Congress should be serving students, not partisanship

TO THE EDITOR:

In a resolution introduced by Rep. Kris Wampler, Student Congress voted Tuesday night by a vote of 7-6 with nine abstentions to pass a resolution to "condemn the burning of another person's American flag."

Later that night, Rep. Luke Farley alongside Wampler introduced another piece of legislation to disapprove of the process by which the Women's Affairs Committee of student government selected a speaker on women's health.

The disapproval was because of the committee's choice to bring a speaker who had an association with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America - even though the topic of discussion did not include abortion, information was presented objectively and no value judgments were made.

Thankfully, only four members of Congress voted in favor of the resolution, and it failed.

Although not explicitly stated, these two resolutions debated Tuesday had either personal and/or political motives and have the potential to set a dangerous precedent for future Congress meetings.

While I have heard people agree with Kevin Sellers' message, I have heard no one condone his action of burning the College Republican's flag.

To pass a resolution condemning his actions would have been a pointless exercise.

It is not Congress' job to condemn felonies. There are countless rapes and larcenies that happen on this campus all the time. Why would Congress choose to spend time on this particular issue when it does not drastically affect the campus community?

The second piece of legislation, about the Women's Affairs Committee, was brought forward because of a perceived political bias in the forum - and I agree with Farley and Wampler in that this type of issue needs to be discussed by Congress.

However, the only member of Congress who said they attended the women's forum, a Republican representative, affirmed that there was no bias at the event.

If this was purely an issue of academic freedom and impartiality, Farley and Wampler would have withdrawn their resolution. However, their arrogant stubbornness showed that this was a personal and politically charged issue for them.

I write not to criticize these types of debates; I strongly believe that they are important ones to have.

Congress is one of the many forums in which discourse on academic freedom, ideological diversity and freedom of speech need to occur. But they do not need to happen at the expense of turning Congress into a partisan body.

I applaud those who abstained from voting on the flag resolution and commend those who voted "no" for the reason of excluding these types of partisan debates in Congress.

Past sessions of Congress were politically charged bodies that debated politically divisive issues. Members must be extremely careful not to polarize this 86th session of Congress.

Doing so would seriously hinder and cripple their ability to deal with student issues like they have done so well in the past few months.

Do explore the issues of academic freedom and ideological diversity; they are important issues of our time. But proceed cautiously, and do so without bringing your own biases to the table. Doing that would be a severe disservice to the students.

Brian Phelps
Sophomore
Political science