R-12-35 A Resolution in Support of the Honors Croquet League

WHEREAS croquet is a recreational activity that anyone can partake in and enjoy, and

WHEREAS the Honors Croquet League, founded in January 2000 with five members, currently has 562 members, and

WHEREAS membership to the Honors Croquet League is open to all who wish to join excluding one individual from whom the League received a string of offensive emails in autumn 2001, and

WHEREAS the Honors Croquet League has hosted 63 official matches as of April 22, 2006 and actively promotes the game of croquet on and off campus including locations throughout the Northwest, and

WHEREAS the Honors Croquet League has had positive media coverage in various mediums including print and radio, and

WHEREAS the Honors Croquet League has hosted the All-Campus Tournament for the past five years with the recent three featuring live music performed by local artists, and

WHEREAS the ASUW has previously endorsed the All-Campus Tournament, and

WHEREAS the All-Campus Tournament is an activity that brings the UW community together in friendly competition to enjoy croquet regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other cultural signifier; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON:

THAT the ASUW recognizes the importance of the on-campus presence of a recreational activity, especially one that promotes community and local art, such as croquet, and

Tomorrow the UW senate will meet once again.  The agenda as posted online does include the MOH Memorial Resolution, but in all reality it will be another week at least before a floor vote is taken on it.

I wish to make it clear this is not a delaying tactic, this is normal procedure. According to the Senate Chair, Alex Kim, with whom I exchanged emails last week:

I must inform you that it is unlikely that we will actually debate the new Medal of Honor resolution this Tuesday - it’s still going to come up this week, but Senate resolutions have a normal two-week process.  Someone might move to bypass the rules and begin debate immediately this week, but it’s unlikely that such a motion would pass.

I found his courtesy to be refreshing, but also somewhat revealing.  While I hold no stigma to this fact, it is clear that the many people in the Senate are highly aware of the implications concerning this vote.

Roadkill can denounce me for trying to encourage them to do what I consider to be the right thing, but the reality is that from advertising to lobbying the Government, we all try to influence and encourage those around us to and we are constantly being encouraged to do what someone else wants.  Encouragement may sound nicer, but in reality it’s a softshoe on the hardsell more then anything else.

Remember that nearly everything in life is goal oriented.  Restaurants want you to eat their food exclusively, car dealers want you to buy their cars.  Even in the government the lobbying and campaign donations always are given to encourage someone we think might be sympathetic to our needs to vote our way on something.  Oh sure, to come out and just call it a bribe is sooo gauche, but let’s be real here.  The whole point of donations is to support someone you hope will be helpful, to destroy your enemy who opposes you by supporting his enemy or to encourage an undecided person to swing your way by our favor.  It’s ugly but hey, that’s life and that’s politics.

The UW Senate Steering committee met 2-17-2006 and their meeting minutes are now posted.

I think these are interesting because they again show how they characterize the whole debate in an interesting manner. But in all fairness, it is necessary to understand this from their perspective too.

I will list the full text below, but here are the highlights as they pertain to the Pappy Boyington Flap. Many things I have blogged on previously are mentioned:

• A discussion of the press coverage
• Mention of a large amount of dehumanizing emails regarding the memorial vote.
• The (Jill) Edwards Apology Resolution is introduced (R-12-24)
• The introduction of Nathan Bedle, not a Senator, as a cosponsor of R-12-24. He is also a Sgt in the Marine Corps Reserve.
• He noted that there is no military representative in the Senate.
• Discussion of offense versus free speech.
• The open expectation that R-12-24 will be tabled indefinitely
• The introduction of A Resolution Calling For a Memorial for UW Alumni awarded the Medal of Honor (R-12-26)
• A suggestion is made to immediately table R-12-26 indefinitely as being a duplicate of the original memorial resolution.
• R-12-24 was referred to the General Affairs Committee.
• While approving the Senate Agenda, it is noted that an ROTC Representative will speak before the next Senate Session.
• In the General Discussion, the idea of recording the meetings was discussed.
• It was noted there was concern that recording the sessions might alter the debate.
• A motion was made to reconsider the 2-7-2006 Minutes.
• Ashley Miller began a defense/clarification of her comments.
• A number of students defended Ashley’s comments
• The amount of scrutiny these minutes have received was noted.
• How the change was to be documented on the minutes website was discussed.
• It was noted that any changes to the minutes would be closely noted by the media.
• The intent was to have the changes be on the original minutes.

Bearing in mind the disclaimer provided by the UW Senate that unless quotations are used, the minutes are to be considered a summary and paraphrase of the session, not a verbatim account of the proceedings, here is a brief highlight of last weeks minutes.        The Letter from The Military Community of the University of Washington is a MUST read. My comments are noted in italics: Minutes February 21, 2006 5:00PM HUB 310 Respectfully submitted by Senate Secretary Travis McCoy(skip to session III for one military related issue) III. Public Forum Dr. Nancy Rusty Barcelo, Vice President for Minority Affairs Dr. Barcelo said she has been working on all three campuses with issues regarding diversity. …. Andrew Everett said the number of officers in training programs have been dropping for several years. He asked what was being done to address that issue. Dr. Barcelo said she grew up in the US Air Force and that she had just finished a meeting with ROTC, so she was personally concerned with that issue. She said she would look into the issue more fully. Encouraging V. Committee Reports Faculty And Administrative Affairs - The committee had no legislation to consider Academic Affairs - The committee discussed ASUW coverage in the news Publicity and Outreach - The committee discussed ASUW press coverage I wonder if they mentioned me? Membership - The committee discussed R-12-24 tabled it indefinitely Note: This is the Jill Edwards apology resolution. Campus Affairs - The committee discussed R-12-23 and passed favorably Off Campus Affairs - The committee brainstormed places to advertise the commuter forum General Affairs - The committee considered R-12-22 and it passed with a unanimous favorable recommendation This is the committee that has the Resolution for the MOH Awardees, but I don’t know if it had been referred to them last week or not. Alex Kim said he was excited to see so many people interested in Senate. He welcomed Dan Byron, a Cadet and member of the ROTC committee. Dan Byron said the UW has been receiving a lot of criticism it didn’t deserve. He presented a letter from the military community on campus. Student Senate, Of the many student organizations on campus, the military community often holds a negative image. The various Reserve Officer Training Corp programs are frequently criticized by some as producing trained killers. Yet these programs are designed with considerable effort to produce leaders of integrity, courage and dedication. The individuals thats come out of ROTC are some of the brightest leaders our nation is capable of producing. They are exactly the sort of people the UW should strive to produce. The military community does not desire parades, monuments or banners. We do our jobs not for thanks nor praise. We do our duty because we believe we serve a purpose greater than ourselves. However, we resent the fact that some members of the student government would liken us to criminals or murderers. It is true that the profession of arms is a violent one. But as a professional military, our services put an unbelievable amount of effort to accomplish the mission with as little damage and loss of life as possible. The world is still a violent place and the only thing that keeps violence off of our doorstep, is that other men and women stand ready to absorb that violence. Soldiers are not responsible for making policy. We are assigned missions by the duly appointed civilian leadership, one not unlike the concept of the student senate. Like the American public we each have our own political opinions and beliefs. The ideas and politics of each person in uniform is as diverse as can be found anywhere on campus. Yet we all share one commonly parroted ideal; that freedom of thought and liberty are divine rights to be enjoyed by all humankind. To this day there are millions of people who live under the weight of oppression. Few people around the world enjoy the same security, luxury and freedoms that are so openly taken for granted in our nation. Gregory Boyington and men like him literally bled to protect liberty from a growing oppressive empire. Many before him, many of his peers, and many future graduates from his Alma Mater have, and will continue to pay the price of liberty with their own blood. So easy is it to condemn and criticize others. And so easy is it to give way to ignorance and preconceived notions. We are all guilty of it, all of us. While it is not uncommon, it is also not fair that some confuse the necessity of violence with murder or fascism. No American warrior fights solely for his appointed Commander in Chief. No American warrior fights for oil. Americans take up arms not to force their choices on others, but to give and protect the liberty of choice. Despite all the criticism and the apparent negative feelings of all involved parties, we are PROUD to be members of the University community. The UW may not always support the military community, but we strongly support the University of Washington. The UW is and will continue to be a main center of academic achievement, as well as a diverse community of politics and ideas. We firmly support the University of Washington because great minds do not think alike. Great minds think for themselves. With Genuine Respect, The Military Community of the University of Washington Nice. I guess Roadkill’s "War Party" don’t all use Jackboots. Alex Kim said much of the discussion across the country is more argument than discussion. He said he thought much of the country suffers from a wound by which human beings cannot talk to each other. He said the sort of dialogue that takes place within Senate is critical for healing and consensus in today’s crossfire democracy. He said the last two weeks have taught him how important such dialogue is. I believe I mentioned that in my free speech post…Skipping ahead. X. Orders of the Day B. Old Business I am including this because it shows that the UW Senate does practice some very interesting debate, even if it is a bit heavy on the PC rhetoric. R-12-20 A Resolution in Opposition to the Denial of Federal Financial Aid Based on Drug Convictions Karl Smith, sponsor of the legislation, reviewed the resolution. He said the act was discriminatory as drug laws in general target minorities, and withheld the ability of those without means to get an education. Zach Tobin moved to amend the resolution to add a citation to the "whereas" clause regarding the discriminatory nature of drug policy. Seconded. Passed without objection. Gary Stute said he thought Karl brought up good points and that the bill prevented people from getting ahead in life. He encouraged senators to pass the resolution. Alex Gwozda moved to amend the first whereas clause to add the word "recent" before "drug conviction" and add "or repeated offenses" to the end of the clause. His motion also added a second "whereas" clause stating "WHEREAS, specifically, possession of a controlled substance disqualifies a student from receiving financial aid for one year after the 1st offense, for two years after the 2nd offense, and indefinitely after the 3rd, and additionally, delivery of a controlled substance disqualifies a student from receiving financial aid for two years after the 1st offense and indefinitely after the 2nd, and" Seconded. Passed without objection. Andrew Everett asked if there were any statistics from government entities regarding drug use among minorities. Alex Kim said the National Crime Statistic Survey was one of the few sources of data on the issue. Ashley Miller said a professor at UW, Katherine Beckett, had done research indicating drug useage and trafficking was higher among whites,but that arrests were higher among minorities. Erin Shields asked what the purpose of the legislation was. Karl Smith responded it was supposedly aimed at reducing drug useage among college students. Steve Valm said he thought the act would prevent people from bettering themselves by restricting their access to higher education. Bryce McKibben moved to remove the word "federal" from the title and add "financial" before the word "aid" in both "that" clauses. Seconded. Objection. Bryce McKibben said it singled out the federal level, and that students should oppose such practices at all levels. Shawn Fisher said he agreed with the first part of the change, but that the committee added the word "federal" in the title as students were still eligible for state based aid. Travis Grandy moved to close debate. Seconded. Objection. The motion passed. Debate was closed on the amendment. Travis Grandy moved to divide the question. Seconded. Passed without objection. The first part of the amendment failed. The second part of the amendment passed. Shawn Fisher said he hoped the resolution was passed unanimously as UW students needed to stand up for their fellow peers. Jerome McCuin said he had noticed that every four years, the convictions on drug convictions increase. He said that drug convictions are not all the same, as some are prosecuted differently than others. He said the new law undoes what the original financial aid act did by balancing access to education in society. Nathan Bedle asked how many students would be affected. Jerome McCuin responded that in 2001, 9,000 applicants lost their aid, and that 836,000 left that specific question blank on the application. Nathan Bedle said he thought the "whereas" clause regarding the use of possessing small amounts of narcotics. Brent Hoffsteder moved to remove the "whereas" clause regarding discrimination. Seconded. Objection. He said he thought it was an issue about people’s personal choices, and not an issue of race. He said he didn’t think it appropriate to include racial issues as grounds on which to oppose the policy. Karl Smith said he thought it was an appropriate thing to mention in the resolution. Jerome McCuin moved to close debate. Seconded. Objection. The motion passed. The amendment failed. Karl Smith highlighted the second "that" clause on the resolution and said the ACLU is looking for a student who has been denied aid. Sam Al-Khoury moved to close debate. Seconded. Objection. The motion passed. The resolution passed End of quoted minutes So, as I noted in my free speech blog, they debate, they dissent, they discuss and debate more until one side prevails. What happened in the blogsphere and radio shows is merely an extension of that concept.

There are still no minutes posted for the Senate Session on the 21st, nor the Steering Committee on the 20th.  

Also a new disclaimer is on the minutes site, advising one and all that “ALL MINUTES ARE PARAPHRASED UNLESS QUOTATION MARKS (” “) ARE INCLUDED!

Can’t say they don’t learn. I am sure the minutes are undergoing a severe vetting process this time. I can’t say I blame them, but honestly, once again I remind them that all they have to do is post the session in a Podcast and then no one would worry about accurate quotes.

The Resolution for an apology from Jill Edwards as well as the Resolution in Support of the Right of Military Recruiters to be Present on Campus have both been tabled indefinitely, which means they are effectively dead.

We all waited anxiously because of the Seattle Times Article suggesting a vote on the memorial for all MOH awardees was possibly going to happen.

It did not, the matter has not even been heard in committee. A rumor suggests the resolution is being suppressed until the media blitz wears down, but others dispute that, and insist that it is just having to wait its turn in committee.

Finally I read that the Senate Sessions are open to the public Tuesdays at 5pm in HUB 310, so I encourage any interested parties to attend and see for themselves, rather then rely on paraphrased minutes. I am considering it myself.

I doubt there is a means for public commentary, but that question should be addressed to the Senate Chair.

I also strongly encourage anyone who decides to attend to do so as passive observers, and be respectful and not disruptive. I would extend that to any mail or communication to any parties. There is enough bad feeling going around. Let’s try communication instead.

I am a fairly tolerant guy, I really am. Sure I get surly about some things, but I have learned that getting pissed about minor stuff is pointless But this raging debate about free speech concerning the Boyington Memorial is really starting to irritate me. The matter itself is simple enough to understand. They debated a proposed memorial, and in the process a couple of people spoke their minds. The details of those comments were heard by a larger audience, who expressed disapproval and outrage. The memorial was defeated and that drew more outrage. Suddenly, it was not about respect, or race, (re: the comments by the students) it was all about free speech, and suddenly the bloggers and talk radio were under attack as trying to tamper with the opinions of the students, and we are being disrespectful. Can you say "blame shifting"? Lee Dunbar is quoted as saying:

Roadkill Blog, in a post that minimalized the students as just silly, but criminalized the critics as "not quite Nazis" and chickenhawks, shows his dissatisfaction of the wider debate thusly:

In a quick vote last night, the Washington State Senate passed a resolution to honor Col Gergory ‘Pappy’ Boyington just weeks after the UW Student Seante declined a memorial to honor the UW grad.

In my last blog I listed a few of what I considered to be the less important matters the Student Senators had debated and resolved this session, including this one:

A Resolution In Support Of Cake A Resolution in Support of Cake WHEREAS anthropologists have concluded that agriculture is the single most important human technology ever developed, and; WHEREAS agriculture allowed the production of refined flours which are vital ingredients for delicious cake, and; WHEREAS cake is by all means considered a tasty dessert and treat, and; WHEREAS Marie Antoinette is frequently referenced to have said, �Let them eat cake!� and; WHEREAS all must acquiesce to the irresistible power of cake, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: THAT the ASUW wholly supports and consumes cake in all its forms and formally requests the presence of a scrumptious cake at the final meeting of the Student Senate�s twelfth session to be provided by the beloved SAO advisor.

All in fun, and quite yummy sounding. But did you know that cake will cost the taxpayers money? To be exact, $13,745.00 That’s because the four officers of the UW Student Senate draw a stipend each year.

SENATE CHAIR $4,403. SENATE VICE-CHAIR $3,273. SENATE SECRETARY $2,890. MEMBERSHIP COORDINATOR $3,179.

Now I assume that they have classes so they must only do this what, 10 hours a week or so? If so, since the stipend is not for the summer session, that averages about 8 or 9 bucks an hour or so. Not too bad really. Just thought you might wanna know who pays for them to tell us they love cake…. (Note- By the way….Yes, I know the "Cake" resolution is used for training purposes…. From the Minutes….

Alex Kim noted that R-12-1 A resolution in Support of Cake was entirely scripted and intended as instructional for new senators. The resolution was presented using a pre-written script that was provided to members of senate. Please reference the script for detailed information regarding the resolution.

But honestly, it was there so I had to use it.)