Mike Crowley and Emily Freifeld
Despite what some members of the General Assembly think, we are not omnipotent and all-knowing. In order to deal with the problems and concerns of our constituents, we must be well-informed and given plenty of time. However, this was not the case recently. The Sunday before the administration planned on making a decision regarding Starbucks taking over Auntie Anne's, members of Community Action and Social Justice came to the GA. We appreciate that they came to us looking for help, because the purpose of the GA is to serve the student body. At every meeting of the GA, the third order of business is public comment, in which anyone who does not "ordinarily enjoy speaking rights" in the GA is allowed to come forward and voice his or her opinions, beliefs, concerns, issues or ideas.
Some people, after the special session April 6, were angry that we did not stop debate to allow people who had come to support Pura Vida to speak again. If they had wanted to make a comment of some sort, the time to do this was during public comment. Public comment is allowed to continue as long as needed. This was illustrated when more than a half-hour of a meeting was dedicated to public comment during the "Save Our Sports" campaign.
However, time was not on our side. As with most legislative bodies, the GA cannot function on short notice. It is the GA's policy that all members be notified of meetings in advance. So, to further our knowledge and discussion on the issue, a meeting was set for Wednesday evening, giving us three days to poll as many students as possible, in an unbiased and unambiguous manner: "Starbucks or Pura Vida?"
Most representatives came back with similar answers: the majority either doesn't care or doesn't want a coffee shop. Those who did care were split evenly between Starbucks and Pura Vida. Despite was surveys say, they can be very easily skewed by the people giving them. For example, how many people knew about the Eagle's online survey, besides the supporters of Pura Vida? What was the wording of the questions, "Pura Vida vs. Starbucks?" or "Do you support fair trade?" As CASJ reported, most people won't say they don't support fair trade. That doesn't automatically translate into support for Pura Vida.
Having a Starbucks on campus will not ruin the reputation of AU as globally responsible. One cannot deny that AU strives to be socially responsible in all its actions. From this point of view, Pura Vida would seem to be a clear choice. However, the numbers say differently.
While Starbucks only has 1.6 percent of its products as free trade and mainly its brew coffee, this is 20 million tons more coffee than everything Pura Vida produces. If we're looking for an organization that supports farmers, the profits made by the farmers from an extra 20 million tons of coffee can't be ignored. There is no broader impact here. Whether Starbucks comes here or not will not affect the entire Starbucks industry.
On that note, the GA did not ignore "the highly visible efforts of several student groups." On the contrary, we called a special session for the sole purpose of satisfying the concerns of these groups. It is frustrating to hear the GA being condemned when these students came to us for help. And now, because they didn't get what they wanted, they are now bashing the decision and the members themselves. Suddenly, the GA is "useless and out of touch."
Blatantly attacking members, such as Andrew Mullin, is out of line and uncalled for. These people came to us to voice their opinions and thus cannot get angry at members for voicing their opinions. That, ladies and gentleman, is hypocrisy.
If you have a problem with what the GA does, there is one important thing you can do: Run for office. Or, better yet, vote. When only 500 students, a mere 10 percent of the University's undergraduate student body, show up for elections, there is no rhyme or reason to the complaints. The GA is not a giant mind-reader. In order for us to know what our constituents want, you have to come to us - preferably more than a day before a critical decision. Much more could have been done and discussed had we been given more time. Since that was not the case, do not reprimand the GA for making its decision on the little information it had. And if we are to be blamed for lack of information, it is the fault of the students for not bringing more information and knowledge to the meeting. We based our decision on whatever information we gathered and were provided with.
We can't be expected to sway the administration on last-second decisions we could have had months to plan, survey and research. The GA is without a doubt a powerful and influential body. We have the ability to make a change and go against university policy. This has been proven twice this year. Students voiced their concerns and we acted, which was exactly what we did in this case as well.
Many GA members have the idea that the GA has become nothing more than a rubber stamp; students can't expect us to pass everything they put before us arbitrarily. We too are students and have our opinions. In the little time we were given, all members polled as many students in their constituency as they could and voted accordingly. Members of the GA did not take this issue lightly. There were passionate people on both sides of argument. The vote was 11 to 9 with 3 abstentions. This reflects the split in the student body over which it prefers. It was in no way a landslide. Many people's presumption that we would automatically support Pura Vida is inaccurate.
In conclusion, our dear friends, the press should not be used to bad-mouth people you don't agree with. Picking out GA members by name, such as Mullin, is disgraceful. Many quotes used by Mullin and other members were taken out of context and used as a weapon against them. Mullin was quoted as saying, "I want Mexican farmers to suffer." First, the quote was "we're here to support the students, not Mexican farmers." And we do recognize this statement as controversial, but there is validity to that statement. Secondly, Mullin did not even say that; another GA member did.
The GA did the best job it could on such short notice. We praise our fellow GA representatives for doing as much as they could in the short time given, on both sides. They did an excellent job in polling, debating, writing amendments and voting on the issue. No one should hold grudges based on these decisions. If we did that, nothing would be accomplished; everyone has differing opinions on a variety of subjects.
What these articles don't bring up is the hard work the GA representatives did to make the most informed vote they could and the work they do at all meetings. You can't judge a body on one decision it makes. So before you're too quick to judge the GA and its actions, take the time to appreciate all the dedication, work and ambition of the GA that is done for the betterment of the student body.
Mike Crowley is a GA representative for the Class of 2008 and a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. Emily Freifeld is a GA representative for the School of Communication and a freshman in SOC.
