Tags
In a shocking turn of events, Student Congress voted down a resolution whose resolving clause stated:
We affirm Chancellor Thorp’s appropriate and immediate response, and we call upon the Chancellor to follow through on his commitment to discover the identities of the offending students and press criminal charges, if warranted, for the damages wrought upon university property.
Basically, Student Congress condoned the actions of SDS and the other students involved in the protests where Tancredo was silenced and threatened physically on April 14th. The general feeling of those opposed was that DPS was more at fault, that the students actually were not at fault, and that Chancellor Thorp’s apology did not represent the majority view on campus.
Congresswoman Danforth repeatedly stated that her constituents did not agree with Chancellor Thorp’s statement. When questioned by Congressman Lee, it was discovered that a couple of these respondents were her friends (two to be exact), and Congressman Lee stated that this is not representative of her constituency. Jason Sutton, a student present who gave constituent feedback, said this was a clear, commonsense resolution and he was “embarrassed” by the fact that Student Congress voted against it. Congressman Martin said, “My constituents feel that this event was outrageous and I feel that we should vote yes.” Congressman Dexter, a sponsor of the resolution, repeatedly stated the importance of Student Congress addressing the matter and his belief that the actions last Tuesday warrant such a resolution. Congresswoman Papworth remarked on the importance of the resolution as the events last Tuesday were a major concern on campus and it had even made national news. Taking all this in consideration, Student Congress still voted against the resolution. After the vote, Congressman Dent was heard to remark that, “Congress has just abdicated all moral authority by condoning the actions of the egregious protestors last Tuesday. This is insanity.”
The resolution had wide bipartisan support, and we must understand that Student Congress’s actions undermine the apology and actions taken to apprehend the offending individuals by Chancellor Thorp. We are merely shouting to the world that we, in fact, are closed-minded leftists and even actions that silence political opposition are acceptable.
Dear Representative Dent,
I would like to clarify some of the misinformation present in your post on the concurrent resolution that came before Congress last night. When Representative Lee questioned the sources of information I was using to inform my vote, I was not allowed to respond regarding whether the people who responded were my friends. I honestly admitted that I had only 12 constituents provide detailed feedback, but was cut off before I was able to answer what proportion of the feedback was from close friends of mine. Of the 12 people who responded to me, 2 were close friends of mine. Others at the meeting will confirm that I was not able to answer because Speaker Levin-Manning deemed the debate as having devolved into a back-and-forth. The minutes from last night’s meetings confirm this as well.
I never pushed back to determine the number and type of sources Representative Lee, yourself and others used to inform your actions regarding the resolution. Perhaps, you would like to me to pursue those questions in the future.
Finally, maybe I was not completely clear at the meeting last night, but I was not trying to argue that my constituents disagreed with every aspect of Chancellor Thorp’s response to the protest incident. Instead I tried to argue that there were several aspects of his response that they did not agree with. Unfortunately, the amendments to the resolution created a tone that was much more belligerent and less agreeable. I believe if the statement about affirming Chancellor Thorp’s response had been removed from the resolution, the results of the final vote may have turned out differently. I believe this is echoed by Speaker Levin-Manning’s comment as detailed into today’s Daily Tarheel article.
Sincerely,
Emily Danforth
I must agree with Emily; at no time in the congress meeting did Emily get an opportunity to answer Saang’s Question. I actually believe that Emily stated something along the lines of, “and these weren’t just people I know, they were all members of my constituents whom I represent.” Anyway, I agree it was silly to vote this down, but I do think you ought to change the part about Emily Danforth.
It was pretty embarrassing that a simple resolution supporting the Chancellor’s affirmation of free speech and the rule of law over mobocracy couldn’t even pass in Student Congress. Like Jason Sutton said, it just seems like common sense to support the pursuit of criminal charges if criminal actions took place. Great comments, Representative Dent, although only you would quote yourself in a column, haha.
Representative Dent,
Thank you for making the corrections to your post. I appreciate your timely response.
Regards,
Emily Danforth
I have always been proud to be a Carolina alumni, and now that I am in a position to give something back, and times are so tough, I had decided to double my last donation to the university (which is, by the way, matched by my employer). Given, however, the inability of the Student Congress to affirm the simple right of free speech on campus in the face of a mob, I have decided to withhold my donation until such time as the Congress comes to its senses and the university punishes the students who willfully committed deliberate violations of the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance (specifically, section II.1.C.l). For the first time since I graduated, I am ashamed of UNC.