Editors Note: A quorum has been met for the editorial to be considered for publication by our editorial board! The editorial has been passed with a 13-1-0 super majority of the vote!

The University of Pittsburgh Student Government Board (SGB) should be for the voice of all undergraduate, non-CGS students. That said it is the duty of SGB to represent the needs and issues of its constituents as long as there is not a conflict within the student body regarding an issue.

Take for example the crusade to champion the amount of finals per day for students. When SGB passed a resolution regarding that, it was a great resolution and all praises go to current board member Nila Devanath and her academic committee for putting this crusade into motion before the university administration because this resolution benefits all students. So, SGB is representing the needs of its constituents without alienating anyone in the student body when it passed the final exam resolution.

Any resolution taken by SGB should not be a resolution based on a minority view or majority view of the student population unless it benefits every student that voted them into office.

The issues our SGB can pass resolutions on that benefit all students regardless of their gender, religion, race, or ethnicity are these resolutions if they have not already passed:

‘Finals Resolution’ to limit finals per day, for what student would not want to limit finals per day that will benefit them regardless of their gender, race, religion, or ethnicity.
‘Tuition Resolution’ to limit the increase in the tuition for students, for what student would not want a cheaper tuition rate regardless of their gender, race, religion, or ethnicity.
‘Fall Break Resolution’ to allow students to have a fall break like a spring break for what student would be opposed to it regardless of their gender, race, religion, or ethnicity.

These are only 3 examples of resolutions that SGB can pass and not make any student upset. If anything, students will be happy with SGB for taking such an active role in their lives regardless of their gender, race, religion, or ethnicity.

But when SGB decides to step beyond those resolutions and start passing resolutions that not the entire student body will agree with, they are alienating many that voted for them.

SGB should not be about the members’ own political views or appeasing the views of certain organizations such as the Campus Women’s Organization (CWO) which is very amoral in nature on some issues such as abortion at the University of Pittsburgh and is not supportive of women who espouse different views than their own leadership.

Take for example the issue of abortion. When it comes to abortion, the CWO leadership is for it and even rallied for reproductive choice, alienating woman who are Pro-Life.

Is this really an organization for all women regardless of their religious views or political views?

The answer is a flat no! This organization addresses issues that not all women believe in such as pro-abortion, pro-choice, free sex without consequences, and now they want SGB to get involved to lower the rate of birth control pills.

In essence, CWO is a discriminatory organization adhering to a voice of only few on campus, for not all women believe in the mission or activities of CWO when it conflicts with their own religious views or political views.

It is saddening to have found out that on a forum of women’s issues, that CWO is considered the main group to consult and hear from. This is a travesty because their leadership supports reproductive choice, reproductive freedom than birthright or ways to prevent abortion.

For SGB to get involved in issues based on a group like CWO when it does not benefit all women regardless of religion, race, or ethnicity, it is not right.

Not all issues raised by CWO are wrong! There are many valid issues raised at the women’s forum held by SGB that all women regardless of religion, ethnicity, or race can support that SGB should focus its time!

SGB would be right in passing a resolution asking more support for women’s sports, raising awareness about rape and sexual assault, and asking emergency rooms to test students for drugs if the students want to know if they have been drugged.

Of all three issues, the last two are noble causes and protect the female students on campus allowing them to live safely, protected, and cared for. So, for all women who voted the board members into office and for all men who care for the women who voted the members into office, SGB should focus on these two issues passing resolutions on them.

No matter what you hear or believe, a rape or sexual assault is never a fault of the woman because when she says, ‘No!’, No means No’ regardless of how she comes off or dresses! Guys that say, ‘Even though she meant no, she actually meant yes’ should have their head examined in a mental institution.

When a drug is placed in a woman’s drink to make her vulnerable and do things she would not have done if the drug was not in the drink, she is not at fault because if not for the drug, she would not have done things she would have done. In this case, the guy who took advantage of her should have the book thrown at him and the key thrown away. This is not to say that people who take drugs should be excused of consequences. In this particular situation, the woman is drugged by others.

These are issues that SGB should focus on and be deliberate about passing a resolution on instead of a resolution on birth control. SGB wants birth control prices to be lowered for students so they can get them cheaper from college pharmacies than the prices they currently are at because of the Deficit Reduction Act.

Lowering tuition benefits all students but lowering the price of birth control pills does not benefit all students so SGB should stay out of it and let Congress deal with the issue or pharmacies make it an issue on their own.

The resolution on birth control is not even supported by all women that voted these 8 members into office but supported by members of CWO and other organizations which are not a representative of the entire female student body.

There are female students who oppose birth control that voted for SGB members and their views should be adhered too. Especially, there are a lot of Catholic students who oppose birth control because it is against their religious beliefs.

Are we going to force SGB to become a discriminatory organization not caring for the views of many Catholic women who are serious about their Catholic faith when they pass a resolution on birth control?

We hope SGB cares for Catholic students on campus too that are serious in their faith and against the dissemination of birth control or lowering the prices on birth control.

Let it not be said that SGB is anti-Catholic in their views or does not care for the views of Catholic students on campus who practice their faith in diligence!

If this resolution is passed, this is how it would look in light of the fact that when Pitt Program Council (PPC) was about to show the Da Vinci Code that was anti-Catholic in its message and blasphemous to the Name of Jesus Christ, SGB at the time did not even intervene to pass a resolution nor did they pass a future resolution forbidding PPC to put on programming that degrades a person’s faith, gender, religion, race, or ethnicity.

But now, SGB wants to get involved in forbidding pharmaceuticals to have higher prices on birth-control when it goes against what many Catholic students who are serious in their faith believe in!

The issue of birth-control being made available for cheaper prices to students is not just a Catholic issue but a religious issue that all Christian organizations should be worried about.

If SGB passes this resolution, SGB is also being discriminatory when it comes to religion. In essence, SGB will be implicitly saying, ‘We do not care for the views of those who love Jesus and believe sexual immorality is wrong even if the Bible says so! The Bible is against fornication and pre-marital sex but students who don’t love Jesus or believe in the Bible want to have sex so we need to make birth-control available for them at cheaper prices.’

Not everyone believes in the Bible and that is true but many who believe in the Bible and what the Word of God represents also voted for members to be in office so SGB should use their office for issues that pertain to all students and can be agreed upon instead of passing resolutions on controversial issues.

A good leader knows there are consequences for actions and does not try prevent negative consequences from happening for a negative action. When that happens, it is how corruption, bribery, and the loss of respect results.

SGB should be seen by the student body as a leadership organization that realizes there are consequences for the actions people want to take and that it will not interfere to make the consequences lighter.

If woman students want to have sex outside of marriage, one of the consequences could be pregnancy out of wedlock unless they take a birth-control pill but there is a cost involved for people’s actions. In this case, it will cost a higher amount of money to buy and take a birth-control pill before having sex. SGB should not interfere to make the consequences lighter.

If SGB passes the resolution on birth-control in support of CWO, it opens itself to have resolutions passed in support of other organizations on campus such as College Republicans, etc. In the CR meetings you learn the hostility of many professors towards those that espouse a conservative view of politics or a deeply held religious view that governs their decisions. We have not seen SGB pass a resolution against those professors.

The point being is SGB cannot and should not get itself involved in every student organization’s fight because then it has to involve itself in all the student organization’s fights lest it be seen as discriminatory.

To make things easier that benefit all students, SGB should work on the five resolutions mentioned above instead of the resolution on birth control. Let us not make SGB into partisan politics but have dedication and integrity fighting for issues that put all students first.

We ask board members Nila Devanth, Lacee Eckers, Ryan Haddad, Amanda Reed, Gary Sanderson, Perry Servedio, Francee Varner, and Ryan Very to table the resolution on birth control permanently and focus on the other five resolutions. If the resolution is definitely going up for a vote, we ask the board to vote against this resolution that will be submitted and focus on more pertinent issues.

Left to right: Chancellor Mark Nordenberg, Board members Amanda Reed, Lacee Eckers, Gary Sanderson, Francee Varner, Ryan Haddad, Nila Devanath, Perry Servedio, Ryan Very, and president Sumter Link!

Express Your View

Feedback:

"No! I agree with the general point, but I also believe it to be too blunt of an approach to the topic."
A dissenting editorial board member

.Click picture to read my dad's memoriam:

Nov 01, 1941 - Dec 17, 2007

Previous Editorials:

Pitt News Rebuttal Editorial: "People Provider For Ongoing Abortions Abhors Administration of Bush " (Jan 24, 08, 9:30 a.m.)

Editorial: "GOP's Gutless, Giving Guiliani Galvanization!" (Jan 19, 08, 2:02 a.m.)

Editorial: "Patriots Perfectionist, Bill Belichick Tumbles Through Treason" (Feb 05, 08, 2:08 a.m.)

Editorial: "‘Gone Baby Gone’ Gives Gritty Guarantee!" (Feb 13, 08, 1:03 p.m.)

Reproduction or reuse for profit prohibited without written consent from Pittsburgh Standard