FR07-008: Anti-Discrimination
WHEREAS the University of New Mexico is an educational and academic community committed to diversity, equity and freedom of persecution for all students, staff and faculty;
WHEREAS the Graduate and Professional Student Association (henceforth GPSA) advocates on behalf of all graduate and professional students at University of New Mexico (henceforth UNM);
WHEREAS the GPSA is committed to improving the general situation of graduate and professional students, specifically creating an environment in which all students are free of racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual discrimination;
WHEREAS prevention of discrimination and hate motivated violence against students of color, women and international students are a direct result of the failure of institutional bodies to clearly define, publicly advertise and address what constitutes discrimination and hate crimes;
WHEREAS recent events of discrimination and hate crimes on a national level, most notably exemplified in the case of Jena 6 High School students of Jena, LA, calls for action at the University level in order to ensure proper response and action by the institutional bodies to events motivated by racial hatred;
WHEREAS recent events at UNM involving discrimination against Native American students in public forums, physical assault against international students of Indian decent, desecration of a Mexican flag, and violence against women committed by an undergraduate fraternity member show that immediate action must be taken to ensure such events are not repeated in the future;
WHEREAS in the event of discrimination the Office of Equal Opportunity has set up a grievance procedure available to victims of discrimination, including students, staff and faculty;
WHEREAS the Office of Equal Opportunity grievance procedure is poorly advertised and not readily available to students, staff and faculty;
WHEREAS in the event of hate crimes, there are currently no clear grievance procedures outlined by the University or the Office of Institutional Diversity through which graduate and professional students (or any other members of the University community) at UNM can ensure such events are officially reported and investigated, and the perpetrators of the crimes are held accountable;
WHEREAS in the event of discrimination and hate crimes committed by members of chartered organizations (funded by student fees) the University and the Office of Institutional Diversity do not require any type of educational and/or tolerance training for the members of the organizations with a history of discrimination and/or hate crimes;
WHEREAS in the event of discrimination and hate crimes, there are no proceedings that ensure public knowledge about the particulars of the incidents;
WHEREAS events of discrimination and hate crime are often represented (within University publications and reports) as isolated acts of violence (rather than acts of violence fueled by racial and ethnic hatred) and are often removed from the public eye in order to maintain the image of harmony;
IT IS RESOLVED that the GPSA will take on a leadership role and continue to advocate against hate crimes and discrimination on UNM campus,
IT IS RESOLVED that the GPSA will advocate for graduate and professional students who have been victims of hate crimes or discrimination,
IT IS RESOLVED that the Office of Equal Opportunity will make their policies and procedures in relation to discrimination and harassment widely available and advertised at the beginning of each semester (though brochures and other publications, i.e. Daily Lobo) to all students, staff and faculty,
IT IS RESOLVED that the University administration and the Office of Institutional Diversity will house a committee of students (appointed by ASUNM, the GPSA, and includes at least one undergraduate students, one graduate/professional student, one female student, and one international student), staff and faculty from a variety of departments, schools and colleges, that will develop a clear list of procedures for reporting, investigating and handle formal grievances in handling possible cases of hate crimes,
IT IS RESOLVED that GPSA will appoint a representative to a committee which will work with the University administration and the Office of Institutional Diversity in drafting procedures to deal with complaints of hate crimes which are 1) accessible to students, staff and faculty; 2) observe the principles of social justice and equal rights; 3) provide clear instructions and easy access to the University community to deal with incidents motivated by racial and ethnic hatred; and finally 4) protect the victims, complainant, or any person associated with a complainant,
IT IS RESOLVED that GPSA will appoint a representative to the committee which will handle grievances and follow the procedures set forth to handle cases of hate crimes,
IT IS RESOLVED that the University administration and the Office of Institutional Diversity will set up educational trainings/workshops about discrimination, hate crimes and tolerance for all student organizations at the beginning of each semester,
IT IS RESOLVED that any organization funded by student fees that refuses trainings/workshops will be stripped of their funding because they are acting against University diversity policy,
IT IS RESOLVED the University administration and the Office of Institutional Diversity will be responsible for publicizing any events of discrimination and hate crimes (if permitted by the complainant) to all students, staff and faculty in a manner that represents events and facts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I did not want the email below to have no reply since it was posted on the gpsa listserv just before the blog went online.
1. Not all Indian students who have been affected by the kicker think like the guy below.
2. The guy who was arrested has not been found guilty as yet, and in fact was released on 25 other criminal cases in the last three years for different reasons, prominent being plea for insanity.
3. Since it was I who brought attention of the assualt cases to the authorities, I understand which groups in the UNiversity responded, how and why. If it was not because of some good friends at GPSA, this case would have never been known to any of you. We, the students worked to ensure some measure of justice was received.
4. Re: Mexican flag-- I wonder if Rr understands the full history behind Mexicans in this country. I am positive that if the flag would have been British or Australian, it perhaps would have not been torn, nor would there have been so many vicious postings on the daily lobo website nor on other places-- myspaces, facebook, blogs in city and outside--as there was because it was a Mexican flag.
Bhavana
--------------------
Roshan Rammohan writes:
Ok here are my beefs with the resolution.
The proponents mention 3 incidents to make their case that hate crime is a worrisome trend at UNM and as if there is clear and present danger.
1. Miss Native USA discrimination. (I do not know details about this incident and hence would refrain from commenting.)
2. Attack on Indian students.
I am one of the Indian students that was attacked. Technically, yes, it is a hate crime. The guy has some bolts missing in his brain and has a prejudice.
The attacker had nothing to do with UNM. He was a random homeless guy. In my opinion, it is not imminently worrisome as portrayed by some in the sensationalist media.
It was a nuisance, with a hint of possible escalation. The matter was dealt with but there is nothing much to prosecute him and send him to jail for a century or something.
Personally I am not or sending the guy to jail for a disproportionate amount of time, just cos he kicked people and he's crazy. He's not KKK or anything.
If they subpoena me on his case, I will state this. I think thats borderline misuse of the "Hate crime" paranoia.
3: Desecration of the Mexican flag.
Why is this such an obvious hate crime ? The mexican flag was flying in a public institution unaccompanied by a US flag. The flag code is unclear on this. While it is clear people may display flags of other countries to celebrate their heritage on private property, I think we need expert opinion to decipher if the mexican flag on campus was in bad taste in the first place.
http://www.usflag.org/flagetiquette.html
Flag desecration is not a crime(even if its a US Flag). Damage to property is.
There have been several counter opinions and rally's and support for Peter Lynch all published in Daily Lobo. Do a search.
http://www.dailylobo.com/home/index.cfm?buttonPushed=1&event=displaysearchresults&q=lynch&tiOrderType=1
At worst, its a misinterpretation flag code, misplaced patriotism and damage to property.
Why is this then being pursued to no end and people are unwilling to let go of this misunderstood incident ? This is NOT a hate crime and stop touting it as one. I am not American, but in my country, I would proudly repeat Peter Lynch's act and probably top it off with some gasolene. ( ;) our flag codes are stricter you see.)
General beefs :
Have people established that certainly the mechanisms and authorities on campus are incompetent or unwilling to assist students when it comes to dealing with nuisances like this ?
I noticed that some campus groups have been accused of incompetency in the resolution. For example, the Office of equal opportunity. I personally have had no necessity to deal
with them so far. Whereas, I have certainly seen their posters and flyers around campus and on department notice boards.
I think the proponents need to make a substantiated statement as to why they think this office is under functional. The resolution states that there are "no proceedings that ensure
public knowledge about the particular incidents." There are obvious reasons for that and I wonder if it was that hard to figure out by whoever drafted the resolution.
S**t doesn't need to hit the fan all the time.
In the same vein, if transparency is what is being demanded, I demand transparency on the accusation that the Office of Equal opp is not working well. Tell us why ?
Perhaps, then, we can get the appropriate authorities to coax them to do their job better.
Why should GPSA be burdened with this, when there are existing mechanisms to handle such things ?
If we have a flat, we need a new tire, not try to wind rubber around the steering wheel to replace the tire.
I would rather GPSA focussed on other academic and professional matters important to students' progress rather than issues that are best dealt with the appropriate organizations.
Even if this resolution is needed, its not restricted to graduate students, its required for the entire student body and not restricted to Grads. Which is why a different
UNM is just as safe a place as it has been for the 6 years that I have been here. I despise fear factories.
I am glad that there are at least some voices in the grad student body that are not high strung on emotion and misplaced sentiments. I hope the resolution dies a natural death.
Good luck deliberating and voting.
-Rr
I kind of think all this arguing is a little silly. There is nothing "illegal" about resolving to support anti-discrimination. Unfortunately, we DO need such resolutions. It would be nice to live in a world where hate crimes did not excite, but that is not where we are now. The University is a very strong voice in the community. It is important that the University and its bodies take a stance. We could argue the "semantics" for years and never get anything accomplished. Resolutions can be fine tuned as the necessity arises. The important thing is to put SOMETHING out there letting the campus and community know that graduate and professional students are in favor of anti-discrimination resolutions, legislation etc.
Systematic replies.
1. Of course. Which is why you shouldn't generalize that everyone is affected by this "atrocious crime".
2. Which is a reasonable way to deal with a minor public nuisance.
3. Good deal. Now, lets move on. Since you just established that things are working and still not substantiated what is not working and how.
4. Ridiculous line of argument. It does not matter what you are positive of in your rather creative imagination. We are talking about actual an occurrence.
1. No but some of them do.
2. If he is mentally incompetent what do you propose we do, punish him even though he has been clinically proven not to be able to understand his actions.
3. No reply not a cogent argument.
4. "The full history of the Mexican Flag"????? I am a 5th generation New Mexican and I don't even understand what you mean by that statement....I on the other hand am certain that the flag would have been torn down no matter the nationality....what Lynch did was nationalistic not racist....irregardless of that fact are you a mind reader and can you say for certain what was in Mr. Lynch's head when he tore down the flag.....I don't think so....This resolution is a poor solution....it is negative and reactionary....and does nothing to fix the problem it only heightens tension
Post a Comment