Saying it is unfortunate, but we have to let students choose.
She also says that from what she has seen from other campuses, referendums on CFS are heated and campuses blow up with information.
She is not worried that most students will know about the issue.
She feels it would be irresponsible to put students that are against the CFS during the referendum oversight committee of 2-2. But she trusts the Board to choose these two members in an objective way.
Danika gives another example to understand the CFS and why they need to come on campus. She talks about SAFA (Arts Association at the U of O) and they would separate from the SFUO. She says that if they decided to join back, people from the SFUO would go back to discuss with students from SAFA.
She says it is the same thing, and it is seen differently because it is people from outside of the campus, but to her it is the same thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Can you explain what Danika meant when you paraphrase her as saying "it is unfortunate, but we have to let students choose"?
I feel like I must be misunderstanding her point. It sounds like students having a say on the issue is an inconvenience to weather.
I don't know where Wassim go that, but obviously I support students voting on this question,
Ever time a member of the Board spoke, I made a posting.
The intervention before Danika's, by Joel Fair's proxy, was followed directly by Danika.
The Proxy "Louise", said there is no information whatsoever on the Referendums that take place already and she is not sure there there would be more attention given to this one.
Danika responded by saying "It is unfortunate [information on referendums], but we have to let students choose.
That is where I got it from. Sorry for not being clear enough.
Post a Comment