SA vs. UA: Thumb-Twiddling Competition

Any form of an anti-discrimination clause is a bad idea. They’re overly broad, ambiguous, and in practice usually accomplish nothing.  Of course, some students on the Stun, Student Assembly and University Assembly fervently disagree.  They propel their idea by the tactic of labeling their opposition as being discriminatory bigots.  Nobody wants to be that one guy who disagrees with ‘the rest.’  So, the proponents of such legislation are experiencing some success.  Today that team, led by Andrew Brokman, has managed to encompass all of the properties of a typical discriminatory clause (see: broad, ambiguous, useless) and passed Resolution 14 (PDF of Res – please read).  Among other issues, this resolution will literally change nothing.  Brokman is quoted in the Stun saying “it puts people on notice that if you harass someone…then there will be consequences.”  Profound.

Now Brokman is often on the same page as we at the Insider but we’re reading completely different books on this one.  Because he wants to take it one step further, and extend the resolution’s words to apply to individual organizations.  As of now, according to the Stun, the UA cannot interfere with individual cases; Chi Alpha would still rightly be able to remove Donohoe from leadership.  So what has the UA accomplished as of yet? About as much as Rammy has by proposing elimination of the swim test.  Right now the two assemblies are struggling for relevancy.  If there’s nothing good to be passed, they shouldn’t pass anything  – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  There are times when idle legislators are more insightful than active ones.  If the members of the SA and UA are really getting this  jittery in their seats, they can come help me with my engineering homework.

More to come…