Wesleyan Student Assembly — Wesleyan University

Minutes: April 17, 2005, No. 22

WSA Officers

President: Emily Polak
Vice President: Jeremy Abrams
Treasurer: Brittany Mitchell
Coordinator: Ali Gomer

Meeting Agenda and Business

1. Approval of Minutes
2. Chalking discussion (posted after committee reports below)
3. Election and constitutional Review Committee Updates
4. Committee Reports
5. New Business and Announcements

Opening of Meeting
Meeting opened 7:05 PM.

Approval of Minutes

Minutes approved.

Chalking Discussion
Evan Simko-Bednarski says that he is trying to set a historical precedent for continuing this dialogue.

Stack

• Karen Courtheoux asks if S-B can explain what he hopes this bill will do. S-B says that at the tail end of Spring 2003, a permanent ban was placed on chalking. The WSA took action the year after the ban was passed by passing a resolution that aimed to revisit the chalking ban. Bennet’s argument is that some chalking is harassment and that it constitutes illegal speech. Other members clarify that it can be civil harassment. Bennet said that chalking has caused limits to free speech and dialogue. S-B says that Bennet’s opponents said that chalking constitutes anonymous speech and therefore promotes free speech.
• S-B says that he hopes we can create a history of us trying to revisit this proposal.
• Brittany Mitchell says that the biggest issue people had with chalking was the specific, directed insults or offensive forms of speech. The process of erasing the bad chalkings was too hard and made community members feel that erasing chalkings directed toward them was too roundabout. S-B says that it would be preferable to have some people upset than everyone upset about not being able to chalk. S-B says that we might not be able to change the document.
• Thomas Coen says that there is no reason why we shouldn’t pass the resolution. He really thinks it’s important that the WSA keeps trying to establish a continual record so that people are still aware and so that they care. We need to create some kind of support even if we don’t agree about the details of the former resolution.
• Jesse Watson asks if we can change the wording in the last paragraph. He understands why we are trying to make resolutions as a record, but he doesn’t understand why the WSA should submit a proposal that we know will not lead to any solid change. S-B says that this is really a problem of how the administration and student body views the WSA.
• Karen Courtheoux says that she is in support of chalking and that she likes the idea of passing the resolution as a symbol, but she thinks we should pass a newer resolution after forming a subcommittee and discussing the problems with the old resolution. Another possibility would be to have Bennet come to a WSA meeting to discuss the issue.
• Zach Kolodin says that he agrees with Courtheoux about not passing the old document. He encourages creating new ideas to improve campus communication with chalking. S-B says that we could have some new friendly amendments and change it. Kolodin thinks that Bennet will just glance over the resolution and not support it at all.
• Emily Polak says that we have seen a decline in ways of communication after the ban on chalking. It would make sense to look at the proposal again. She thinks that we would use some of the same points but that our new draft would have to reflect the newer, better ideas.
• S-B says that he thinks the old proposal is strong and that we can demonstrate why to Bennet. Annie Fox says that the anonymity of chalking is what makes it controversial; could we create a policy that says chalkings must be given a name. S-B says that chalking’s anonymity prevents a tyranny of the majority.
• Gabe Tabak asks if he should get SJBed for deleting derogatory chalkings. S-B says that we should revisit the idea of what can be addressed and why.
• Thomas Coen suggests that the idea of old ideas being bad ideas is not valid. We should definitely look at new ways of expressing our ideas but we need to assert the good parts of the old ideas. Brian Brotman responds that the point of resubmitting this proposal would be to spearhead debate on the issue. We need to create new language that will stimulate discussion about this.
• Izzy Greenberg suggests that we should look at the idea of erasure. Shouldn’t people be able to erase derogatory ideas?
• Ali Gomer says that it might be a good idea to begin a fresh idea after the new dean comes to the college in July. It would also be helpful to talk with leaving seniors and try to prepare for an engaged discussion to occur next year.
• Brittany Mitchell motions to create a chalking subcommittee of interested WSA and non-WSA members. Majority votes in favor of the motion. After the meeting interested members can meet.

Election and Constitutional Review Committee Update

Ali Gomer says that there was a student abroad who contacted the WSA last Sunday and that he wanted the election results to be nullified because he was not notified of the senior class elections. Emily Polak says that emails were not being sent out to the juniors abroad in past years. The WSA and senior class officers did not know this. It would be possible to nullify the election with a 2/3 majority of the WSA Assembly.

Stack

• Emily Polak says that the problem has been rectified now and it will not be an issue in the WSA elections.
• Jesse Watson says that the issue in his mind is whether a new election results would change with a new election. He says that when we cancel an election it looks bad for the WSA and is very hard on the candidates. Emily Polak says that the particular person who emailed the WSA said that he would have been interested in running.
• Jeremy Abrams says that this was clearly an oversight. He urges the assembly to change the process for the future but that we could not have fixed it.
• Yaw suggests that it would not help anyone to redo the election. The new officers have already started working and it would delay their progress. In addition, it would hurt the WSA’s reputation. It is important to move forward.
• Zach Kolodin says that not notifying the juniors is clearly against the constitution but that it would be harmful to redo the elections.
• Annie Fox asks Abrams why it is not a violation of the constitution. Abrams says that it is the elections committee responsibility.
• Taylor Bentley says that the new officers need to “learn the ropes” so that they can function next year.
• Matt Ball says that we should not focus on whether or not the violation was against the constitution. We should look to the constitutional review committee to fix the problem and that we should learn from this mistake.
• Izzy Greenberg adds that it is unfair to the students who have been running for positions.
• Jacob Mirsky votes to invalidate the election. Yaw states that we could motion to end debate and table the issue. Mirsky takes back his motion.
• Zach Kolodin motions to end debate. Approved.

Constitutional Review Discussion
Arie Eernisse discusses changes to the elections portion of the constitution by-laws.

Stack

• Elaine Garven asks why the 15-foot rule should apply to computers other than those in computer labs. Eernisse responds that all computers should fall under this rule because voting is possible at all of these computers.
• Karen Courtheoux asks why candidates in violation cannot be removed from the ballot. People should be punished if they do something reprehensible, though it would be regrettable to disenfranchise people.
• Jeremy Abrams argues that the 15 foot rule is arcane and stupid. Jacob Mirsky disagrees and argues that candidates should not be punished for acts that they have no knowledge of.
• Brian Brotman believes that grace periods should be instituted for more minor offenses.
• Annie Fox argues against following the example of the US government with the 15-foot rule. Passive campaigning in computer labs should be allowed b/c it is not the same safe space as US polling booths.
• Brittany Mitchell argues that the 15-foot rule is pointless due to emails and electronic campaigning. The rule creates more problems than it solves.
• Emily Polak feels strongly about keeping the 15-foot rule because not everyone has a private computer to safely vote on.
• Jacob Mirsky argues the difference between emails and posters because emails are more personal.
• Elaine Garven points out that technology changes all the time, and because the computers in question are public, a person’s presence can have more impact than a poster.
• Jesse Watson wants to discuss the possibility of giving the Election Committee more room for decision.
• Izzy Greenberg points out that that the rule applies to US voting booths because they have specific purposes which campus computers do not.
• Straw poll passes – no oral or written campaigning inside computer labs would be a better idea than the 15-foot rule.

Committee Reports

CC

• Ask Ali Gomer.

EC

• Ask Emily Polak.

EPC

• Ask Karen Courtheoux.

Fifac

• Ask Nathan Victoria.

SAC

• Revised the gender neutral document. It clearly defines the problems that have arisen with gender neutral housing.
• Ask Elaine Garven.

SBC

• Matt Ball says that the weekly meeting was a great success. The committee went over the spring fling.
• Brittany Mitchell says that there will be a film at the Center for Film Studies to raise proceeds for the Cari MacDermott fund. The SBC will be trying to get 400 people at the showing. Suggestions for the film are Clueless, Back to the Future and Rocky Horror Picture Show. We should put our money from this fundraiser into next year’s fund.

Stack

• Nora Connor suggests that the gender-neutral definitions should be clarified.
• Emily Polak asks what are the prospects for the success of this proposal being passed. Elaine Garven says that it depends on who is reviewing the document.
• Elaine Garven suggests that we could pick a cult classic or an uncommon title for the movie fundraiser.

New Business and Announcements

• Jerry Ai asks if we could discuss fixing the stairs in front of PAC.
• Jacob Mirsky suggests that more people show up to the Constitutional Review Committee.

Adjournment
The meeting is adjourned at 8:59 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,
Arie Eernisse, WSA Secretary