Daily Texan: SG adopts resolution opposing war
- “This makes the statement that the student body of the nation’s largest university and in Bush’s hometown feels that an unprovoked war is wrong,” said SG two-year at-large Representative Jordan Buckley, author of the resolution and a key mediator in the evening’s debate.
The anti-war resolution, thought by most representatives to stand little chance of passing, condemns Saddam Hussein but opposes any pre-emptive attack against Iraq.
The bitter debate fought not only the resolution, but the assembly’s right to vote on a resolution at all.
“For those of you who feel it is inappropriate to debate foreign policy within the Student Government institution, please realize that it is more inappropriate that people die at the hands of the United States,” said Amber Novak, a journalism graduate student.
This site rox l33t!
GB
That is such a poorly-written article, though. It was difficult for me to follow what the reporter was trying to say. It kept talking about “the resolution” and it was unclear if it was referring to the resolution in the US congress, or the UT resolution.
And, what the fuck is this supposed to mean?:
“It’s a dark day for the diverse views that constitute this university,” religious studies sophomore Austin Kinghorn said. “I thank the members that opposed this.”
I am not sure if I’m getting this right, but it seems she’s saying that opposing the war is anti-diversity. What is that supposed to mean? Or am I not understanding the context correctly?
What disappoints me is that the vote was 20-17. A 54-46% margin isn’t much of a mandate. The people who proposed the resolution meant well, but their “victory” is a bit underwhelming. I suppose it’s a start.