Undergraduate Student Government President Seth Williams raised some eyebrows earlier this month when he called for the dismissal of Vice President for Student Services William W. Asbury. Unfortunately, he raised little awareness about the issue and left his reasons for making such an extreme statement virtually unknown.

To waste credibility on an unfounded personal attack only undercuts William's ability to accomplish his goals for students.

At the open budget / tuition freeze rally earlier this month Williams claimed that Asbury had done "a disservice to students" during his tenure as vice president, and later suggested that he should be replaced by someone who has a background in student advocacy.

Administrators did not hesitate to respond to Williams' attack. University President Bryce Jordan dismissed his statements as "a political ploy," and Director of Public Information Bill Mahon called them "ludicrous." Asbury himself said Williams was "obviously concerned with his own self-aggrandizement."

To deliver a statement this serious in intent, Williams should offer evidence to back his claim that Asbury is not an advocate for students. He pointed to no specific incidents in which Asbury failed in his duties and was joined by few students outside of USG who were dissatisfied with Asbury's work.

Also, Williams made these statements before a trustees meeting that he himself did not attend completely. As one of the few undergraduate students allowed to address the board, he displayed some "disservice to students" of his own by not showing up for the Saturday meeting. Before raising the issue of effective advocacy, Williams should stand on firmer ground.

At a time when Williams is pursuing so many issues important to students, such as opening the budget, he needs as much credibility as he can muster to convince the administration to listen. The administration may overlook a well-thought idea in the future in lieu of such fly-by-night remarks.

Williams has worked hard to bring important issues to the top of the University's agenda in the past. His call for Asbury's removal not only hurts his credibility, it makes those issues look suspicious as well.

Williams has traded the worthiness of the well-reasoned open budget issue for the emptiness of a poorly-reasoned crusade.