John Anagnost, chairperson of Rules and Judiciary Committee, introduced the concurrent resolution, discussed at length at the meeting on Tuesday. Anagnost said he didn’t intend for the resolution to be a call to action for UNC.
“I want to make it clear ... My intention here is we approve of the procedural approach they took.”
In general, most members viewed the resolution favorably, but other representatives had concerns.
One concern was who to send the resolution to, which prompted more debate on whether or not to include student groups on the list.
The Campus Y was included in the list at first, but it was taken off after some representatives thought the resolution wouldn’t be appropriate to send to other groups, like the Real Silent Sam Coalition.
In the end, members agreed to send the resolution to The Daily Tar Heel, the Student Senate at the University of Mississippi, UNC’s student government, and administrators at UNC and the UNC system.
David Joyner, speaker of Student Congress, read a typed statement about comparing UNC to Mississippi.
“It is easy to want to compare ourselves to Ole Miss and to ask why we aren’t demanding these changes through Student Congress,” he read. “(John Brahan, president of the Student Senate at University of Mississippi) made it clear that much thought and research went into what the student government and student body were empowered to do at his university before actions were taken.”
Representative JoJo Drake’s concerns mirrored what Anagnost said in his introduction. She said the resolution only needs to be about Mississippi.
“We should not try to use this as a means for our own goals,” she said.
She said Student Congress is going to reach out to student organizations about the resolution to bridge the gap between student representatives and student groups on campus.
Cole Simons, chairperson of the Oversight and Advocacy Committee, said the resolution supports and appreciates the process the University of Mississippi’s Student Senate took to enact change.
“We haven’t done all the necessary research to make an informed opinion on it,” he said. “We don’t want it to come across as us saying we wholly support these changes at UNC. Basically, we will come back in the future ... saying once we’ve done our research, we plan on entering these conversations.”