1. As you see it, what exactly happened and what is your opinion of the ban that Dean Holmes put on the students?
2. Do you know if they will be doing anything to fight this ban?
3. Do you feel that the students were within the rights to behave like they did at the Women's Union presentation (ie. video taping)?
4. I know your not directly involved in this, but you have taken a lot of interest in it on the Claremont Conservative-- what is your involvement with this incident?
5. Why did the students attend the presentation at the Women's Union?
7. Do you know what, if anything, CMC's deans are doing about this?
Sunday, March 8, 2009
My Answers to Pomona newspaper, The Student Life
Given the history of the Student Life to twist words, I thought I would guarantee against that by putting it online so that you can see for yourself what I said before it goes to print.
show details 5:39 PM (1 minute ago)
Reply
Hi Jamie,
I just thought I would let you know that I'll be putting my responses up on the blog.
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Jamie Goldberg <jbg02007@mymail.pomona.edu> wrote:
Thanks for the response.
I think the ban is a disgusting violation of the spirit and the letter of the Claremont Colleges and that Dean Holmes has committed a grave error in judgment that doesn't befit an Associate Dean of Students. Dean Feldblum didn't even talk to the boys before she sent out an awful email to the entire Pomona campus.
Both Kyle and David have informed me that they will be fighting the ban until it is rescinded. Over 500 people have joined the "Don't Ban Kyle and David from Pomona" facebook group. It was only created three days ago!
I don't "feel" as if they were within their rights. I know they were. Statute 632 B of the California law allows anyone to record a public event even if the parties don't consent to it. The law is very clear about this. As for the behavior of the students, I've watched the video in its entirety three times now and they show characteristic politesse. Kyle, don't you know, will be the valedictorian of Claremont McKenna.
I was the one who gave David the flyer advertising the talk and suggested that he go. I have taken an interest because it shows the hypocrisy of Dean Marcelle Holmes who has not and will not punish the Pomona students for their disruptive conduct during the illegal immigration debate or the vandalism of the Karl Rove protests.
As I understand it they saw it as an opportunity to have a dialogue about abortion. Both VOX and Live Action want people to understand and be "aware" of abortion, for obviously different reasons. In the past, VOX has said that they don't want to "legitimate" the views of Live Action by debating them.
6. How do you think this situation should have been handled?
I think nothing less than an apology from Deans Marcelle Holmes and Miriam Feldblum will do -- and of course, a complete reversal of the ban, a stated policy that this won't happen again, and an email to the entire Claremont Colleges student body apologizing to David and Kyle personally.
So far the CMC deans' response has been unfortunate, but I suspect that as they get more and more emails from concerned alums that they'll change their stated policy of not caring. The comments on the blog against Dean Fid Castro in particular have been very critical, to say the least. I strongly disagree with CMC's decision to hand over mug shots of the boys to be distributed to Pomona RAs, as if they were wanted criminals.
In short, I hope to be able to eat in Frary with my friends again -- and soon!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
haha, Please do post the TSL version.
I bet 2-1 that the bit about Kyle being the valedictorian will be removed
Charles,
Slight correction, it's California Penal Code 632(c) which protects their actions.
"The term "confidential communication" includes any
communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded."
There was clearly a reasonable expectation that the conversation would be overheard.
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/632.html
I sure hope that they're also interviewing Kyle and David, since they're the folks in question...are they?
--Amanda
Where'd the deleted post go
It'll be back in a few days. It was worried that that post would jeopardize negotiations tomorrow.
since when is pomona college a public place?
Anonymous,
The event was advertised with fliers around the 5C campuses; that's what made it public. If it hadn't been advertised (as an "open forum," by the way, much like the one being offered by Dean Feldblum,) then the case would be different. As it is, it's pretty clear-cut in favor of Kyle and David.
It's private property, but public space. (Advertised to the greater 5C community.)
Public space is the same reason why students need red cups to walk around with alcohol - even though it's private property, it's still drinking in public.
Post a Comment