 |
 |
Chris-You rock!! :) At 01:40 PM 3/31/1999 -0500, you wrote: >SGA- > Thanks to Bridget for the background, accuracy is important. And yes, >even more important is that we conduct ourselves in a credible manner. >However, it is important that we do not lose sight of some underlying >issues here, because what requires our attention most of all is the >sentiment being expressed in this legislation and the precedent it sets - >not the logistics of its passage. > >What does this resolution say? >This resolution represents the latest attack on students in Burlington, and >this one goes straight to our rights as adult citizens. It effectively >relegates us to a secondary status as members of a certain AGE GROUP. > > >How does it say it? >This resolution, having been passed by the City Council with only two >dissenters, professes to represent the will of the people of Burlington (a >group we are apparently excluded from) to discriminate. Furthermore, given >those origins, it says that the Council has the RIGHT to do this - a >dubious position indeed. > > >What does it mean for us? >As students we must see this not only as a suspension of our downtown >rights, and the rights of private businesspeople, to conduct ourselves as >we see fit and appropriate. It is imperative that we instead look at this >as a dangerous and threatening PRECEDENT for further infringements upon >student's rights. > > >What are we (can we) going to do about it? >I think our current course of action (letters & petitions) is acceptable. >We should be careful people don't get carried away though (quick story: >last year we spent a few days protesting the launch of the Cassini rocket >by NASA because it contained plutonium. an accident would have been >catastrophic, and they do happen. we conducted our efforts and >demonstrations very professionally and respectfully. the next day i woke >up to hearing a local radio hack making jokes about a group protesting the >same thing that took over Jeffords' burlington office, spray-painting >walls, urinating in stairwells, etc... even though we were not aligned >with the other group, we lost all credibility in an instant - we were a >joke). What we are raising our collective student voice against here is >not this resolution ITSELF, as much as everything it represents (precedent >& sentiment). We should be sure to present it as such. > > The message we send by responding in a "united as students" way will be >that they should not expect to be able to pursue policies such as this and >not hear about it from the students and their representatives (us). I >couldn't agree more with Christy and Bridget that we need to know our s**t >going into this but let's keep a proper focus - this is bigger than this >resolution. Even if they repeal this restriction, which will take some >pressure to be sure, ours is an important message for them to get loud and >clear. > Sorry I keep writing essays, I'll try not to anymore:-) Do call Tom Smith >if you want, but from what I've been told to expect, you'll have >significantly less luck with Curley. >-Chris A. >Rock The Vote! > >At 12:05 PM 3/31/99 -0500, Christy L. Boucher wrote: >> I am glad to see such support for an issue close to the hearts of >>students, a social life. This is essential to the life of our campus. >>However, to remain respectable and have validity in the city we must have >>accurate facts. I encourage you to analyze the facts and then pursue the >>issue. >> >> Bridget (Thanks) did some research and so here are some more facts >>to ponder: >> >> * The original recognition of this legislation was Dec. 7th. >> >> * Any new club recognized after this date can not have 18+ >>nights with alcohol. This applies to Club Extreme and Bottleneck. >> >> * All clubs will be up for relicensing on May 1st and will >>have to go under this legislation. >> >> * Contacts: Kevin Curley and Tom Smith >> >> >> >> > >