|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
| [RDC] Embassy Student Association club status suspended by Feds |
Contributed by: Benjamin Ries on Friday, October 08 2004 @ 08:11 AM CDT
|
Controversy continues to build over a recent decision by the Federation of Students’ Internal Administration Committee to suspend the status of the Embassy Student Association as a Feds Club for the remainder of the term. The ESA (formerly called Embassy Student Leadership) has been operating since 2001 as both a Feds Club and a ministry of The Embassy, a popular student church that normally meets Monday nights at Federation Hall.
Yesterday, the Daily Bulletin quoted an explanation from Rick Theis (Feds Clubs Director) who said the church is “using its club as a front.” Since recognized Feds Clubs pay a much lower fee to reserve Federation Hall than other community groups, Embassy services are booked by ESA to avoid elevated costs. This practice has led the Feds IAC to question the legitimacy of the Embassy Student Association as a club in its own right.
Eli-James Hunt, Policy and Procedures Officer for ESA, disagrees: “this group has a right to have our side of things heard before judgment is passed and such drastic decisions are made,” asserts Hunt. “To this point, no one from the Feds has given us a fair opportunity to speak. The Embassy Students Association has conducted itself with the highest level of integrity in its dealings as a club. Any mistakes made by the ESA have been minor and honest mistakes. ESA is confident that when all of the details surrounding this situation are fully made known it will be recognized as beyond reproach in all of its actions.”
The news of Feds’ decision was announced Monday night at Embassy’s regular service (led by Brandon Mallow, Embassy pastor and Laurier alumnus) to enraged attendees. Tuesday, over 100 students protested with a “letter-writing sit-in” at the Student Life Centre. Hunt explained that these efforts were designed “to demonstrate to the
Feds president that ESA is a valuable part of the UW community.”
Jacob Shelley, a student in Grebel's Masters of Theological Studies program, isn’t surprised by these events. “The reality is, churches that posit a telos, be it growth or otherwise, often adapt a 'by-any-means-necessary' attitude. In the case of Embassy, establishing the prostelyisation of the campus as their telos has justified their creation of ESA. It is a justifiable means to their desired end. This stuff has been a long time coming, in my opinion.”
Shelley, formerly an active member of The Embassy, is concerned about the church’s response. “The legitimacy of Feds’ position will no doubt be misconstrued as persecution. I can only hope the leadership of Embassy, students or otherwise, eradicate such notions. This is a matter of policy, not prejudice.”
The ESA is expected to issue further information in a press release tomorrow.
More information:
|
| |
|
|
|
| Authored by: I can't spell on Friday, October 08 2004 @ 10:49 AM CDT |
| I'm told the correct spelling of Brandon's last name is "Malo". My sincere regrets... [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Benjamin Ries on Friday, October 08 2004 @ 11:01 AM CDT |
|
| |
| Authored by: me on Friday, October 08 2004 @ 03:17 PM CDT |
So, a couple of questions about this. First of all, I tried to go to the link to get Rick's quote about ESA being a front. I couldn't believe anyone, let alone a Feds worker, would suggest that any club is just a front. I couldn't believe that anyone, let alone a Feds worker, would tell a club who to be and what to do. ESA can do what it wants with its club (within the boundaries of Council Procedure), as all clubs can do. Is there no respect here? Anyway, I couldn't find the quote. But that may be because of my lack of computer skills, rather then it actually not directing me to the correct sight.
Secondly, I know Jacob Shelley, and he has long been a critic of the Embassy. He has often spoken out against the Embassy. Jacob Shelley criticizing the Embassy is about as surprising and noteworthy as John Kerry criticizing George Bush.
Thirdly, since this is a matter of policy, not prejudice, then shouldn't the Feds be willing to have an open honest discussion about how the ESA and the FEDS both violated Council Procedure in this matter? Shouldn't all of us, in a free-thinking institution, be wanting to listen to both sides, get to the bottom of things, and invite an open dialogue? I know that this is what ESA has been asking for all along. History shows that those who don't want to have open dialogue often have reasons for it. ESA wants an open dialogue. Do they FEDS? I challenge the FEDS to it, shouldn't we all as university students challenge the FEDS to it?
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JShelley on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 01:48 AM CDT |
Jin,
I am not sure if publishing emails is bad conduct, but if you want to ensure proper conduct, perhaps it is an advisable approach. I mean, I’d sure be ticked if the private emails I sent to members of Embassy were circulated publicly. I was not writing in any such format. No, this does not mean that I wish to hide things I say (nor do I think it is fair to make that assumption concerning Feds, particularly considering that I am in no way affiliated with Feds). It may simply mean that had I wished to communicate in a more public manner that I might have stated things differently. It may not be a big deal. However, I will suggest that it is not professional conduct.
“All Feds needed to do was say, "hey ESA, we found a problem with how you do stuff" and we would say "Oh yeah, like what?" and we would go from there. Problem is that there was no "hey, ESA" but rather a "hey, you're suspended".“ I do not think that Feds has erred in doing so. They have suspended ESA on the grounds that it has violated certain policies. In essence, Feds has say, hey, we have a problem. In light of those problems, ESA has been suspended, and can respond now with “like what”.
As for you comments regarding jail. I would most certainly prefer to be given a chance to be in jail as opposed to being sent directly to the chair! Besides, ESA is found to be in violation of Feds policies. To use your analogy, I don’t think ESA has been jailed, but it has been asked not to leave the city!
I agree that communication may have made for an easier sail, but that does not mean that ESA is not in violation. Nor does it mean that the actions taken against ESA are illegitimate. It simply means that perhaps things would have gone smoother. Having said that, I think both ESA/Embassy and Feds would have to take blame in poor communication efforts. Would you not agree with that?
ja.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JShelley on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:24 PM CDT |
In response to “The Embassy Students’ Association Press Release”
As many might have suspected, I have taken the time to review the content of this press release. What follows are my reflections. While I by no means address all issues, I address those issues I find to be most pertinent to the current discussion and that may aid others in understanding (this is not to say that others will find other areas to be more pressing; I encourage their responses as well). I will proceed in a manner reflecting the structure of the press release.
In 1.0 (the Executive Summary) the following statement is made:
“The alleged infractions of clubs procedure cited by the Federation of Students as reasons for suspension of the ESA club are either false, disputable, or minor and do not justify the cancellation of the ESA’s events or the revocation of its club status” (1).
According to s. I(1)(a)(i) of Council Procedure 3, a club can be placed on probation for “breach of any of the responsibilities outlined in this resolution.” According to s. I(1)(b)(ii), while on probation a club may “be suspended from all rights outlined in part E. of this resolution.” In particular I point you to s. E(1)( c), which states a club has the right to “use University of Waterloo facilities, subject to regulations of the Administration.” Because ESA was placed on probation for breach of its responsibilities (regardless of whether ESA finds the said breach to be minor), the rights of ESA can be suspended. This includes the use of UW facilities, among which Fed Hall is listed. (I will address the violations below.)
“The abrupt ‘suspension’ of the ESA without due process or fair representation by the ESA is an egregious abuse of power that should gravely concern all Federation clubs and the UW students they serve” (1, original emphasis).
A club has the right to representation, according to s. I(2)( c), “upon notice of dissolution.” ESA has not been dissolved, but put on probation. Feds has not violated the rights of ESA. This is not akin to an abuse of power, as is suggested, as ESA has submitted itself to the Council Procedure 3. ESA is aware that clubs sign “a form indicating that they understood Procedure 3” (3). Thus, ESA by its own admission is aware of the contents of Council Procedure 3, and therefore, was aware that clubs are granted a right to “fair representation” following dissolution. As ESA has not been dissolved, it would appear that this is a manufactured violation on ESA’s part. As ESA consistently refers to the lack of proper representation, this no doubt constitutes an area worth reflecting upon. Perhaps efforts should be put forth by ESA to ensure that future clubs will be given more of an opportunity in this matter. As it stands, ESA does not have a case to suggest that they have been denied a right.
Furthermore, ESA has not demonstrated that Feds proceeded “without due process” as is suggested. I will examine this point further below under s. 2.3.1.
I would also like to note that the comments regarding the Clubs Director are merely speculation. There has been a mandate to demonstrate that there are “deeper issues.” While this may in fact be the case, ESA has not substantiated any such claim, but has only made further accusations. While the events surrounding September 20th are coincidental and likely require further investigation, it is irresponsible on ESA’s part to suggest that Theis has “spuriously concocted” the allegations. There is nothing to substantiate such a claim.
2.2. Alleged Infractions
1) Failing to undertake all financial dealings in accordance with Section G of Council Procedure 3.
i) The ESA has suggested that by virtue of s. G(8), which stipulates that “any club which is a subsidiary or local chapter of any third party organization, subject to the approval of the Internal Administration Committee,” it is not bound by s. G(1), s. G(3), s. G(4), s. G(6), and s. G(7). The ESA, however fails to demonstrate that the IAC did approve their financial procedures. They state that their “financial dealings were approved by a former Clubs Director in the summer of 2001” (2). Is a Club Director representative of the IAC? Has the IAC approved the ESA financial scheme?
ii) Does Feds “sub-par track record” (2) justify ESA establishing of its own account, contrary to s. G (in particular, s. G(1)( c))?
iii) Why did ESA not attempt to illustrate how Feds finances were below accepted standards? Is it not possible that other Feds clubs have been affected by similar oversights/mistakes? I submit that ESA has, by opening its own account, has not only violated policy (unless the IAC approved such an action), but has also acted in indifference to the other clubs on campus. Had ESA taken a different approach, they would not only have helped to serve Feds but also their fellow clubs.
Allegations 2 – 5 have been addressed as one; I will respond in a similar manner.
i) It is important to recognize that ESA has admitted to errors and in this section is taking steps to rectify these errors. I would submit that this is the entire point of the probation process. For the efforts of making correction, ESA should be commended.
ii) The policies refer strictly to publications and newsletters. ESA should be aware that s. F(1)(m)(i) makes it clear that posters do not apply to s. F(1)(m).
6) Failing to ensure that all advertising material meet the requirements outlined in the appropriate Council Procedure (Council Procedure 12).
i) ESA contends that clubs “sign a form indicating that they understand Procedure 3, not Procedure 12. Hence, to cite Procedure 12 as an infraction is creating an artificial infraction at best” (3, original emphasis). To this I respond that ESA has clearly not understood Council Procedure 3. For instance: s. F(1)(k) states that clubs have the responsibility to “abide by all Federation and University of Waterloo administrative policies and procedures, and shall be initially responsible for determining whether or not their activities are permitted.” Further, s. F(1)(n) of Council Procedure 3 states that clubs have the responsibility to “ensure that all advertising material meet the requirements outlined in the appropriate Council procedures.” Onus is upon ESA to understand Council Procedure 12 by virtue of Council Procedure 3.
7) Events
i) If ESA’s statement is accurate, I concur that there has been no violation here. Perhaps ESA should push Feds to better define “high risk.”
8) Failing to consistently use the clubs’ recognized name.
i) If ESA is hosting the event, regardless of whether Embassy is the name of the event, ESA has to publish its name. This seems straightforward to me. Perhaps the bulletins and so forth could read as follows: ESA presents “The Embassy”.
2.3.1 Illegitimate ‘Suspension’ of ESA
There are several issues I would like to address here.
1. “The ESA is unsure if ‘suspension’ constitutes probation or dissolution”
- Feds has clearly stated that the ESA has been placed on probation. Having decided to not dissolve the club (within their power if ESA did not rectify the violations within two weeks), IAC suspended the club’s activities (see s. I(1)(b)(ii)) for the remainder of the term.
2. “This motion is its wording, notification, and implementation is in contradiction to Council Procedure 3.”
- ESA does not substantiate this claim. It would benefit all if ESA highlighted what sections they allege Feds has violated. I will address the policies ESA alludes to.
i) Notification – re: s. I(1)( d) – “When placed on probation, a club will be notified by one notice in its Federation of Students mailbox and each club executive member will be notified by one notice via telephone or email.”
- While Feds has not acted in this manner, I do not agree that this constitutes a violation. If it stated a specific timeline, perhaps ESA would have a case. It does not. Feds is not in breach of Council Procedure 3 on this count. It is not, as ESA suggest, “a blatant contradiction of established council policy” (3).
ii) Rectifying – re: s. I(1)( c) – “A club which fails to rectify its probationary status with the Federation of Students within two weeks will be scheduled for dissolution at the discretion of the Internal Administration Committee. The onus falls on the club to take all necessary measures to rectify its probationary status.”
- ESA suggests that the feds have violated this by not allowing this to be resolved within two weeks. Note, it states that the club will be scheduled for dissolution at the discretion of the IAC. As noted earlier, the IAC has decided that they do not wish to dissolve the club. Further, at their discretion, the IAC has suggested that ESA be given until the Winter term to rectify its violations.
2.3.4 ESA Student Demonstration
- ESA has claimed that the said demonstration on October 5th was “an ESA demonstration, not a church protest” (4, original emphasis). However, the pastor of the said church, Brandon Malo, did address the Feds decision from the pulpit. This would no doubt confuse those in attendance. While ESA members were the ones to attend the protest, this only makes sense, as they are the only ones who have any sway (Laurier students protesting a Feds decision would have no affect!). That said, ESA ought to clarify who instigate the protest and how. ESA has not included a mass email/notification to ESA members to attend the protest in its appendix. Nor has ESA suggested how the 150 protesters were rallied. If Embassy (the church) and Malo (the pastor) were not the instigating force, the onus is upon ESA to demonstrate this.
2.3.5 Relationship between ESA and the Embassy
i) ESA has noted that 31 of 55 individuals who help in the planning and execution of Monday nights are UW members (56.4%). They argue, “clearly, members of the ESA play an integral and vital role in the planning and execution of each Monday night event” (4, original emphasis). I think it is critical that the ESA note the division of power. That is, of the 55 people involved, some have medial tasks; others have relatively powerless positions (chair set up, juice mixers, ushers). I do not wish to minimize the efforts and actions of those involved. Every job has its place. I, for one, was involved with Embassy and wrapped cords/cables and moved sound equipment/chairs. While Monday nights required people such as myself, I has relatively powerless (truly powerless!!). What is the division of power? 1,000 federation members could be involved and yet control could remain with one or two non-federation members. Clearly Malo possess a large degree of power within Embassy, as do many other non-federation members (among which should be included the worship leaders, the steering committee of Embassy, as well as the other committees, such as the Facilities Committee). If two percent of the people involved hold 90% of the power, and those two individuals are non-federation members, I do not think it matters how many ESA members are involved on a Monday. Is this not the real issue? By calling the ESA a front, Theis has alluded to several things. Two aspects of the definition of a front apply to ESA. 1) ESA is a group united with Embassy, an outside organization, for the achievement of a common purpose; they therefore consist of a coalition. 2) ESA lacks in real authority and stands as a figurehead. A breakdown in the division of power (a task I suggest ESA/Embassy would have a hard time doing) would be telling. Further, I submit that Brandon Malo is the acting force behind all of what Embassy, and therefore, ESA, does (in my time at Embassy, it was often referred to as “Brandon’s church” and being based upon “Bradon’s vision and leadership.”)
ii) ESA has also stated that “The Embassy does not exist without the ESA, and the ESA does not exist without the Embassy” (5). While the latter part of this statement is true, the former is categorically false. The Embassy is a registered charity within the Government of Canada. It existed prior to ESA. Further, it is the organization which “Elevation” (Embassy’s Sunday morning church) is affiliated. Suggesting that Embassy doesn’t exist without ESA is false and misleading. If ESA were to be dissolved the Embassy would continue (it may be arguable that if Embassy were to be dissolved, so would the ESA…..).
2.3.7 Conduct of Clubs Director
- ESA has suggested that Theis has acted without due process. ESA has not demonstrated what processes Theis has violated. See 2.3.1. as well.
2.3.9 Meeting with the FEDS on October 5, 2004
- ESA states that it has “decided to seek out an audience with the FEDS Student’s Council to be heard in a fair and unbiased environment in which ESA could present the facts” (6, original emphasis). ESA should note that under s. I(2)(g) that a club can approach the Student’s Council if “a club not be satisfied with the decision of the Internal Administration Committee.” ESA should note that this dissatisfaction pertains only to dissolution. Council Procedure 3 indicates that a club is also able to appeal to the Student’s Council under s. C(5) which states that “in the event that a club is not recognized by the Internal Administration Committee, a club may request an appeal before Student’s Council.” While ESA is free to proceed as it wishes, it should recognize that it holds no right to approach the Student’s Council. The Council need not hear ESA’s complaints. Further, even if ESA were to be dissolved, according to s. I(2)(g) the Council “may grant or deny leave to the appeal.” ESA should be aware, particularly in light that it has accused Feds of not following process, that it is attempting to manufacture policies and rights to its own advantage.
I have decided to refrain from commenting on particular emails, though I have read them all carefully. As the above comments deal specifically with the ESA’s press release, and the appendix is included as supporting evidence (and perhaps to incriminate Feds Clubs Director), I have dealt only with content of the release.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jin on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 04:44 PM CDT |
Rob is right when he says that we're not being subsidized. About the only thing we're being subsidized is the $50 per term which translates to (assuming 20,000 students are full members) 0.25 cents. That's not too bad, right?
Also last time we checked, about 200 are full-time UW students. But I must say that you bring up an excellent point (or rather, insiunated it).
Are we a club?
This seems to be the point of major contention, as it should be. I'm not just talking about procedures and logistics, but something more higher-level. I have my own belief of what it means to be a club. I'm also confident that if you come to the same conlusion as I do in what is meant to be a club, you will find ESA's answer satisfactory.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jin on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:14 PM CDT |
| The Press Release will be made public tonight around 10 on the club website at esa.dionysius.ca [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JShelley on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:35 PM CDT |
Jin,
I find your plea for "honour" to be quite ammusing. What honour has ESA shown Feds, particularly Clubs Director Theis? I believe that you have not even considered giving him the benefit of the doubt!
As for the policy you say you have infringed upon: a) minor or not (as I state in my response to ESA), it has been violated. According to Council Procedure 3, Feds is able to put ESA on probation; b) your actions of "drawing out plans" is part of the process of probation. ESA should not be rewarded for keeping its obligations; c) you have not been ujustly shut down (you may feel you have been, but have yet to demonstrate this) and as I have noted many of other places, while you may feel you have the right to represent yourself, frankly, you do not (at least not according to CP 3, which ESA has submitted too).
Embassy IS an outside organization. The matter of debate is the extent to which Embassy rules/reigns over ESA events. I think, as one who attended Embassy for numerous years, and who was involved with Embassy for a number of years as well, that it is quite clear that Embassy (more specifically, Brandon) is in charge of what takes place at ESA.
And a side note, I'm glad you don't want to be a lawyer as well. You seem to have difficultly in reading policy and making appropriate connections.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JShelley on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:05 PM CDT |
Rob,
I do not think I am avoiding anything. I am simply responding to complaints of ESA. My opinion of the Club Procedure is irrelevant. If it is as terrible as you suggest, then by all means, it should be reformed. As it stands, ESA is in clear violation and Feds has followed policy in placing ESA on probation. My comments do not reflect my opinion on the policy itself.
I do suppose that that could be understood as avoiding. I think of it more as dealing with the issues at hand.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JShelley on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 01:44 AM CDT |
Jin,
I am not sure what you actually understand about the law, so debating your points may not be of benefit to you or I. That said, whether the law be implicitly or explicitly identified, it is arguable that even in matters of "good will" there are laws established. Even if the only law is just that people will engage with one another in "good will."
The law is vague at points, which is why there is adjudication. Morality, which also can be vague, is different that law. Morality deals with rights and wrongs. Law deals with rules and conduct.
I suspect that you have more faith in the law then you admit. Do you have a bank account? Do you purchase items? Do you feel safe to walk home from a late night class? Do you own anything? Do you think you have rights?
I have grown skeptical of "good will" in my few years on this planet. Although there are certainly those who have demonstrated "good will" to me, too often "good will" sent my way has done more harm then good. Such "good will" has been sent Feds way!
Feds, by virtue of putting ESA on probation, and opting not to suspend ESA, has shown that they are willing to work with ESA.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Raynard Finch on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 01:47 AM CDT |
I'm curious Jin, since you seem to be a representative for ESA and Embassy. What's their stance on gay people and also on same-sex marriage?
Would anyone at ESA or Embassy mind if I brought my boyfriend to an ESA meeting and we kissed a few times during the more exciting parts of the gathering?[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Giant Space Hamster on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 03:35 PM CDT |
Why isn't this story on the front page? It seems like actual news, compared to the two advertisements currently at the top.
Plus, it seems decently written, and was referenced in the Daily Bulletin.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dwayne on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 11:48 AM CDT |
I believe in free speech. But even in Canada, there are some things that we should not be saying. We can't spread hate literature. We cannot use racist or sexist terminology. We cannot spread lies or slander other people. Many forums adhere to these principles, and I don't think it is odd to see the forum on this website adhering to these principles either - especially since it is a church which shouldn't want to be involved in the spreading of harmful words.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dwayne on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 11:50 AM CDT |
I believe in free speech. But even in Canada, there are some things that we should not be saying. We can't spread hate literature. We cannot use racist or sexist terminology. We cannot spread lies or slander other people. Many forums adhere to these principles, and I don't think it is odd to see the forum on this website adhering to these principles either - especially since it is a church which shouldn't want to be involved in the spreading of harmful words.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dwayne on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 12:06 PM CDT |
Hi Jacob,
No, that is not so. Check Council Procedure I.1.d, which says that "when placed on probation, a club will...". The time line is not negotiable. It will happen when placed on probation. According to the Feds website, ESA is on Probation now. So it should have happened by now. Hence, those two violations still stand. For the third, since the feds have said ESA is on probation, the Council procedure says it has to be resolved within two weeks.
Jacob, I am a new student to UW. How could I have fought for student rights while I wasn't even here?
I'm just asking for a club, any club, to be able to defend itself. I'm not asking for anything radical like you suggest. If the club's argument is rejected, then that is fine and that is fair. But at least let it be heard. I still can't believe I have to explain this to you, a law student. I feel like asking for your prof's email, so I can link him up to your comments about how defending yourself is the same as excusing yourself.
I thank you for your wish that ESA could defend ourself. Though you suggested it was self-evident ESA would lose, at least you admitted that you would like to see the chance.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Raynard Finch on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 01:01 PM CDT |
Jin,
You still haven't answered my question. What percentage of people who go to the ESA's bookings at Fed Hall are FEDS members?
One has to assume that it's a very low number since you're avoiding my question. I've asked it three times now.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NoCEO on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 01:39 PM CDT |
| So do people on welfare. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: confused on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 04:51 PM CDT |
| HHhmmmmm....Not sure who the bigger loser is....Rob, Ying or NoCEO. Maybe I am for actually reading these! Keep it up boys, next time I need some witty one-liners, I know eher to come! [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JShelley on Saturday, October 16 2004 @ 06:40 PM CDT |
I would like to ask that those reading these comments becareful of associating all "religious" people with the behaviour of a select few.
While I certainly do not agree with ESA's comments or actions, and frankly, am disappointed by ESA and the Embassy overall, there are many religious people and religious groups that certainly do not deserve to be stigmatized by one group's actions.
As a religious person myself (former member/attender of Embassy), I know that often religious groups do not come across in the greatest light. Such broad generalizations, however, are not fair to any group. Should all muslims by typecasted as terrorists because a few of them participated in 9/11? Absolutely not! Should all Christians be represented by the actions of some small groups? No.
While some of you might consider those posting on behalf as ESA as "religious clowns" (one has stated as much), I ask that you would not make all religious people clowns as a result!
Thank you.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: antoine on Saturday, October 16 2004 @ 08:31 PM CDT |
It seems there's way too much anger in this entire thread.. There is nothing productive in trying to wrong each other, and it's sad to see that there are so many people being destructive with their words. I agree this situation really sucks, and there could very well have been wrongs done on both sides. I won't pretend to have read the comments about the policy because I hate legal writing. Nothing can be done about what has happened, but angry web-debate is not the way to set a good precedence for the future.
for my two cents. I have paid fed hall fees and paid my dues to the FEDs for the last 5 years (I'm even one of the few who VOTES for the candidates!). I have one club I attend, and I like my club...I brag about it. I have been proud of our school's club system (perhaps naively since this is the only school I have attended). I know there are hundreds (to no exageration) that would say the same thing as me. In the end my prayer is that everyone calm down and this will work out. Why? because I have a hope that my representatives are not seeking their own agendas...and hence it is plain to see that a club with hundreds of UW attendees is a club worth allowing to survive.
What do you do to a very popular club for a few misdemeanors? You slap them on the hand and things go on. I mean if the snowboarders club slipped up I'm sure there would be no threat of shutting them down....if the FEDS are looking out for UW students, then the popular clubs will survive[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Benjamin Ries on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 08:55 PM CDT |
Controversy continues to build over a recent decision by The Embassy forum's admin to suspend the status of Jacob Shelley ("Jelly") as a forum member for the remainder of the term. Jelly (formerly called "Spawn of Satan") has been operating since 2001 as both an Embassy forum member and a theology student at Conrad Grebel.
Tonight, I quote an explanation from Gerald Gillespie (Embassy forum administrator) who said Jelly is using the forums "for insult or accusations or any other incendiary comments that undermine The Embassy or its members." Since Embassy forum members are generally Christians, Jelly had (until now) sought to address them directly and make them think twice about their actions. This practice has led The Embassy to righteous indignation at the thought of being held accountable for their actions.
Jelly, Policy and Procedures Officer for himself, disagrees: "I don't think I am insulting anyone. I am not making accusations, but stating FACTS!" asserts Jelly. "I do not think I've made incendiary comments. Embassy has undermined itself!"
The news of Embassy's decision was announced over MSN messenger tonight (even while I was set to "Busy"!) to your amused reporter. Later this evening, Jelly wondered how over 100 students could stand for this sort of thing. Jelly explained that The Embassy "is even closer now to being a cult."
Benjamin Ries, a Political Science student writing this article, isn't surprised by these events. "The reality is, churches that posit a telos, be it growth or otherwise, often adapt a 'by-any-means-necessary' attitude. In the case of Embassy, establishing the prostelyisation of the campus as their telos has justified their censorship and ignorance to the truth. It is a justifiable means to their desired end. This stuff has been a long time coming, in my opinion. Umm... you won't check this quote for plagarism, right?"
Ries, also a forum member, is concerned about the church’s response. "The legitimacy of Jelly’s position will no doubt be misconstrued as slander. I can only hope the leadership of Embassy, students or otherwise, eradicate such notions. This is a matter of reasoned questioning, not sabotage."
The Embassy is expected to issue further threats and eventaully ban me by tomorrow.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John Ying on Wednesday, October 20 2004 @ 12:13 AM CDT |
| The reality is, churches that posit a telos, be it growth or otherwise, often adapt a 'by-any-means-necessary' attitude. In the case of Embassy, establishing the prostelyisation of the campus as their telos has justified their creation of ESA. It is a justifiable means to their desired end. This stuff has been a long time coming, in my opinion. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mike D. on Thursday, October 21 2004 @ 04:10 PM CDT |
Does the Embassy not take up a collection at their weekly service? While I assume the amount they bring in from this collection is nowhere near enough to cover the rental cost of Fed Hall, where is this collection money going? Embassy is an outside religious organization is it not? Should they really be taking in money via collection plates while receiving student subsidies and opening their doors to non-students?
Just looking for some information and putting forth some questions to think about.
-Mike Dickin
UW Alumnus[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
|
|
