5/24 Student Senate Meeting
It’s 7:10 and the meeting’s beginning. Senator Dallas Brown has made a motion to add his resolution regarding the Insurgent to the agenda, which Senator Sara Hamilton has seconded. I’ll be doing occasional updates through the comments section as the meeting progresses.
UPDATE: There is no longer a motion for a resolution on the table. Instead there is time set aside for the Senate to discuss the Insurgent.
UPDATE: A majority of the Student Senate has walked out of the meeting rather than discuss the Insurgent’s content. The members who did not walk out were Wally Hicks, Dallas Brown, Kyle McKenzie, Toby Piering, and Natalie Kinsey. Booo to the members who walked. While I don’t think the Senate should have attempted to handle the matter, it’s unreasonable to just walk out of a meeting rather than drop discussion through the proper process. As far as I can tell, Senate can talk about the issue’s content without violating Southworth. Indeed, the Senate itself debated the Emerald’s own coverage of Senate on May 10. (This is admittedly a slightly different scenario since the ODE is a contracted group rather than a student group.)
May 24th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Richard Malena opposes Brown’s motion, saying that Brown’s resolution was not in their inboxes for a week, as per this year’s internal Senate rules. Because of this, Malena says, the item should be deferred. Former Senator Jared Axelrod agrees, saying that they should not suspend rules for this specific motion. In turn, Dallas claims Jared is trying to “limit students speech.”
May 24th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Brilliant!
May 24th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Dallas apologizes for accusing him of limiting speech, but reiterates that he believes the Senate should hear the motion and that it was a “very strange mistake” that it didn’t make it into Senator’s mailboxes a week ago.
May 24th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
“The resolution in question has something that is illegal” inside of it, Mike Filipelli points out, agreeing that the motion for the resolution should not be heard.
May 24th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
(Excuse me, it must be submitted five school days in advance, not *technically* a week.
May 24th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Melinda Greer is in the room, and Goward says that she will debate the issue if asked to. She would presumably argue against the resolution. Big guns.
May 24th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Sara Hamilton: “I’d like to remind the Senate that we’ve broken these rules multiple times, including the textbook resolution.” “This is a perfect place [for this debate] to happen,” she says, agreeing with Brown.
May 24th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Sen. Wally Hicks has proposed an addition to the agenda titled “Student Insurgent,” overriding Brown’s existing resolution. This new item on the agenda would essentially be a time set aside for the Student Senate to debate the Insurgent rather than pass a resolution against them.
In other words, this is so that they can make a PR move rather than a legal one. Smart.
May 24th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
There is a video crew here, presumably from FOX News. They’ve stopped proposal of the resolution because they know it’s in contradiction both of senate rules and Southworth, but this way they can at least get video clips of themselves railing against the Insurgent.
May 24th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Is debate happening at the bottom of the agenda?
May 24th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Not sure, but probably. Probably won’t have any updates for awhile, they need to go through the regular bullshit.
May 24th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
A disturbingly sober Adam Walsh is now talking about the clubs sports baseball team’s special request for funds to go to a national competition. After two of the baseball players robbed the clubhouse, Walsh vetoed an earlier special request. But he says now that after much deliberation he’s changed his mind and urges Senate to override his veto.
May 24th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Brown opposes overriding the veto, pointing out that the two players were convicted of misdemeanors and urging that the money which would go towards those two players going on the trip be deducted from the total.
May 24th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Motion passes to override the veto: 10-1-1, with Stephanie Erickson voting “yea”, Brown voting “nay”, and Hicks abstaining.
May 24th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
There’s now a special request on the table requesting $22,500 so that they can bring Ozomatli to the University for next year’s Week of Welcome.
May 24th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Wally Hicks argues that by requesting so much money, the students as a whole are being compelled to pay for the show rather than just the people who want to attend. “I just wonder if this is just another example of us forcing diversity down people’s throats,” Hicks says.
May 24th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
“More students would benefit than would lose out,” the guy giving the presentation says. Yet he estimates that less than 2000 students would attend the concert.
May 24th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
The motion passes 7-3-3 and the Cultural Forum is given $20,000 to bring the concert.
May 24th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
omfg!!!!
May 24th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
what a waste of student fee dollars…too bad axelrod won’t have the balls to veto it
May 24th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Most of the Senate has walked out of the meeting rather than debate the Insurgent. There is no quorum.
May 24th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Axlerod has HUGE balls!
May 24th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
and you would know Nate…
May 24th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Dallas Brown. There’s just no predicting him.
May 24th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Is the meeting still in session? What did Dallas say?
May 24th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Nah, the Senate broke the quorum in some stroke of parliamentary genius (and slight amount of sleeze, but okay) and then Dallas went off on the hypocrisy of the whole deal. Adam also gave an interesting speech.
I don’t know what happened much after that. I spoke to Dallas briefly on his way out, just wondering what the reasoning was behind his resolution. Anywho, I’m out.
May 25th, 2006 at 12:31 am
I’m going to save my comments about the whole Senate/Insurgent issue, but I did want to say that I think it is incredibly unprofessional and immature to see a group of senators walk out of a meeting.
I know some of you loyal OC-ers will have comments about just HOW professional or mature some of the senators are, but I would like to think that they have some level of decorum. Oh well… new year, new senate. Hopefully, that is. I would like to see those who broke the slate earlier this term actually do something productive in senate. As would everyone else.
May 25th, 2006 at 12:33 am
Wait - question: Does the “The members who did not walk out were Wally Hicks, Dallas Brown, Kyle McKenzie, Toby Piering, and Natalie Kinsey” comment mean our beloved President-elect (and now President) Axelrod walk out? Or not?
Who exactly walked out?
May 25th, 2006 at 12:50 am
So tell me again why only one person voted AGAISNT putting this on the agenda but then what 7 people walked out in opposition? Why not have the 7 people vote NOT to put it on the agenda then protect the Senate from looking horrible in from of everyone, follow the rules in place. Seems pretty clear to me, but I am also the guy who thinks mere discussion is legal under Southworth, what do I know?
May 25th, 2006 at 12:53 am
Rumor has it nside the office that the slate is having meetings still with Axelrod to determine the new Senate agenda for the year. First up… Iran Resolution. Judging by the people who walked out tonight and the new addition of the slate members, I wouldn’t have too much confidence in next year’s Senate. I am looking forward to the ride.
May 25th, 2006 at 1:21 am
Oh, well, that’s just fabulous.
May 25th, 2006 at 1:39 am
I am so done with Student Government. Glad I’m out.
May 25th, 2006 at 1:46 am
Just be glad that the senate was protected from itself tonight! It did not break any laws, go on camera being un-view point neutral and being tool bags. The Senators took a stand, made a point, and did not get bullied into a corner by Dallas Brown, who was the only one miked, and wanted to make a stand on national television standing up for the “average student.” If he stood up for the average student, he would have done his job at DDS, and earned his stipend, instead of getting $125 a month for shit! Dallas only stands up when it forwards his image and makes him look good, not for students, and most defiantly not for legality or the constitution!
May 25th, 2006 at 1:53 am
I think no one really agrees with or respects your opinion David. I think you are better off trying to save what little face if any you have an disappearing into the darkness. I know you are rejected for DDS coordinator so you really are in no place to criticize Dallas. We all know you think you are so high and mighty and trying to make a name for yourself so you really need to start checking your attitude at the door. I think you are one of the least viewpoint neutral people (formaly) in the ASUO as you are afraid to even here any debate on the issue. You forget the viewpoint nuetrality clause need only to apply to allocation of fees, not discussion about group in general. I suggest you open the green tape notebook. Anyway, time for you to run along and get to bed. Mrs. Greer is wait for you David…
May 25th, 2006 at 2:13 am
thanks “anti-goward” i wonder who you could be? isn’t it past your usual sleep time sir?
Agreed though that it is not against any rules to discuss groups in general. It is not even against any rules to condemn or condone them. I pity those that do not wish and want and yean to engage in debate. Ian says boo to them, but I just fell sorry for them. “it is better to avoid the situation” was the thought of some senators (especially those that wait to hear how sen. hicks votes) tonight. I believe “easier” should be substituted for “better”.
and amy….president-elect Axelrod had already resigned and did not sit on senate tonight, so he did not walk out. although I am sure the women “behind the curtain” would have insisted he do so anyway. who is really running next years exec? the world may never know.
May 25th, 2006 at 2:18 am
Wait - question: Does the “The members who did not walk out were Wally Hicks, Dallas Brown, Kyle McKenzie, Toby Piering, and Natalie Kinsey” comment mean our beloved President-elect (and now President) Axelrod walk out? Or not?
Axelrod was no longer a sitting member of Senate as of this meeting, so he did not walk out. From what I understand, he has offered to host a town hall meeting on the Insurgent’s issue next week.
May 25th, 2006 at 2:19 am
So who did walk out?
May 25th, 2006 at 2:29 am
Erickson, Faust, Malena, Kato, Irvin, and Filippelli walked out. Hamilton and Papailiou also left at that point, although I have not confirmed that they left specifically because of the Insurgent line item.
We will be posting a complete audio file of the meeting and (most of) the aftermath tomorrow. (And by that I mean later today.)
May 25th, 2006 at 8:12 am
So I am going to echo what Ian said. Supposedly all of these above Senators walked out simply because a discussion was put on the agenda, and that perhaps during this discussion someone MAYBE would have proposed something limiting free speech? So then why not stay and see if this sort of actions actually occurreed and vote it down. I think that it is only illegal if action if action is officially taken. I bet Melinda Greer would agree. It seems to strike me as odd that one of these Senators that walked out had no problem questioning the content of the Oregon Daily Emerald before the Senate mere weeks ago. Hypocricy??? Rumors has it some motivations for the walk out went beyond the discussion of the Insurgent and were centered around jockeying for positions of leadership within Senate next year. I can say these are rumors but then again I know what other Senators have told me and if I get pissed off enough I will tell you who wants what for next year, and this statement can be confirmed when Senate elects its next officials. Pretty sad guys…and gals…
May 25th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Toby,
To say that one of the Senators who walked out questioned the content of the Oregon Daily Emerald before the Senate and then call him a hypocrite is misleading. It was necessary for the Senator in question to bring up the content of the Emerald only because the issue that he raised was what he perceived to be the Emerald’s antagonism toward Senate. The remarks he made were more about the relationship between the Emerald and Senate and his wanting to find ways to mend that relationship. I can’t speak to that Senator’s reasons for leaving last night’s meeting, but these are different cases, and that Senator in particular is one of the last who I would jump to call a hypocrite.
May 25th, 2006 at 8:58 am
DRINK!
May 25th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Yeah, it also seems to me that no one is entirely sure at this point as to why Erickson et al. walked out. While it appears it was probably intended to avoid talking about the Insurgent, I think a clearer explanation is needed. It was also a little odd to me that the Senate’s “statement” was issued by Goward and not by the AA. Either way, it’d be nice to know from the Senators themselves.
May 25th, 2006 at 10:12 am
No worries people! The new and improved Senate is here! Under the leadership of the one… the only Jared Axelrod!
May 25th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Do you have anything else to talk about Nate? You’re like the drunk guy at a party who runs around shouting “SHOW ME YOUR TITS!”
May 25th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Clarification, I am not calling Mat a hypocrite ( I am not afraid to name names). Love the dude. I am calling the Sneate itself hypocritical for freely discussing the ODE content and not the Insurgent’s. Sorry, I didn’t make that clear. I don’t know if you were at the meeting (I am sure you were since you are most likely a Senator who walked out and are afraid to put your name on what you submit. Most likely Sara, but maybe I am wrong) but I was and more than just mending the relationship was discussed and I heard no one…including myself for that matter (kicking myself) for even questioning the purpose of talking about the ODE. That my friend is hypocritical. Sorry to Mat if that first statement came out wrong.
May 25th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Also, does no one have the guts to attach their name to a statement on this blog besides Axelrod at times, Anthony, and the OC Staff? Consider it a challenge!
May 25th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
That’s right. Because we’re dicks here at the OC. Here’s a link to the rest of the analogy. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/quotes
May 25th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Toby I’m not afraid to put my name on anything. The above was not me, just to settle the confusion. Contact me personally if you want. -Sara
May 25th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
What a strange, bitter debate.
Tim: I think we’ve all concluded that these “Nate” posts are merely a parody of The Slate (it seems rather obvious now, in hindsight). Kudos, “Nate”, for your undying committment to your joke.
May 25th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
It’s really astounding to me that a student senator would bring a resolution before the senate– a resolution which he has admitted he knows would be illegal to pass and which basically has no place– and invite FOX News to cover the event. It’s staggering that he would stand on a chair with the cameras rolling and proclaim before a national audience that he deems his erstwhile colleagues to be cowards because they have artfully dodged the bullet he sent their way. How is it that refusing to take part in a conversation, when doing so cannot be of any service to one’s career, when the specifications of one’s job as senator place no obligation upon one to take part in the conversation, when the subject matter of that conversation has already been exhausted and its legal implications already definitively determined, when a proposal for a public quorum event to be held in the near future and advertised for what it is has already been announced and received favorably, when excusing oneself from the debate does not preclude the debate itself and simply allows more time to those who do wish to talk ad nauseum– how is it that this refusal can be likened to a stifling of others’ speech?
This petty opportunism does not reflect well on our university at all.
What a play, Dallas. What a play.
May 25th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Tyler: The joke is truly on me, then.
May 25th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
This petty opportunism does not reflect well on our university at all.
While I disagree with you on the merits of Senators walking out of the meeting, I entirely agree on this point. Putting on a show for prospective donors ignorant of the law would seem to be more pornographic in nature than what the Insurgent printed.
May 25th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Gonna have to ditto Ian. These concerns can always be addressed in a greivance. Nonetheless, walking out was entirely unprofessional.
May 25th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Feature Bout, battle of the DDS co-directors. Dallas Brown versus David Goward…cage fight to the death…who wins?
May 25th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
The audience.
May 25th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
I second Ian’s statement above mine.
May 25th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
time out. i am confused. the DaVinci code says that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelane and that they had a child. The Bible says he was never married. The Insurgent suggests that he is gay. What is the truth? I need to know. Please help.
May 25th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
DaVinci Code = Fiction; Insurgent = Fiction.
The Bible = Still being tested.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
And when I mean tested, I mean as “in progress”.
Just to be fair.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
“This petty opportunism does not reflect well on our university at all”
Sometimes petty opportunism can only be fought with petty opportunism. It seems to me that this entire shitstorm has been created because of widespread ignorance of the laws and circumstances surrounding these cartoons. Bill O’Reilly is single handedly creating a perception of our campus as afraid of confronting the left-wing crazies which he claims run things around here. The Senate walkout did nothing but confirm that perception. The fact that senators had no faith in their ability to stand up to Dallas’s woefully inept arguments was plainly displayed by their hiding behind a law which in no way proscribes discussion of fee-funded content. Notch up one more squandered “teachable moment” for the home team.
May 25th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Bill O’Reilly is single handedly creating a perception of our campus as afraid of confronting the left-wing crazies which he claims run things around here.
You have to admit, I don’t know if I wanna be confronting the Insurgent people on a regular basis.
I’m kidding. By the way I need to retract my earlier comments. Erickson explained it all in today’s Emerald and it was basically as we thought: speaking out for free speech by not speaking or freely allowing speech. Whatever. I disagree with his resolution, by Dallas Brown is still secretly my hero.
May 25th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
but*
May 25th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Hey Anti-Goward- Just for some clarification 1) I am the permanent Co-Director of DDS and will be in that position for the next year. Dallas’s little tirade to get me out failed… funny. 2) The audience and I would win the cage match 3) If I practiced non-view point neutrality this Christian would have beat the insurgent down into purgatory, but because I did not, I followed the little thing they call the law… and made a decision. Take it to court, debate it where ever… it is legal, right and even though most do not like the outcome, it was correct!
May 25th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Most idiots don’t like the outcome, anyone with two neurons to rub together understands that snuffing out unpopular speech is the last thing anybody wants to do. I, for one, am perfectly happy with the outcome.
May 25th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
David… I’m sorry but you would get your ass kicked by the commy Dallas! And trust me everyone would win as a result.
Either way, both of you don’t matter anymore… the new administration is going to take out the trash, and your the first to go!
Ohh and in case you were not all at the senate meeting OZOMATLI is coming to the UO!!!!
May 25th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Next it’ll be Quasi, and then the end times will be nigh.
May 25th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
I would have rather had a-ha come to the U of O. At least there I’d have more fun.
May 25th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
some people who knew of the plan just left because their was no meeting.who left because of what reasons? i dunno, but evryone can prob guess.
May 25th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
I was for moving the agenda around, did you notice?
May 25th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Stephanie, you spelled your last name wrong
May 25th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
I’m embarrassed that even a dollar of my money goes toward this insurgent publication. If these people were asking for money on the street, I would be more likely to throw a dirty diaper in their face than put a penny in their jar. Thank God for students like Jacob Daniels who resigned the last three hours of his time in the ASUO, and abandoned any further involvement with UO student government. Thank God for Daniels, Dallas Brown, and others who understand that student government is a joke.
Trent N. Tyree
May 25th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
LoL Trent!! I’m not sure I’d be thanking God for those people - I’m more inclined to thank God for John Browning.
I think everyone understands it’s a joke - but that doesn’t change anything concerning the current situation.
May 26th, 2006 at 12:16 am
If these people were asking for money on the street, I would be more likely to throw a dirty diaper in their face than put a penny in their jar.
You carry dirty diapers around with you on a regular basis? In the pocket or the backpack?
I’m sorry, I really couldn’t help myself on that one… But I got your point, don’t worry.
May 26th, 2006 at 12:57 am
Letter from the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
July 28, 2003
Dear Colleague:
I am writing to confirm the position of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education regarding a subject which is of central importance to our government, our heritage of freedom, and our way of life: the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
OCR has received inquiries regarding whether OCR’s regulations are intended to restrict speech activities that are protected under the First Amendment. I want to assure you in the clearest possible terms that OCR’s regulations are not intended to restrict the exercise of any expressive activities protected under the U.S. Constitution. OCR has consistently maintained that the statutes that it enforces are intended to protect students from invidious discrimination, not to regulate the content of speech. Harassment of students, which can include verbal or physical conduct, can be a form of discrimination prohibited by the statutes enforced by OCR. Thus, for example, in addressing harassment allegations, OCR has recognized that the offensiveness of a particular expression, standing alone, is not a legally sufficient basis to establish a hostile environment under the statutes enforced by OCR. In order to establish a hostile environment, harassment must be sufficiently serious (i.e., severe, persistent or pervasive) as to limit or deny a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from an educational program. OCR has consistently maintained that schools in regulating the conduct of students and faculty to prevent or redress discrimination must formulate, interpret, and apply their rules in a manner that respects the legal rights of students and faculty, including those court precedents interpreting the concept of free speech. OCR’s regulations and policies do not require or prescribe speech, conduct or harassment codes that impair the exercise of rights protected under the First Amendment.
As you know, OCR enforces several statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, race or other prohibited classifications in federally funded educational programs and activities. These prohibitions include racial, disability and sexual harassment of students. Let me emphasize that OCR is committed to the full, fair and effective enforcement of these statutes consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment. Only by eliminating these forms of discrimination can we fully ensure that every student receives an equal opportunity to achieve academic excellence.
Some colleges and universities have interpreted OCR’s prohibition of “harassment” as encompassing all offensive speech regarding sex, disability, race or other classifications. Harassment, however, to be prohibited by the statutes within OCR’s jurisdiction, must include something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive. Under OCR’s standard, the conduct must also be considered sufficiently serious to deny or limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program. Thus, OCR’s standards require that the conduct be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person in the alleged victim’s position, considering all the circumstances, including the alleged victim’s age.
There has been some confusion arising from the fact that OCR’s regulations are enforced against private institutions that receive federal-funds. Because the First Amendment normally does not bind private institutions, some have erroneously assumed that OCR’s regulations apply to private federal-funds recipients without the constitutional limitations imposed on public institutions. OCR’s regulations should not be interpreted in ways that would lead to the suppression of protected speech on public or private campuses. Any private post-secondary institution that chooses to limit free speech in ways that are more restrictive than at public educational institutions does so on its own accord and not based on requirements imposed by OCR.
In summary, OCR interprets its regulations consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment, and all actions taken by OCR must comport with First Amendment principles. No OCR regulation should be interpreted to impinge upon rights protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or to require recipients to enact or enforce codes that punish the exercise of such rights. There is no conflict between the civil rights laws that this Office enforces and the civil liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. With these principles in mind, we can, consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment, ensure a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for students that is conducive to learning and protects both the constitutional and civil rights of all students.
Sincerely,
Gerald A. Reynolds
Assistant Secretary
Office for Civil Rights
Department of Education
May 26th, 2006 at 6:23 am
Your point?
May 26th, 2006 at 9:38 am
If you’re going to impersonate me, at least spell my last name correctly…
June 11th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
[…] And in related Senate news, they’ve finally gone to the trouble of posting the minutes from the 5/24 Walk Out meeting. Good times. […]