Flags are Hate Speech at UC Irvine according to Associated Students council

[bluebayou]

huh, no. The actions of the students was vetoed by the parent student group. (The Chancellor does not vote on that body; heck, he’s not even a member.)

[romanigypsyeyes]

I personally think that all too often we worship a flag as just the flag and not the people and ideals behind it.

A good example is the hypocritical politicians who fight for the flag and cut help to vets. I see this too often to buy into the flag worship.

[jym626]

You are correct, bluebayou.
From the chancellor on March 8:

As a formal expression of the true views of the UCI community, the Executive Cabinet of our student government has now vetoed this resolution, stating that they “fundamentally disagree with the actions taken by the ASUCI Legislative Council” on this issue. I applaud this action and am proud of the members of the Executive Cabinet, as I am proud of the many other students who made sure that their opposition to the original effort was clearly heard on this campus and around the world. Special thanks are owed a member of our outstanding ROTC program, who volunteered to stand guard over the disputed flag while this issue was being resolved.

Chancellor Howard Gillman

I have posted this link multiple times. Maybe someone will read it… http://www.asuci.uci.edu/flag/

[Bay]

Ok my bad. The six students passed the ban, then the Chancellor issued his letter condemning their action on March 8, saying this:

But these six students were acting in an official capacity, as members of a small sub-set of our student government known as Legislative Council, and it was outrageous and indefensible that they would question the appropriateness of displaying the American flag on this great campus.

The administration swiftly, strongly, and publicly denounced the action.

The Chancellor and administration denounced the action. Then it was vetoed by the executive board. Seems somewhat naive to claim the Chancellor had nothing to do with the end result. But maybe he didn’t and it would have been vetoed anyway.

[Bay]

romani,

Maybe people don’t “worship” the flag, they just like it.

[sorghum]

A lot of the most fervent flag supporters are not big on free speech if it says something with which they disagree.

[jym626]

No, Bay. That is not correct. It did NOT happen the way you describe. The Association President denounced the legislation on Mar 5. , the very day the legislation was passed:

ASUCI president Reza Zomorrodian confirmed the resolution in a post published to the student government group’s official Facebook page (in which he voiced opposition to the resolution):

Students,
ASUCI Legislative Council recently passed a piece of legislation regarding the display of the American flag and it’s [sic] prohibition of display in ASUCI common space. I stand firmly against this piece of legislation, though I understand the authors intent and supporters intent, I disagree with the solution Council has come to. I speak for myself about my feelings on this piece of legislation however as Chair of the Executive Cabinet we will be having a conversation about this piece of legislation and deciding what course of action the cabinet will take collectively. If you have any questions regarding the legislation and your elected offices stance please contact the respective executive or council member.

The Executive Cabinet vetoed it on Mar. 7.

Executive Cabinet Veto of R50-70
We the Executive Cabinet of the Associated Students of the University of California, Irvine convened on March 7th, 2015 to officially veto ASUCI Legislative Council legislation R50-70, “Flags and decoration adjustment for inclusivity”. We engage in this action to veto under the constitutional authority granted to us under Article V, Section B, Sub-Section 2 of the ASUCI Constitution stating:

“Vetoing, as seen fit, any measures adopted by the Legislative Council, provided such an action be exercised only once per measure, and within six (6) days from the date of the measure being passed, after which time, the measure shall become legislation with or without the Executive Cabinet’s approval.”

We fundamentally disagree with the actions taken by ASUCI Legislative Council and their passage of R50-70 as counter to the ideals that allow us to operate as an autonomous student government organization with the freedoms of speech and expression associated with it. It is these very symbols that represent our constitutional rights that have allowed for our representative creation and our ability to openly debate all ranges of issues and pay tribute to how those liberties were attained.

As students in an academic institution we encourage all students on campus to participate in open debate about a wide array of issues and to actively engage in academic curiosity, which lies at the backbone of a preeminent academic research institution. It is this freedom to be able to navigate and explore topics on a wide range of issues that we see at risk if we begin to engage in a particular form of regulation of free speech and its expression through symbols in any space associated with our organization.

We as well want to reaffirm our commitment to diversity as a campus in all aspects and ideals associated with it. The concept of inclusion and diversity is a core pillar in the mission of University of California system and we wish to continue to work to have these important discussions of what our campus is doing to make this a priority.

Signed:

ASUCI Executive Cabinet

The The Chancellor posted a letter on Mar 8. Your information is not accurate.

[Bay]

A lot of the most fervent flag supporters are not big on free speech if it says something with which they disagree.

So? A lot of the most anti-flag people are not big on free speech if it says something with they disagree.

[Bay]

jym,

Did you miss this piece from the link you posted? The administration publicly denounced the action BEFORE it went to veto.

Earlier this week, six undergraduate members of the UCI’s student-government Legislative Council passed a bill that bans hanging a flag from any nation in the common lobby area of the student government offices.

This misguided decision was not endorsed or supported in any way by the campus leadership, the University of California, or the broader student body. The views of a handful of students passing a resolution do not represent the opinions of the nearly 30,000 students on this campus, and have no influence on the policies and practices of the university.

The American flag is still proudly flying throughout our campus and will continue to do so.

Student-body president Reza Zomorrodian has publicly opposed the legislation. The Executive Cabinet of the student government will meet today to discuss a veto.

[jym626]

What exactly is an “anti-flag person”???

And please stop posting inaccurate information. The school’s council addressed and rejected the legislation. Not the Chancellor.

[jym626]

No Bay, the chancellor wrote that on Mar 8. The STUDENT COUNCIL denounced it, not the administration. I suspect the administration stayed out of it initially to let the student government handle their own. But all acted swiftly. Just not in the order you report. Nowhere in the quote you posted does it say the administration publicly denounced it before the veto.

[Bay]

What exactly is an “anti-flag person”

The six student who voted to ban the flag would obviously be some.

[jym626]

Gotta love these new definitions. Because they didn’t want any flags displayed in that particular area, does that make them “anti flag”? Really? Thats silly. Are there any other “anti-flag” people you can name, and document that they disagree with free speech?

[Bay]

jym,

The way I understand the UCI student government to function is, that the Legislative council passes legislation (the flag ban), and such legislation can be vetoed by the Executive Cabinet.

In this case, the Leg council passed the ban by a 6-4 vote, the administration then publicly denounced it (see above), then the Exec Cab vetoed it, then the Chancellor wrote a letter summarizing it all (his denunciation was described in the past tense).

[bluebayou]

sorry, Bay, but you have your dates incorrect.

The vote to ban (6-4-2) was on March 6. The Executive Cabinet of the Students over-rode that vote on March 7. The Chancellor gave his pronouncement on March 8.

And btw: I know of very few student political leaders who would be kow-towed by a Chancellor’s speech. (They believe in their “power”.)

[jym626]

No Bay, I think you misread the sequence of events. The Administration, as you know, is separate from the student government. The timeline indicates that the student government addressed the legislation, denounced and subsequently vetoed it. Then the Chancellor responded with a description of the week’s events.

[Bay]

I was responding to sorghum’s post in a shorthand manner. Ok, I’ll rephrase if I must to appease you:

Some of the most fervent non-supporters (?) (opponents?) (anti-flaggists?) are not big on free speech if it says something with which they disagree.

[jym626]

You can “appease me”,(sheesh) by acknowledging that your account of the incident was not as you relate it. Even Snopes does a better job of reporting the timeline. Good grief.

[Bay]

Jym,

The Administration IS the Chancellor.

[jym626]

Have you READ the thread and the sequence of the links?? If you followed this thread from its inception, you’d see that the student government vetoed the legislation http://www.asuci.uci.edu/legislative/legislations/R50-70.html Then there was a generic comment from “the administration” (unsigned) and then a letter from the chancellor the next day. But Bay, the administration and/or The Chancellor (yes, no kidding, the Chancellor is part of the University administration), are NOT the Student Government.

If you don’t want to believe me, believe bluebayou. Good grief.