Are we going to let bureaucracy get in the way of doing a good thing?
In his article, Daniel Hartsoe talked about rejection of SGA ratification for the club One in Four. The reason that One and Four was being questioned was because they are a group comprised solely of men, and apparently this violates the College’s anti-discrimination policy. As Daniel points out the SGA Constitution, the C-Book, says that a club MAY be rejected if “the club does not follow the college’s anti-discrimination clause”, meaning that SGA is not required to reject, only that it can choose to. Yes, One in Four does not allow women, but are we going to let that stand in the way of the message they are trying to spread?
One in Four is geared towards telling men that rape is not just a women’s issue, but something that men can help prevent through peer-education and workshops geared towards other men. As a woman, I am ecstatic that such an organization exists, that men at this college want to get involved and talk about something that most men would never bring up in conversation.
One in Four does not violate any other clause that SGA has for rejection, in fact it is completely the opposite of that; One in Four does not duplicate the purpose of any other existing club, it tries to preserve the safety and wellness of students, and finally, One in Four certainly would not lessen the “quality of life at the college” but rather enhance it.
My advice to SGA, look at your constitution, read it closely, then ask yourself if you want to make the CHOICE to reject a club that clearly has so much to offer.
