College Politics - you decide!

[:) Smiley]

Just think of priesthood as a combat arms MOS.

That would make a great movie.

[foolish_icarus]

I must confess that I haven't followed this very carefully. The impression I get is that most students don't care so much--that is, they care about it in an abstract way, but probably not so much about this resolution.

I suspect this

It has been argued by the college Treasurer that, since ASWC does not technically own or administer any part of the Reid Campus Center, where career booths are typically set up, ASWC does not have the authority to ban anyone from the center.

Will end up being the deciding factor; that and the fact that the ASWC senate doesn't have a lot of power to enforce things of this nature.
Someone in the actual college administration is watching this carefully. The potential funding implications are unclear. Like most any school, private or public, Whitman receives not insubstantial funding from the government, and several cases are still being decided somewhere that cover this sort of thing, about cutting off funding to places that deny access to recruiters.

As for the merits of the actual ASWC senate decision, there aren't many imo. As it is, Whitman is not a very fruitful ground for military recruiting. If the declaration of a student body at some college has the power to help change military policy, which I very much doubt, a resolution simply stating the ASWC's opinion would have done just as well, without the hassle of implementation, enforcement, the potential consequences and the like.
It may be interesting to note that the ASWC senate vote was almost unanimously in favor of the RUDE act, whereas the student body's reaction would be much different. Some would support it, but I think more would oppose it not on principle, but because it's silly and impractical.

[Cyclotron]

Here are the minutes from an ASWC meeting one month ago.

Dramatis Personae:
Meagan - Finance Chair
Tom - Senior Class Rep (Cyclotron notes: also an asshat)
Ajay - Junior Class Rep, also Treasurer who doubted the ability of ASWC to pass the act
Everyone else: random class reps

The parts I found interesting, germane, questionable, or disturbing have been bolded.

# Meagan: at this point were are not just discussing changes, or have we moved into the general direction of discussion of the ACT. One thing that has not been change, is he language: WHEREAS Article VII of the Constitution of the Associated Students of Whitman College states that no discriminatory organization shall receive support from ASWC Congress and that the rights enjoyed by ASWC members must not be denied on the basis of, not limited to, but including sexual orientation; How does allowing recruiters on campus constitute support?

1. A large part of this is making our constitution mean something. There's precident, we have restricted funding or support of other organizations. This takes another step in that we're reading group here as not necessarily a club or group at Whitman. Complicity is a form of support.

1. So then are you going to ban the members of Christians fellowships, as they would be deemed discriminatory organizations?

1. This points to something that tears at the fabric of our campus, as it deals with job opportunities.

2. Ajay: Tom has done a lot of work. Sec. 1 of the ASWC constitution; Sec 2 says that ASWC will not give funding, and since it's impossible for ROTC to be on campus, and therefore there no possible comflict. This doesn't concern anti-gay, but an anti-military act. There has been no precident, as intervarsity was inside ASWC. There would have to be proof that recruiters were a safety hazard and that is a real streatch.

1. Tom: I was at jamnesty yesterday, and that poster refers to the UN declaration of human rights, and one of the 48 clauses is that there is a right for people to recognized as a person. In allowing the military to come here, we're complicit in the idea that homosexuals would be persona non-grata. I think it's important for us to take a stand here and say that we don't want to be a part of the military industrial complex.

2. Jeff: A couple of quick points. I think that it’s a great idea. The constitution does apply here. In response to Ajay: there's no real reason for the military to be here. I've talked to a lot of people on campus on the RUDE act and they've all been pretty opposed to the RUDE act, and although I've been in favor of it, my constituents are opposed.

3. Juliana: I think that what's key is whether it's aproporiate for ASWC to oppose the military recruiters. I don't understand how any person under ASWC would have their rights infringed upon by having the recruiters. I oppose Don't ask Don't tell, but I don't understand how recruiters infinge on them.

4. Roman: Everyone that I spoke to said that they were all against having recruiters here. The Don't ask Don't tell policy can affect people outside the military. It definitely affects the students here.

5. Brian: do you have numbers on the school have taken this action? As for jurisdiction: allowing the military to exclude is a violation of rights.

6. Tom: the American association of law schools, which has some kind of congress, and all visitors need to sign some kind of non-discrimintaion waiver or something. These terms have been retracted because of the Solomon amendment. I really think that this is a watershed moment as to what ASWC can do to address the federal actions. We are a higher education institution, we're affected.

7. Andrew: The by-laws explicitly state that it is the responsibility of the policy committee and the senate at large to lobby the rest of the administration. There is a mandate to take this kind of action. This resolution takes on the language takes on the language of advisory

8. Meagan: two questions: if we're making this statement on principle, then why aren't we making it with the soloman language: why do we care if it's a principled thing?

9. Tom: Why? Varga fox told me that the higher ups say that what ever we do is great as long as it isn't in violation of federal law.

10. Meagan: since when does the president of the college tell us what we can and cannot do?

11. It's me listening to them, we don't need to put the funding in danger if we have the language to prevent that.

12. Ajay: I would like to clarify the point on jurisdiction: this act makes a recommendation to the administration, for the reasons stated. I'm for stating that the soloman amendment is horrible and that don't ask don't tell is horrible, and that';s a better action than actually kicking the recruiters off the campus.

13. Laura: it's important to do some things on a symbolic level, but I also think that proportionate discrimination should have a proportionate response. The level of discomfort that they felt is not worth compromising several thousand dollars of federal aid. The only people that I talked to that disagreed with language said that it might be better to have dialogue as opposed to ban. Dialogue on campus can happen on this issue.

14. Bryce: the source of this has been the clause in the constitution also includes veteran status: that means that the act would be actively discriminating against veterans to prevent the discrim of homosexuals. The clause also turns on support, and the recruiters aren’t receiving support. I'm all for taking a position against it, but we aren't giving recruiters support, so the act seems inappropriate.

15. Roman: I'm confused as to our mandate. If we are at all to consider the even if language, then we need to submit it back to forums, because a lot of that money goes to students, and it's necessary to inform them that we might be compromising that money.

16. Jeff: I think that jurisdiction is fine, but it's a money issue. The soloman amendment say that any sub-element can pass a policy, and the school will be punished. At the point where there is any risk, it seems wise to wait it off.

17. Tom: the five million dollar figure came from Varga Fox, and she didn't know that the soloman amendment no longer relates to individuals. That's all besides the point, because the ban would only occur if the soloman amendmen is overturned.

18. Meagan: what I hear a lot of people saying is that we want to make a symbolic gesture to signify our assessment of the situation, without the risk. I think that viewing banning recruiters as a symbolic action is a mistake. It takes away opportunities. In weighing our decision, we should think about the differences between a rejection of policy vs. a ban. But I can testify that there are at least two people on campus that have been recruited by the marine corp. and that is significant. The consequnses of banning recruiters is too large to merely consider it a gesture or a symbol.

19. Ajay: I agree with what Meagan said. If the Act passes, then students will have to make an appointment to meet in the career center. That's presumptary of us.

20. Tom: this isn't discriminatory against veterans, and this isn't against the military. It makes concessions to allow individuals to meet in private, because it tears at our campus to distinguish between who can be recruited and who cannot. I don't see why the burden of restricting of non-recruitable people would push you against this resolution.

21. Jenna: I would largely agree with some of the criticisms. I do however think that means that we shouldn't pass it. We don't need to be perfect, and we should pass it.

22. Meagan: I have an alternate resolution to pass if we reject this resolution, stating that Don't ask don't tell is discriminatory, and that the soloman amendment is horrible, but that would be much preferred to this act. Voting no now doesn't mean that something won
t get passed.

23. Motion to limit debate five more minutes
1. Division: not two thirds, motion fails.
24. Juliana: I move to amend the resolution to strike the language patron saint of ASWC from the distribution clause.
1. why?
1. I feel that if we are to make a formal statement then we might as well be mature about it. Being silly undermines it.
2. All in favor:
1. Division: amendment passes
25. Is there further discussion on this?
1. Bryce: I move to amend the resolution by striking all active clauses except for five, seven, eight, and nine. (seconded)
1. Tom wants to kick their ass.
2. Ajay: opposition is a superior method.
3. Sam: the proactive nature of this resolution is it's beauty. So many of these questions pertain to it's effectiveness. The proactive nature is a positive aspect. The recruiters will take this as a more forcefull resolution.
4. Drew: there seems to be a movement forming to the active resolution, we must stop the actions to make our statement full.
5. Brian: I agree with that. This is a historic moment, and is doing something.
6. Called the question.
1. Division: ayes have it.
2. Amendment fails.

26. Meagan: I see a few problems with the argument that Dru just made: we have to act, but not take away our funding. Again, by banning recruiters, we’ll be making a stronger statement against the military. However, given that the military only recruiter a few students, how much louder are they going to hear our voice, versus the impact on the lives of the students. The slight effect that we'll make by banning recruiters on campus.

27. The whole point that I see is that the people that can go into the military can't be homosexuals.

28. Laura: this is part of a movement. That's not a drop in the bucket. Institutions of higher learnings are something bastions of progressivism. We have the opportunity as a college to make a statement.

29. Tom: Meagan is just trying to minimize the effect of the resolution. Every drop counts. This is a confrontational social movement. As far as the consequenese are concerned, there aren't any with the language as stated.
1. call to question
2. seconded.
1. Ayes have it.
2. All in favor?
1. Roll call vote
2. By class:
3. Tom: yeah
4. Drew: yeah
5. Brian: yeah
6. Aaron: yeah
7. Juliana: yeah
8. Ajay: nope
9. Laura: yeah
10. Emily: yeah
11. Sam: yeah
12. Caity: yeah
13. Ken: Yeah
14. Jeff: Abstain
15. Aisha: yeah
16. Bryce: no
17. Roman: Yeah
18. Elliot: yeah
19. Meagan: no
20. Jenna; yeah
21. Emily: yeah
22. Programming: no
23. The opinion of the chair that the ayes have it. The resolution passes.

[JohnT]

Talk about self-important!

[Cyclotron]

I thought you'd like it. Sorry I don't have anything more recent; it's hard to keep up with college affairs from Austria. I take pride, however, in the fact that my senate keeps doing whatever it is it does without me.

[Kuciwalker]

I mean, that's almost as bad as 'Poly.

[Cyclotron]

I should also note that ASWC sent a copy of the act to, among others, the SCOTUS.

[Cyclotron]

As for poll results, it looks like we're neck and neck! Will Poly-shadow-ASWC ban teh military or not?

[Cyclotron]

Wow, I knew Tom (last name edited out to protect the stupid) was an asshat, but this is beyond stupid. To quote:

I think it's important for us to take a stand here and say that we don't want to be a part of the military industrial complex.

this isn't discriminatory against veterans, and this isn't against the military.

I was ambivalent about this issue until reading those minutes - now I just want January to come around so I can find Tom and kick him in the balls.

[Apocalypse]

Again...they don't seem to know what they are talking about?

Do you they some e-mail/facebook/myspace contact info I can have to personally tell Megan or Tom or whoever's idea this idea really is why they are dumbasses?

[JohnT]

They have a website. You can just Google it w/o getting Cyclotron in trouble.

[Apocalypse]

I don't feel like doing that right now. This way is easier.

[Cyclotron]

Go ahead and tell them what you think if that floats your boat, but I would ask that you not be abusive to these people, my quote about kicking Tom in the balls notwithstanding.

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT
That's precisely my point. And it's legal, or else the Catholic church wouldn't be able to hire priests here in the US.

The Church does not "hire" priests.

[Apocalypse]

Ok, who should I send a message to? Megan or Tom or both?