Today, I will be acting as sort-of an independent investigator into the matter of the recent accusations made against the President of the Student Association (SA), Japneet Singh. I have decided to look into this possible scandal because I realized that it has been looming over this year’s student elections (which were held a few weeks before this article was published) resulting in a great deal of divisiveness and resentment on campus between the two political parties. This conflict is also reflective, in my view, of the national schism between the Republican and Democratic Parties, a topic that I have written about in the past.

The longtime Queens College newspaper, The Knight News, has been extremely critical of the SA as of late. On March 14 of this year, anyone who looked at the paper saw an illustration of money being shadily handed off under a table beneath the headline, “SA Pays Questionable Stipends,” with the related article called “Student Association pays questionable stipends to bogus committee ‘Chairs,’” written by Ameila Inderjeit, the paper’s editor-in-chief. The article makes a number of accusations against the President. In the interest of time and quality, I will be focusing on two.

The First Accusation

The Knight News claims that the SA faked Student Senate meeting minutes. The evidence for this is a document, which I have obtained, as it was published alongside a different article from last year.

Here is the document (link provided by The Knight News)

In the document, Marco Sin is listed as Vice-President at the meeting on June 13th, despite having previously resigned on May 11th. At first glance, the inclusion of his name might appear to be a typographical error. However, upon being questioned about the meeting, the President claimed he was “not responsible for the minutes and/or in any way in charge of calling Student Senate meetings in general.” However, this statement is contradicted by the name found at the bottom of the document’s second page:

“Respectfully Submitted,

Japneet Singh

President, Student Association”

My Reaction

This is where I start to get suspicious. If the inclusion of Mr. Sin’s name really was a mistake, why wouldn’t the President just say that? Instead, he chose to lie, which not only calls into question his personal integrity but also his motive for lying in the first place. Could he have been hiding something illegitimate? Innocent people don’t need to lie.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the News also interviewed several members of the SA who were listed as having attended the meeting that claim that it never took place at all, with one senator saying that meetings similar to the one in question did not take place during her tenure as an alternate senator the year before.

This accusation raises more questions: what is the president trying to hide? If he did fabricate the minutes, what possible incentive could he have to do so? And can we expect the same sort of behavior from the next administration? I simply cannot trust the President’s words in this case.

The Second Accusation 

Due to the lack of transparency on display by the President’s response to the first accusation, Ms. Inderjeit’s skepticism is understandable. But this is only the tip of the scandalous iceberg. As the article’s title and headline suggest, the real contention here is the accusation that Haramritpal Singh, Karandeep Singh, and Ramneet Singh were paid large stipends that were not proportional to the work they actually did. For example, Karandeep Singh, despite being reported to have not served as the Greek Life chair from 2016 to 2017, was nonetheless paid $1,275 during that time. The paper printed check statements with these amounts to support their accusation.

This accusation, in particular, was political rocket fuel for the opposition party, YAS (Youth Advocating Success). If anyone asked one of their candidates what they would do differently than the incumbent party, the SFC (Students For Change), all they had to do is point to the paper and say, “not this.” But before we all start chanting “Drain The Swamp,” let’s listen to both sides of the story by examining the President’s defense against the second accusation.

The President’s Defense

It appears that the SA has created its own newspaper to compete with The Knight News, named The QC Times. In Issue #1, published on March 26, 2018, President Singh wrote an op-ed detailing his response. He certainly picked a good time to speak out, as if he hadn’t, the SFC, now rebranded as the SSS (Students Serving Students) might have been in danger of losing the political dominance they have maintained on campus for the past several years.

In regards to the stipends paid to Karandeep Singh, Japneet explains how in order to receive a stipend, you must have a Grade Point Average of at least 2.0 (out of a maximum of 4.0). This requirement is true for all students–in order to graduate, you must have a minimum of 2.0–otherwise, you will be placed on academic probation and may eventually be dismissed from the College. The reason this is relevant is that the Greek Life chair from 2016-2017 did not meet this requirement. Thus, Japneet and the Executive Board decided to allow that person to serve unofficially and appointed Karandeep Singh as the official chair. Here’s the problem: both newspapers tell a completely different version of the following events. The News quotes the former “unofficial” Greek Life chair, Beena Kanhailall, as having said the following: “As Greek Life chair for 2016-2017, I did not receive any payments for my position, as I was told by the president that Greek Life, along with several other committees did not receive stipends.” Compare that statement to what Japneet reports she had said: “I don’t mind receiving a stipend. As long as I can get a room key and a parking pass, I can still be Greek Life Chair unofficially.”

My Reaction

I find it harder to take a side on this issue than I did with the first accusation. On one side we have Ms. Inderjeit in the News claiming that Karandeep Singh was neither the Greek Life chair for 2016-2017, nor would he be allowed to receive a stipend even if he were. On the other hand, in the Times, the President is claiming the exact opposite; that, in fact, Karandeep was the Greek Life Chair that year and that he was supposed to be paid. This puzzling discrepancy, to me, has only one explanation: someone here is lying.

In an attempt to get to the bottom of this, I decided to try to talk to either Japneet Singh or one of his colleagues myself. In his op-ed, he claims that “We request every student that may be uncertain about anything when it comes to where your money is going, to come in and talk to us! We are located in Student Union 319, and are more than happy to discuss any issue or concern you may have. I hope this clarifies any confusion that was created and I hope to continue serving you to the best of my abilities in my last two months in office!”

That all sounds wonderful! I went to that room he mentioned and asked if there was someone I could speak to about the accusations. Unfortunately, no one was able (or willing) to speak to me, so they took down my name and email and promised me that the President would be in contact to address my concerns as soon as possible. This technique is a good way to get people off your back without explicitly telling them to scram, as I learned from applying for part-time jobs in high school. In any case, Mr. Singh has yet to email me as of the time this blog post is published, but if he does, I will give him a fair chance to answer my questions.

I also decided to attempt to view the original copies of those check statements with my own eyes to ensure that they were not doctored in any way. The President said that “Everything we do, from spending a penny to who our officers are, is all public information which can be found in multiples ways. You can go to Student Union room 315 and request these documents, reach out to the Student Life office, the Dean of Students’ office, the Vice President of Student Affairs’ Office, or come directly to us for this information.” I took one of those options and went to Student Union 315, only to be told that the check statements are in fact not open to the public for anyone to request-I had to be very specific of my affiliations and intentions. It’s possible that the President misspoke when he said “public information,” or that the person that told me otherwise misspoke. Still, that contradiction only adds to my confusion. I also have not received the documents, or any communication from the office in charge of them, as of publication.

The Verdict:

Japneet Singh said that “we request every student…come in and talk to us!” The reception I got at the SA office did not seem very welcoming to one of their fellow students. Rather than anyone offering to talk to me, or asking me to return when someone was not busy, they simply foisted me onto the president as if to say “not my problem!” Keep in mind that if the accusations are true, Japneet won’t be the only one of my peers complicit in this scheme.

As I said earlier, someone here is lying. Based on the evidence that I have reviewed, and from the SA’s lack of willingness to talk to me, I must side with The Knight News against the President. So far, he has not given me any indication of his integrity, honesty, or genuine understanding of the anger of students that supported the YAS party. Perhaps that will change by the time Part 2 of my writing on this topic comes out, but in the meantime, I am not convinced by his defense.