|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Rob Ewaschuk on Monday, July 14 2003 @ 09:03 PM CDT |
I disagree, a ban is a knee-jerk reaction that will have the effect of preventing future speakers who may have worthwhile things to say that are unpopular but not mean.
What backs this assertion that this will be the effect?
Looking at what you wrote about the funding request initially, I wouldn't think that would be likely at all.
Indeed, it is important to be clear on this: My beliefs on how the Federation of Students should behave have changed. I was much more in line with the people who oppose this policy. I no longer am. Because the Feds fee is non-refundable, we have a high "duty of care" to not alienate any of our members, higher than our other duties of care to foster "academic" environments. Were the Feds fee refundable, or a portion of the Feds fee refundable that was allocated to such things, then it would be different.
Having just reviewed the dictionary(.com) definition of knee-jerk, I will cede to the point that this is knee-jerk policy. However, I don't think that makes it *bad* policy in general (The actual proposed policy was in need of some work). It's a bad sign, and it's something to be careful of.
Council is struggling, which is good, for an appropriate policy but whatever policy you are considering; think about how you would view it before the talk.
I suppose I do, but I don't think that's all that important. We have learned things from the talk. We should not ignore what we have learned.
I do not think the $380 should have been reimbursed
As I have said, I believe that the organizers had a reasonable misunderstanding about whether or not Feds funding was secure. I think this justified absorbing the cost of that confusion, since in some sense $380 is much less to Feds than to a single student.
-Rob
[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
