A highly amended version of the “”Pro-America Resolution,”” originally submitted by the Freedom Alliance/Pro-America Coalition, passed the A.S. Council by a vote of 15 to 3, with two abstentions at the Nov. 28 meeting. The resolution and the debate surrounding it raised questions about possible partisan tendencies of the A.S. Council.

The resolution passed was titled “”Resolution Supporting America’s Institutions.”” It includes six clauses, primarily honoring the servicemen and women, police officers and firefighters involved in the Sept. 11 crisis and its aftermath.

All mention of the American flag, as originally included in the version submitted by the Freedom Alliance/Pro-America Coalition, was removed when the bill went through amendment by the council.

The A.S. Council passed the “”Anti-Hate Resolution”” at the Sept. 26 meeting, which responded to the Sept. 11 attacks. That resolution reaffirmed the UCSD Principles of Community and condemned acts of hate.

The recently formed Freedom Alliance/Pro-America Coalition is composed of the Marksmanship Club, the Unified Campus Coalition, the UCSD Conservative Union, the College Republicans, The California Review and 280 UCSD students via a petition drive.

Vince Vasquez, UCSD Conservative Union spokesman, said he feels the “”Resolution Supporting America’s Institutions”” as passed does not match the intentions of his organization. The UCSD Conservative Union challenged the actions of the A.S. Council on the issue.

“”The members of the Freedom Alliance have been more than willing to ‘compromise,’ which included a lot of us giving in and them taking, not giving, and the fact that they thought they could simply sneak these amendments through is disturbing,”” Vasquez said. “”They paid no notice to the 280 signatures collected over four days supporting this resolution, but rather their personal political ideologies. The question must be asked, ‘Is the UCSD student government really representing the students of UCSD?’ “”

The UCSD Conservative Union expressed disapproval of the amendments to their submitted resolution.

“”We asked the A.S. to support our national flag, which embodies our national ideals of freedom and unity and democracy,”” Vasquez said. “”Vice Presidents Dylan de Kervor and Jenn Brown expressed their disapproval of the flag, and in public meetings degraded it to a symbol of oppression, murder, racism and bigotry. It is also the opinion of the supporters of the Resolution that throughout the 8th and 10th week A.S. Council meetings, we were treated like children with inane needs and concerns, having to be handled, controlled, patronized by the A.S. Council leadership. Their support for the hostile amendments dishonor the millions of men and women, who, in the last century alone, rallied under the American flag as a symbol of freedom, including my own grandfather.””

A.S. Vice President External Dylan Nicole de Kervor stressed her involvement in the negotiations over the amendments to the resolution.

“”I saw it as a situation of compromise,”” she said. “”To call us childish when we met them on every claim is unfounded.””

The language of the bill was changed from the original form to focus on the contributions of servicemen. The amendments, as well as removing mention of the flag and George W. Bush’s name, elaborated on the support for members of the military and service corps.

“”In no way does support for the amendments proposed by [de Kervor] ‘dishonor the millions of men and women, who, in the last century alone, rallied under the American flag as a symbol of freedom’ as [Vasquez] suggests, for [the passed resolution] clearly states that ‘we honor the men and women of our nation’s military, their spouses and children, and the sacrifices they all make for our nation; as well as our fellow peers, as ROTC and enlisted personnel, having joined the military to seek out opportunity, access to education, and a better way of life, whom must now answer the call of their nation,'”” said A.S. Vice President Internal Jenn Brown.

The omission of language involving the flag is centerfold to the controversy over the resolution.

“”Myself and the A.S. Council in no way meant any disrespect to our nation or our nation’s flag in wanting that portion of the resolution deleted,”” said A.S. President Jeff Dodge. “”Students had expressed concern over the necessity of such a statement when the alleged intent of the resolution was not one of evoking patriotism and ‘Pro America’ sentiments. Rather, the Freedom Alliance sought appreciation and respect for our nation’s institutions, especially those most effected by both the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and the destruction of Sept. 11.””

De Kervor pushed her view that the flag should not be included to the Senate.

“”I didn’t think the American flag should have been included,”” she said. “”The same flag has flown over plantations and internment camps.””

Resolutions are passed by votes by the senators, a body of 20 students within the A.S. Council, including four from each of the five colleges. The amended resolution was passed by 15 senators. The three who voted against it were Warren Junior Senator Lauren Lee, Muir Sophomore Senator Ruba Bataniji and Revelle Freshman Senator Joachim Lyon. Their reasons for opposition varied.

“”For the most part I voted ‘no’ on the resolution because I felt the legislation was superfluous and unnecessary,”” Lyon said. “”When I passed by the public signature booth on Library Walk I found that I agreed with almost every point made in the resolution. However, I firmly believe that it was not necessary to pass such a resolution, considering the fact that one has already been passed regarding support for those people directly involved in the attacks on Sept. 11.””

Members of the council said the amendment of the resolution was so it would represent the majority of their constituents, the students.

Bataniji said she feels that even the amended version did not accomplish this.

“”I opposed the resolution in the interest of preserving freedom of opinion for UCSD students,”” Bataniji said. “”There are more effective ways of showing support than gauging student opinion on such a diverse campus.””

Vasquez and the Freedom Alliance maintained that the resolution did in fact represent the views of the majority of the students.

“”We thank the senators for their support, as the values the UCSD Freedom Alliance/Pro-America Coalition stands for are mainstream, and are supported by the majority of the campus,”” Vasquez said. “”It has become apparent to the supporters of the resolution, as well as those we have discussed this matter outside campus, that the actions taken by the A.S. leadership do not need reprimand; rather, that they be recognized as an injustice to our freedom and those who embody it, at the expense of personal opinions of student representatives.””

Kyle R. Biebesheimer, the A.S. commissioner of student advocacy, said he sees the controversy surrounding the resolution as indicative of a larger problem.

“”It is not my place to criticize my colleagues on the council and their own personal views regarding the Bush administration’s response to the tragedies of Sept. 11,”” Biebesheimer said. “”I fully respect the positions of each of our members. But honestly, when the A.S. Council is composed of so many liberals, one has to wonder whether conservatives have any say on this campus, even on issues that Democrats and Republicans stand united on in Washington.””

Dodge said he feels the resolution presented a question about the role of the A.S. Council.

“”This resolution sparked healthy conversations and debate about the extent of which the [A.S. Council] should take stances on national issues and for the first time in my A.S. career, challenged my political views on America’s current situation with those of students who felt different than myself,”” he said.

Dodge acknowledged his own political views on the topic, but expressed that he supported the amendment and passing of the resolution in order to best represent all students. He said he feels the political mobilization that went into the resolution is a positive change on campus.

“”From the beginning, this new conservative front via the Freedom Alliance finally brings a chance for this university and especially the students to actively engage themselves politically,”” Dodge said. “”I myself felt inclined to veto the legislation if unamended and passed by the A.S. Council — something that was in no way even going to happen with the previous legislation — but felt it was important to represent all students’ views in the A.S. Council.””

Brown agreed.

“”I am extremely impressed by the bipartisan work which went into this resolution and remain confident in my position that the A.S. Council passed a resolution that the most number of students possible agree with,”” Brown said.

The Freedom Alliance has staged many efforts to support the national government’s actions in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and to promote the “”Pro-American”” sentiment, including a “”Pro-America Rally”” last quarter.

Vasquez said he feels that the student government’s failure to pass the original resolution is indicative of a larger problem.

“”What disturbs us most is that if our A.S. leaders feel no obligation, no interest in supporting unity and freedom in the American flag, and our call to Chancellor [Robert C.] Dynes, and Vice Chancellors [Joseph] Watson and [James] Langely to support the flag were unanswered, the question remains: Who will support freedom on campus?”” Vasquez stated. “”All of us support diversity, respect and tolerance; what about unity, democracy, and liberty, the bedrock of our nation, and our way of life?””

The originally submitted resolution, and the resolution as it was passed, can be viewed on the Web site of The California Review, at http://www.acs.ucsd.edu/~calrev/ news/ascouncil111401.html.