|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rice Thresher
Phone:
|
by Rachel Rustin thresher editorial staff Along with the homecoming court nominees, a resolution calling for a re-evaluation of the country's drug laws will be on this fall's Homecoming Ballot. At the Student Association meeting Monday, the senate voted to include a referendum for a resolution supporting reform of the Higher Education Act. The referendum will need a two-thirds vote to be passed in the election. The HEA clause mandates that students convicted of a drug-related offense lose federal financial aid. Will Rice College junior Lindsey Trott and Will Rice sophomore Vikki Hutto, both members of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, first presented the resolution to the senate April 9. Senators and college presidents decided to gather opinions from their constituents, so the resolution was brought up again at the meeting this Monday, after every college had had a cabinet meeting. Representatives from Rice's chapter of SSDP went to seven of the college cabinet meetings and to lunch at Brown College. The resolution presented Monday was co-sponsored by Rice SSDP, Rice Amnesty International and Will Rice College President Jesse Dickerman. Dickerman, a junior, co-sponsored the resolution, which needed to be sponsored by a voting member of the SA, after Trott asked him. Dickerman said U.S. drug policies are discriminatory and was he was happy to help Trott. The resolution calls for Congress to overturn the "section of the Higher Education Act of 1998 that denies access to federal financial aid based upon convictions for drug-related offenses." SSDP is a national organization that aims to pass HEA reform resolutions at schools across the country, Trott said. Director of Student Financial Services Carl Buck said no Rice students have had federal financial aid canceled due to drug convictions in the year and a half he has worked here. Much of the debate at the SA meeting centered on whether the senate should vote on a national issue or leave it to be voted on by the student body in the Homecoming Elections. A series of four motions were voted on in order for the SA to determine what to do with the resolution. The first vote on whether to make the resolution a referendum failed. It was followed by a failed vote on the resolution and a failed attempt at tabling the resolution. The final motion, the same as the first, resulted in the placement of the resolution as a referendum on the Homecoming Ballot this fall. A major issue presented at the meeting was whether the SA should be addressing the resolution, since it is not the type of issue the body usually addresses. "The senate has never passed a resolution, at least to my knowledge, that reflects opinion on a national issue," Wiess College Senator and former SA President Lindsay Botsford said. SA President Gavin Parks said he did not think this was a problem. "It says nowhere in our constitution that we couldn't pass that resolution [Monday], that's why we took a vote on it and that's why if the vote had passed it would have been a resolution," Parks, a Hanszen College junior, said. "It is just unlike resolutions we have passed in the past." Dickerman agreed and said the SA should not shy away from voting on this type of issue just because it hasn't done so before. "I feel like the people who are in the SA and are involved in the SA are the ones who care about these kinds of things and who know other people who care about these kinds of issues," Dickerman said. "If we are the voice of the students, we shouldn't be afraid to act that way." However, senators expressed concern about whether they knew how their constituents felt. "In terms of voting in the senate, I think it's going to be hard because you have a bunch of people who have to decide between yes and no when the input that they are getting is maybe," Botsford, a junior, said. Parks agreed that student opinion was not necessarily known. "I think some people feel passionately one way and some people feel passionately the other," Parks said. "I think that's why we have to give everyone an opportunity to vote in this." Dickerman, however, felt people had ample time to gauge the opinions of their constituents and felt the resolution should have been passed. "I didn't really think there were that many decent arguments against it," Dickerman said. Trott said this was a way students could voice the opinion that these U.S. drug laws need to be looked at. "We were arguing that we have student opinion now," Trott said. "We had student support and we wanted to act now, we wanted to join other supporters of HEA reform now before the school year ended." Sid Richardson College Senator Andy Weber said he is happy with the result of the meeting, even if some people criticize the SA for taking three weeks to deal with the issue. He said although he thinks a majority of students might be in favor of the resolution, it is not a big majority. "If you took a poll on campus, I don't think it would be overwhelming either way - I don't think we know," Weber said. Part of this, Weber said, might be because the opposing view was not presented. Weber said he hopes information from the other side will be included with the ballot in the fall. Hanszen freshman Pamela Kellet said SA members were not elected because of their political platform or personal politics, but to represent the students from their colleges. "They are representing us. If they aren't going to vote the way we would want them to vote, it defeats the purpose of it all," Kellet said. However, she agrees with the result of the meeting; the entire student body will have the opportunity to vote on the issue. Trott, however, wasn't as pleased. "We wanted to pass the resolution and the resolution was voted down," Trott said. "I'm glad that it's at least a referendum because at least it's not dead." Trott and Hutto will both be abroad in the fall and will not be on campus to promote the referendum. Parks said he and SA President Jamie Lisagor are planning to meet with them to discuss ways for people to be able to express their opinion on the topic and to become more educated on the subject. Parks said he is not worried about people promoting the issue. "Just because it was only two people who brought it here doesn't mean that there isn't the student support behind it," Parks said. Botsford disagreed and said not finding people to promote the issue is an indication of student support on campus. "If there isn't enough momentum of people supporting it, then it's a big indicator that it's not something supported by everyone and shouldn't be passed by the senate in the first place," Botsford said. Parks said he sees definite advantages to the resolution being passed by the entire student body. "I also think in the end that ... if they get the amount of support they need for this, then it is a stronger message because it's coming from everybody," Parks said. Parks sees this as an opportunity for both the students and the SA. "This is an opportunity in the future for students to voice their opinion on things that are larger than our Rice environment, that go beyond the hedges like the issue we have in front of us," Parks said. Weber said that overall, he was pleased with the way the meeting went. "The debate was fair and open," Weber, a freshman, said. "In the end, we came up with a good decision and something that is right for students."
- back - |
|
|
Search the Thresher pages:
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of: The Rice Thresher, Rice University MS-524, PO Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251-1892, USA. The Thresher Online Project -- ethresh@listserv.rice.edu |
