SENATE SUPPORTS REPEAL OF DRUG LAW

The University of Rhode Island Student Senate voted Wednesday night to
support a bill in the House of Representatives that would repeal the
portion of the 1998 Higher Education act mandating students or prospective
students who have been convicted of any drug-related offense to be denied
eligibility for federal financial aid.

There are currently 67 members of the House of Representatives who have
co-sponsored the bill. Rhode Island congressmen Langevin and Kennedy are
not currently co-sponsors.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) helped to bring this measure to
the senate with their petition that was signed by over 1,000 students and
faculty members.

URI joined over 90 other colleges and universities nationwide who passed
similar resolutions according to the press release from SSDP. URI was the
first campus in Rhode Island to pass such a resolution according to SSDP
president Thomas Angell.

"Massive amounts of students and faculty have raised their voices in
support of this bill," Angell said. "We must not let the war on drugs
become the war on education."

"86,898 students have been denied aide because of drug convictions," SSDP
member Isaac Mamaysky said. "Education is a right, denying it should not be
a punishment."

Members of the senate echoed the statements of SSDP in support of the bill.

"Barring someone from federal financial aid for a drug conviction is either
racist or classist," Senator Eric Venet said.

"[This bill] would not effect those who have not had drug convictions,"
Academic Affairs Chair Jesse Whitsitt-Lynch said.

Only one senator voted against the support of this bill by the student senate.

"Financial aid should be given to people that deserve it, not people that
take drugs," Senator Marc Bialek said. "Everybody knows that [drugs] are
illegal."

The senate also debated over its own expansion through the inclusion of new
seats. The bill, which failed after prolonged debate, proposed to expand
the body by five members, adding two multicultural representatives, one
freshman representative and two degree-granting undergraduate college
seats. Debate focused on the proposed addition of the multicultural
representatives.

"This body should reflect a world that you will live in once you leave this
campus," Director of the University Multicultural Center Melvin Wade said.

Senators in support of the bill questioned the current diversity of the
senate, as well as the current difficulties multicultural students
encounter in running for senate.

"I've had members of different multicultural organizations express their
interest in running for senate, but don't feel that they can get elected,"
Cultural Affairs Committee Chairman Kevin Lopes said. "This bill gives
minority students another avenue to get on the senate."

"The senate is not representative of the student body," Senator Mbuyamba
Tshibaka said. "Different groups on campus feel disenfranchised."

"Calling this seat a cultural affairs representative will encourage
minority students to run," President Domenic Murgo said, referring to the
provision in the bill changing the name from multicultural representative
to cultural affairs representative.

Those speaking against the bill suggested that adding the seat might give
minorities an unfair advantage, and whether it is necessary for the seat to
be aimed at multicultural affairs at all.

"A cultural seat does not equal a minority seat because we cannot make the
qualification that you have to be a minority," Campus Affairs Chair Lindsay
Unger said.

"By creating these seats, while the intentions behind it are good, it
suggests that we need to create a special situation for them to qualify to
be on senate," Senator Evan Duggan-Lever said.

"The student senate needs to understand that they represent not individual
people, but the student body as a whole," Senator Eddy Pacheco said.

An amendment failed that would eliminate the multicultural representative
and replace it with a general representative.

Senators suggested the debate might not have been necessary.

"A lot of the problem had to deal with people not doing their homework,"
Whitsitt-Lynch said.

"The senators had two weeks to analyze this bill," Senator Chris McMahon said.

Senators also proposed that some might have been unwilling to speak during
debate.

"People were terrified of being called racist," Whitsitt-Lynch said.