Censuring is the New Censoring
Censuring is defined as a punishment enforced upon members of Congress equivalent to a child receiving a scolding from an adult. Someone can be censured in Congress for breaching the House of Representatives’ code of conduct or for an ethics violation. In order for a member of Congress to be censured, there must be a formal majority vote in the House on a resolution disapproving their conduct. When a member is being censured, they are to stand in a “well” and receive a verbal rebuke from the Speaker of the House, the leader of the United States House of Representatives (Congressional Service Research Report). In the well, the member being censured stands in the center while other representatives surround them in a tight circle. However, a censure does not carry any tangible punishment, like being removed from office. Instead, members of the House of Representatives and Senate are forced to listen to a public, verbal record disapproving of an official’s actions. From 1990 to 2020 there were only nine censure motions in Congress, but from 2020 to 2023 there have been 35 censure motions. Recently, censuring has been used as a way to attack members of Congress with opposing views; however, its intended use is a form of ridicule to discipline members who have done something disrespectful. This was evident when the House voted to censure Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, of Michigan, on Nov. 8. Tlaib is the only Palestinian-American in Congress and she was censured for sharing her views on the Israel-Hamas war (Associated Press News). Although Congress members should be recognized for misconduct, weaponizing censuring is an ineffective form of punishment, an unproductive procedure and an unsustainable disciplinary tactic.
“Censure can serve as an important mechanism for holding government officials accountable,” junior Sophie Wang said. “However, finding a balance between its use and maintaining fairness and certain disciplinary measures is key. As long as there is bipartisan support, a censure should create specific penalties or restrictions that can make them more impactful.”
The U.S. government has a duty to represent issues that are in the best interest of its citizens, however when the members turn against each other, it can create dysfunction societally. The excessive use of censuring will eventually render it meaningless, further diminishing the miniscule impact the process had to begin with. If Congress continues to censure members because they find them unfit, then eventually the overuse of this procedure will not only harm the reputation of the member being censured, but also Congress’ reputation as a whole. On top of this, censuring can lead to further polarization between Congress members. This was shown in 2022 when the Republican Arizona representatives censured certain Democrat representatives for their perceived opposition to former President Donald Trump. The Democratic representatives retaliated by censuring a Republican senator for refusing to vote against a filibuster. This reckless use of censuring caused the Democratic and Republican Party representatives of the state to be further divided upon their beliefs (Cronkite News).
“It makes sense to use censuring in specific cases where a member of Congress was being blatantly disrespectful,” senior Miguel Andrade said. “[However], when it is used to attack people of opposing opinions, it is just a waste of time. People can disagree on certain topics but [those opinions] should not get in the way of their jobs.”
The U.S. is in the midst of numerous crises, whether that be climate change, food insecurity or an unstable economy, and censuring distracts people from more pressing global issues. Using this procedure to attack people from other political parties has taken the focus away from its intended purpose of disciplining members for a disrespectful action they may have taken. Since censuring has gotten so out of hand, a more effective solution should replace it, such as implementing a set of guidelines that spell out what actions deem a censure motion. Instead of placing a censure motion on the basis of ethics violations, which are very broad, they should be placed in specific cases where a Congress member is truly out of line. Additionally, imposing fines as a disciplinary action would be productive since that money can go toward government programs. Money is also a more finite concept than humility; a person’s loss of money is more tangible than their emotions, which is more impactful on someone and may therefore motivate them to change their behavior.
“Including a set of guidelines on what actions would warrant a censure might make it easier to take the appropriate actions when dealing with misdemeanors,” senior Evelyn Chou said. “From there, it will be more clear on when to censure someone, and it will not be used as a partisan weapon.”
