| It was called the Intersociety Debate. A competition with back-to-back
speeches featuring uncensored argumentation and hardcore thrills.
Now, the Demosthenians are bringing the ISD back, with two explosive
constructive speeches, along with two rebuttals.
Tonight: when the Amendments to the Constitution are broken,
the last hope for humanity rests in the hands of a few. First:
Mr. Sharp. His prescription: pain. Ms. Turlington: one hot mama
who knows the score. Mr. Darsie: cross him, and it's lights
out. And Ms. Keyes-Blumer. She tastes like trouble, with an
attitude to boot.
Buckle up, kids, because a new kind of terror is coming...at
200 miles per hour. Four adrenaline-fueled rollercoasters, one
ticket to ride, in one courtroom of pure dynamite. Only, at
the ISD.
The meeting of Thursday, the 8th of March 2007 was called
to order. There were eight first-time guests, and no returning
guests.
We had one petition for membership. Mr. Lucadamo took five
minutes to discuss the ISD topic. He was pompously and circumstantially
welcomed into the Society.
In Programs, a guest, the Assistant Director of Legal Affairs,
recalled a Christian fraternity's fight to restrict its membership
and presented:
BIR: The University of Georgia should continue
to allow student organizations that discriminate on the basis
of religion to register as such.
Respectfully submitted,
Amanda Bates
Mr. Brettschneider argued that those who supported the resolution
were either wrong or hypocritical. Religion should not be placed
on the pedestal atop which the resolution's proponents would
place it.
Mr. Vaudo noted that the resolution would not violate the
Constitution. Therefore, it isn't necessary.
Mr. Williamson came down from his perch to make the case that
organizations should be allowed to choose whom they associate
with, especially on the basis of religion.
Mr. Pearl noted that people choose those with whom they associate
every day. Religion, as a choice, should not be granted a special
exception.
Mr. Weeks said that the crucial question underpinning any
type of association is “Do you want to be there?” Assuming religious
organizations are allowed to be exclusive is counterproductive.
Mr. Sharp made the point that spiritual organizations are
not necessarily the most fulfilling associations for students,
and that students should be able to associate with whom they
wish. For him, this godless, heathen organization serves the
same utility as his Christian community in his hometown.
Mr. Dowell, drawing on his experience as a Tate Center setter-upper,
reminded the chamber that any group can use University facilities
if they got the bling. But selective organizations can't receive
activity fees either way.
Ms. Meek told the chamber to have mercy. After all, Beta Upsilon
Chi isn't an advocacy group. Its members simply to meet without
being alienated.
Mr. Miller argued that discrimination will happen regardless
of whatever laws are in place. Besides, why would anyone want
to quash Christian fellowship?
Ms. Malik said that discrimination should not be enshrined
in law.
Mr. Dutta posited that if BUX is allowed to discriminated
on the basis of religion, any other type of discrimination should
be allowed as well.
Mr. O'Brien opined that people join organizations because
they agree with them. Therefore, if one does not agree with
BUX's religion, one should not join it.
Mr. Etheridge praised BUX's integrity for saying it loud,
they discriminate and they're proud.
Mr. Ballard noted that organizations are not expressly political
or cultural. Therefore, the line between clubs that can receive
activity fees and those that cannot is often blurry. Also, since
there is no compelling interest for the University to disallow
discrimination, it acts to stifle freedom of association.
Mr. Hansen argued that the resolution illuminates a fundamental,
irresolvable difference between the right to assemble and the
establishment clause in the Constitution, and that the University's
recognition of BYX's right to discriminate compounds this problem.
To help alleviate this, student funds and official recognition
should be dealt with by different entities.
Ms. Shuh reminded the chamber that the legacy of state-sanctioned
racial discrimination taints the resolution. She then took out
her can of worms.
Mr. O'Donnell made the argument that organizations must want
to associate in order to do so, and that the desire to associate
only extends to the next person's willingness to do so.
The question was called, and passed 15 to 14 among members
and 2 to 0 among guests, ensuring that there will be no divine
lightning bolts striking the bench from the open window for
the forseeable future. It was noted that the likelihood of a
witch hunt was increased by the affirmative vote. Also, Mr.
Dowell will defend Mr. O'Brien's right to say such things.
In Committee Reports, Premier Sharp of the Chamber of Programming
Deputies reminded party members of his Relay for Life domination.
Ms. Keyes-Blumer put the first nails on the coffin of Speaker's
Keys. As Party Secretary, I informed members of the freshly-written
Colbert letter.
In New Business,
Mr. Brettschneider presented, without a tinge of irony,
BIR: Conservationism is a futile, pointless
effort.
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel Brettschneider
Mr. Weeks noted that the resolution assumes that the ego is
the most important thing to live for. As a species, humans can
benefit the Earth, and should, because life is worth living.
The question was called, and failed 3 to 15 among members
and 0 to 1 among guests.
Mr. Dutta then rose to discuss the privacy implications of
market research technology, presenting
BIR: Corporations and governments should
not use RFID chips.
Respectfully submitted,
Samiron Dutta
Mr. Darsie argued against, reminding the chamber that such
technology allows the streamlining of production, benefiting
the consumer.
Mr. Addison noted that we are the most interconnected generation
in history. Technology has changed the way people interact with
one another, and RFID technology is another example of this.
Mr. O'Brien said that while the technology has good uses,
like preventing shoplifting, it has a high potential for abuse.
I said that the presenter misunderstands the fundamental agreement
made between producer and consumer. Corporations seek information
to help you. After all, they are the only thing that has ever
brought freedom to uncivilized peoples.
The question was called, and failed 5 to 10 among members
and 0 to 1 among guests. It was noted that those who voted affirmative
will be hunted down and killed by technophile serial killers.
Mr. Sharp, acting on the what legal scholars call the theory
of the Unified Programs Executive, presented
BIR: The DLS will create a subcommittee
under Programs to explore the crawlspace under the Hall.
BFR: This committee will also produce a
time capsule under the Hall for future Demosthenians.
Respectfully submitted,
Casey Sharp
Mr. Dowell spoke against, advocating responsible archaeology.
He proposed the Society poll the alumni listserv in order to
see if another such capsule already exists.
The question was called, and unofficially passed 11 to 3 among
members.
The meeting was adjourned, subject to Ms. Bernhard's critic's
report.
Respectfully submitted,
Marcellus Richards
|
University of Georgia 