UNCG Student Senate rescinds vote on LGBT inclusive legislation
by Matt | February 23rd, 2006 |DISCLAIMER: I am currently the Chairman of the Student Senate Legislative Committee and the main sponsor of the legislation in question.
On Tuesday evening in a meeting of the UNCG Student Senate, members of the body rescinded a positive vote on LGBT inclusive legislation.
SR-83-13, known commonly as the “Resolution for ASG Non-Discrimination Inclusion”, is a piece of legislation sponsored and introduced by myself and co-sponsored by four senators, the Acting Vice President Donald Hughes and Mr. Kemp Allen (President’s Chief of Staff). The legislation’s full title is “A resolution to urge The University of North Carolina Association of Student Governments to amend its non-discrimination statement to include sexual orientation and gender”.
The legislation calls for the UNC Association of Student Governments to do two things: (1) Amend its equal opportunity clause to include sexual orientation and gender; and (2) Lobby The University of North Carolina Board of Governors “to include sexual orientation and gender into the non-discrimination and anti-harassment statements and policies of all the sixteen UNC campuses.”
After originally receiving approval from the Student Senate, with very few Senators voting against the measure, Senator Mike Madren motioned to rescind the previous vote in order to allow for more debate on the motion. After the resolution was passed various members of the Student Senate and Student Government officials stood up to debate the motion.
One of the officials wanting more debate on the resolution included Ms. Amethyst Royal, the President’s Secretary of Business Affairs. Secretary Royal, who stood out as the most interested in continuing debate, was concerned about the enumeration of various categories and opposed listing the various groups on the grounds that such a listing would “point out” and bring more attention to minorities. In a statement for which she later apologized, Secretary Royal complained that a generic anti-discrimination policy should be used instead, citing that a person could be discriminated against on any grounds including hair color and height.
After much debate I stood up to voice my opposition to the rescinding of the vote stating that I thought as though the UNCG Student Senate would be smarter than the many larger legislative bodies in our nation, including the state and federal legislatures, in protecting LGBT persons.
It should come as no surprise that my comment deeply offended many members of the Student Senate. I must say, however, that I was deeply offended when the historical and VERY PRESENT AND REAL discrimination against LGBT persons was compared to discrimination against someone due to their hair color or height.
With a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would ban marriage for LGBT persons and write discrimination into our nation’s most sacred legal document pending in the United States Senate, legislative bodies everywhere (from student governments all the way up to Congress) should always take the opportunity to protect and stand up for LGBT persons whenever possible.Â
I could definitely empathize with a brunette if he or she were ever discriminated against because his or her city decided to make brunettes second-class citizens, but the fact remains that the chances of anti-brunette bias are, without a doubt, slim to none. On the flip side, anti-LGBT prejudice and bias is very real and it is happening NOW:
- 19 states have passed anti-LGBT marriage amendments (source)
- 43 states and the federal government have passed “Defense of Marriage” acts or statutes (source)
- At least five states (including PA, IN, IA, MA, VA) have pending marriage amendments.
Another reason why enumerated categories, especially sexual orienation and gender, should not be taken out and replaced with a generic “No discrimination on any basis shall be tolerated” statement is based on our State’s current climate as it relates to LGBT persons. Everyday I run into people or hear about people (whether that be on the street, online, or in the paper) who do not believe discrimination against gays is discrimination. In many people’s minds discriminating against gays and withholding protection is something that becomes a biblical “mandate”. Some believe that discrimination and harassment (saying to another’s face “Homosexuality is a sin” or “You need to change for God”) is in fact speaking the “truth of God” or “showing the light” to a sinner. Personal religious belief is fine, but when it comes into the public and affects my life as an American (second-class) citizen by being put into public policy, the line has been crossed. My basic point is that people are ignorant and our leaders must stand up to protect those who need it the most, even if the majority may feel differently.
Hopefully SR-83-13 will pass when it comes back up for debate. Furthermore, I hope that it passes with the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender” left intact. Although I apologized during the Student Senate meeting for possibly offending anyone with the words I chose to use regarding the rescinding of the vote, I will admit here and now that I will not back down on this issue. Discrimination, harassment and prejudice are a VERY REAL issue and it would be nice if we could live in a perfect world where generic anti-discrimination statements would suffice, but we don’t.
For now, all I can do (because I have no vote in the Student Senate) is talk to the Senators and urge them to vote for this measure and keep the langauge and enumerated categories intact. To take out these categories or to fail the resolution would be a slap in the face to UNCG’s LGBT student population and to LGBT students across the UNC System.
EDIT, 1:55am: Let me also add that Secretary Royal also voiced her concern that socioeconomic status/class was not included in the legislation. Although I am from a poor background myself I cannot recall a time when I was discriminated against for being poor. If Secretary Royal is able to show me a time when she someone has said, “Oh… you’re poor? Ok… leave our organization”, then I would definitely be in favor of adding it. However, it is a known fact that once someone’s sexual orientation is known, the chances of discrimination and harassment rise dramatically. I must also add that I have been personally victim to such discrimination based sexual orientation when I was kicked out of the Boy Scouts of America in December 2000. Like I have said before in this post… anti-LGBT discrimination, harassment and prejudice are VERY REAL and VERY PERTINENT to our current political and social climates, especially here in North Carolina and the South.
Technorati Tags: gay students, gay, lgbt, gay rights, student government association, uncasg, non-discrimination, greensboro, uncg, north carolina
8 Responses to “UNCG Student Senate rescinds vote on LGBT inclusive legislation”
“No discrimination on any basis shall be tolerated”
I’m not exactly clear on what this is to apply to. I wonder because Royal may want to consider that it doesn’t take much imagination to realize that, for the safety and welfare of students and faculty, as well as maintaining a standard of quality among the student body, discrimination on some basis is acceptable — even desirable.
Consider the guy who claims discrimination because he is refused housing in a girls dorm; the 5′2″ guy who gets cut from the basketball team; the person who flunked out of high school and is denied admission because of her academic record; the 80 year-old woman who claims discrimination because she wasn’t cast in the lead role of Annie, etc., etc.
For practical reasons, I think it’s necessary that you ennumerate the types of discrimination that will not be tolerated. A broad definition will be unworkable.
By Roch101 on Feb 23, 2006
Matt,
I know you’re passionate about the issue, but you’re taking this the wrong way. No one was in favor of rescinding that vote because they hope to continue discrimination, and you know it. Like I said, I’m tired of everyone in that room being lazy and apathetic, and I’d like to see some actual debate go on. I’ve refrained from pushing my own agenda in Senate because it’s not the place for it, but you have a legitimate issue here that affects the student body. If we’re supposed to be working in the best interest of the students, how is it fair to silence those who have an opinion on this issue? There were at least 3 or 4 hands still up to debate the legislation when someone called the question, and I don’t think that’s in the best interest of the students.
If anything, I think you’ve pissed off enough people to make them actually reconsider why they voted for this in the first place. Beyond that, choose which is more important in the immediate future - changing the ASG constitution or getting elected.
By Ryan Radford on Feb 23, 2006
If it takes me backing down on something in which I believe and feel this strongly in order to get elected as Vice President, then the election is not worth winning at all.
On another point… I have no doubt that some simply wanted more debate time for the simple fact of wanting to debate, but no one can deny that there are others who wanted more debate time in order to change the resolution in such a way that it would mean nothing and protect no one.
I also echo ROch’s statements: A broad definition will not work and, yes, it is necessary to have enumerated categories in the policy.
By Matt on Feb 23, 2006
I’m not saying you should back down from it, I’m saying you should refrain from referring to the people who are voting for you as bigots for a week or two.
By Ryan Radford on Feb 23, 2006
I never called anyone a bigot.
By Matt on Feb 23, 2006
It was implied.
By Ryan Radford on Feb 23, 2006
Matt, As you would likely guess I will hope that the Senate votes against the proposal. However, having said that, and if you can take this without it coming off as patronizing (though we have never met, and though I don’t support the primary goal you are pursuing politically), I rather like and respect you. You are one dogged and persistent dude. Having been involved in politics at various levels, both secular and church, there is a lot of tact and hand shaking and “working of the issues” personally (and behind the scenes) that usually is required to win over a group. Sometimes you have to give something up to get what you’re after. Sometimes you have to accept something less than what you want today in order to work for all of what you want tomorrow. A lot of change is gradual and progressive. And people will vote against something they otherwise might support just because the sponsor pisses them off. So be sure to treat these student Senators with great honor and deference. I might suggest that you read a biography of William Wilberforce. He was also dogged and persistent. This matter seems to a calling for you, so thinking more long term would help you I think. The issue you are involved in will likely involved much of your life. There will be decent and articulate and thoughtful people standing in your way, not just bumbling bigoted hicks, and the more you can respect them and work with them (and get to know them even if they are enemies of your cause) as if you really believe them to be decent people and not suggest or imply them or anyone to be bigots or homophobes, the more likely you will be persuasive and successful. Anyway, I wish you well as a person. We will likely end of on opposite sides of the aisle so to speak in this community along the way as per this issue, but I’d like to get to know you, if you could ever squeeze that in. And I hope you can take my words as well intended.
By Joel Gillespie on Feb 23, 2006