|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
| [RDC] ESA and Feds work on reinstatement |
Contributed by: Anonymous on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 07:04 PM CDT
|
At the council meeting yesterday council motioned that the IAC committee work to resolve the issue of ESA as soon as possible.
ESA was their and presented an action plan to restructure. Some of their executive resigned the night before.
|
| |
|
|
|
| Authored by: John Ying on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 08:35 PM CDT |
"ESA was their and presented an action plan"
My God... Doesn't anyone at least do a quick proofread of these articles?
And FEDS better not reinstate the ESA... [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Lawrence on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 12:27 AM CDT |
Granted this is the first controversy this council has faced so far, I thought it was disappointing to watch how this council handled it.
I think we were all surprised to see ESA do a 180 and be totally conciliatory and show obvious signs of their willingness to reform themselves. The matter went to council only to be sent back to the IAC because as one councillor stated "I don't know enough about what the IAC's decision".
Some leadership. While I can't expect any councillor to have sifted through the 100+ pages of background in full detail, surely some questions could have been answered that could have helped council make an informed decision. Instead, councillor after councillor repeated "I don't know" and implicitly say "I don't care to know" and referred the matter right back to the IAC, apparently unaware that council had the ability to scrutinize and amend the IAC's decision.
"I want this club to exist" amounted to empty words. No one on council was willing to even amend the decision that suspended the ESA for the whole term. If everything else was justified, surely council understood that the term-long suspension had a discouraging impact on the members of the ESA and the suspension could have been reduced, if for no other reason than as a symbolic olive branch to the ESA.
It looks like council lacked the gonads to even examine the decision a single bit. Maybe you were afraid of hurting some feelings of your fellow councillors on the committee?
Sorry for the rant, I've never really had a good FEDS rant on here before. I'm not a member of the ESA, but I used to be one of the white-name-card-wavers and to watch the way the cards were being waved was just a bit frustrating, that's all.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Morgan on Wednesday, October 20 2004 @ 09:30 PM CDT |
I would argue that directing the IAC to work to resolve the issue as soon as possible was a significant action by the Federation of Students.
We can argue on whether or not the suspension of the club was just, but nobody can argue that the ESA contravened sections of Procedure 3. The only situation in which I could see council reversing the IAC's decision would be if the ESA clearly did not violate club procedure. Whether I agree with their decision or not, I think that a reasonable interpretation of the events up to that point could have resulted in the decision made. The ESA should have been represented when the IAC was making their decision, but as far as I know, this is not required by any By-law, policy, or procedure.
Before I give my opinion on the issue, let me make sure this is clear: I attend the Embassy, and am a member of the ESA. I feel that the ESA provides me with valuable services as a UW student.
Reading through the material presented by both sides, I feel that neither side is without fault. The ESA had clearly become complacent in its dealings with Feds, and they needed a reminder that publications guidelines must be followed. As well, there is little doubt that some of the finance provisions of section G of Procedure 3 were not being followed, intentionally or unintentionally.
The Federation, however, was less than forthcoming. Having read through the correspondence between the Federation of Students and the ESA, I fail to see grounds for suspension of the club. The ESA always seemed open and willing to work with the issues at hand. The Federation would not tell the ESA exactly what the September 10 meeting was about or communicate the gravity of the situation prior to the meeting, leaving the ESA unprepared. As well, the placement of the club on probation was, in my opinion, unnecessarily sudden.
Both sides seem to have raised rather irrelevant issues. The ESA claims that their event on the 20th was cancelled because another group wanted the space, not because of infractions. Interesting, but relevent to the alleged violations? I don't really think so. On the other hand, the Federation's characterization of the ESA as a "front" organization for the Embassy Church is equally irrelevant. If the ESA is following the clubs procedures, there is nothing in Feds by-laws, policies, or procedures that prevents them from bringing in the Embassy Church every week for their services. They are providing services for UW students. On the other hand, if they are not following procedures, they should be given a chance to fix them.
The main problem I have with the Federation's position on the advertising violations is that very few clubs actually follow these policies. Should they? Of course. But Feds doesn't seem interested in enforcing them for the vast majority of clubs, and so the clubs don't do it. It's pretty clear that this is selective enforcement.
In my work on the MathSoc postings board, I put up posters for a wide variety of Feds-recognized clubs. Many don't have the Clubs logo on it. Almost none have the declaration stating that their views are not necessarily those of the Federation. A few were even submitted without the club's name; I had to get them to add it so that MathSoc will approve the posters.
As for the financial allegations, while it is true that the ESA was in violation, it seems pretty clear that Feds knew what was going on, and had for some time. The Feds response to the ESA press release skips right over this issue. If the Federation suddenly decided it was important, then they should have given the ESA sufficient time to correct their financial dealings. I don't believe this was done. And, while I openly admit I have no proof to back this up, my gut feeling suggests that many other clubs are also in violation of these procedures.
In sum, I do agree that the ESA needed to clean up its act. However, I get the feeling that this sudden enforcement by Feds was selective and harsh. Given a few more weeks, I think the issue could have been resolved. Even some warning that the Feds were considering asking the IAC to put the club on probation would have gotten things done. But instead, we're in a completely preventable situation that has created nothing but mistrust. This situation could have been handled better by both sides.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jebus on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 01:27 AM CDT |
Waterloo should be free of all political, ethnic and religious elements. We need a completely secular, scientific university. Essentially somewhere along the lines of Plato's Republic is desirable.
God is dead. He died a long time ago. I suggest we start looking for another God or spend our time looking at the sky waiting for santa to pass by and shower us with sparkling gifts. Both are equally a good waste of scarce human time and effort and both will result in nothing.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dwayne on Friday, October 29 2004 @ 04:24 PM CDT |
As per your request, here are a couple of quotes from more recent famous biologists:
"Our genes made use. We animals exist for their preservation and are nothing more than their throwaway survival machines. The world of the selfish gene is one of savage competition, ruthless exploitation, and deceit. But what of the acts of apparent altruism found in nature - the bees who commit suicide when they sting to protect the hive, or the birds who warn the flock of an approaching hawk ? Do they contravene the fundamental law of gene selfishness ? By no means." -Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Cover Flap
Also, I would recommend the last chapter of distinguished biologist Edward Wilson's book called "Sociobiology." These are two of the most esteemed biologists of our generation.
About the other quotes, well, Darwin speaks for himself. Nietzsche, I would argue, was the first great evolutionary philosopher. He wrote at a time when the ideas were becoming popular. His 'will to power' is almost plagiarism of Herbert Spencer.
Anyway, I agree with you that most people of the evolutionary tradition do not agree with these quotes or these ideas. But I would argue that this is because they want to hide the dark underbelly of the theory away. I'm sorry that this upsets you. I'm willing to change my dismay with the evolutionary tradition, but not until I'm satisfied that there aren't selfish/violent undertones all the way through it.
Dwayne[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chickadee on Saturday, October 30 2004 @ 03:40 AM CDT |
Little birdies are saying that ESA is trying to become a club at Laurier.
Anyone know if this is true?
Guess Waterloo isn't quite hip enough.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: anonnnn on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 01:29 AM CST |
I have only one thing to say about all this:
My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard, and they're like "it's better than yours."[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
|
|
