests—and he has done so through his advocacy for graduate students.