Opposing views about Amendment III are prevalent throughout campus. While this amendment will take away the vote from the four existing culture representatives, it will allow for an unlimited number of culture groups to have representatives who are officially recognized by the Senate and who can speak at meetings. I find it great that there is finally an issue which a lot of students care about. In fact, it's terrific. However, I have been a bit troubled by some of the tactics being used to defeat this amendment. What bothers me is how those encouraging its defeat have been so quick to judge those supporting the amendment as being "blatantly fueled by prejudice against gays and people of color," to quote Ariana Flores from her Viewpoint yesterday. I saw this as a direct attack on those who are in support of this amendment rather than of the amendment itself, which is unacceptable.
The tactics used by opponents of the amendment are brilliant. To the uninformed voter, it makes sense to fail the amendment because, let's face it, who wants to be associated with racists? Or homophobes? However, to what extent are the culture reps really informing their constituents of the true issue, all of the points of the amendment? Or are they simply focusing on losing their voting power? I am concerned that voters are only getting part of the entire story, the part that says, "these atrocious human beings want to take away our votes, therefore they are racist and/or homophobic." But how is it possible that there is suddenly such an epidemic of homophobia and racism on this campus which is purportedly fueling this amendment?
This campus is being manipulated and bullied. I resent being called racist just because I disagree with the culture representatives' views that only four cultures should be officially recognized on campus by the Senate. I understand that while more representatives can be officially recognized by the Senate, the process for this is long and may even discourage groups from even trying. Furthermore, once this process is even initiated, a minimum of 20 percent of the student body must vote on this issue. Based on the voter apathy of this campus, how likely would this be to occur? And even if this were to somewhat miraculously happen, on a regular basis even, how many votes outside of the Senate seats are we willing to create before the situation becomes ridiculous? Ten seats? 20? There are only 28 senators. They should not be outnumbered by voting culture representatives.
Additionally, I find it grossly ironic that those who are fighting the hardest to eliminate racism and homophobia from campus are the ones creating it by instilling fear in those who don't know any better. They are inhibiting far more people's representation than they are enabling. This form of voter manipulation, assisted by the omnipresence of ignorance, is a threat to campus democracy. Admittedly, while certain groups of people do still suffer from discrimination on campus, the passage of this amendment will certainly not silence those groups.
Should the culture representatives and any other members of the groups not supporting this amendment bother to clearly explain the true purpose of the amendment, they will realize that maybe they are the ones being racist, sexist, or just plain ignorant. After all, did anyone ever stop to think about the Muslims on this campus after 9/11? What about the women? These groups have both had discrimination problems on campus this year. What about the Jews? Or even the handicapped? Are these cultural groups privileged to be represented with culture representatives on this campus? Do they have an extra voice? No, they do not. The opponents of this amendment are merely concerned with keeping their own votes for their own self-interests, unwilling to lose a little of their power so that other minority groups can gain the right to speak during Senate meetings as provided through Amendment III.
While this amendment is by no stretch of the imagination perfect, it will help to level the playing field by allowing more minority voices on campus to speak. By supporting this amendment, you are not perpetuating homophobia or racism on this campus. You just want to give others a chance. Is that racist?
Amy Spindel is a sophomore majoring in psychology & sociology.
