Perhaps you could come up with a more neutral mark? I propose a white plus-sign inside a black circle. Get it, plus for positive, a circle for inclusion? I mean, yeah, it’s almost a cross of St. George, but picking a symbol that’s not the mark of their own kind would be an excellent goodwill gesture from GLOW to the other clubs on campus.

As for the assertion that it’s not a factioning thing, I’ll remain respectfully skeptical. Remember the hate-meeting thing last term, where the clubs that showed up got their name published in the Imprint ad? Did those meetings ever spawn any action, or was it just a show of solidarity? You know, so they could suspiciously cast their eyes upon those clubs that didn’t choose to participate?

In council I addressed this by saying that just because I’m not part of Students for Palistinian Rights, Students for Life or Campus Crusade for Cheese doesn’t mean I’m against Rights, or exclusively pro-choice, or hate gouda. Lack of participation (or in this case public display of support) does not imply that you are against. Granted there will be people against it, such as the person last term who hung a noose in the GLOW meeting room with a note saying “If you just can’t take it anymore, place neck here”.

Also, it’s hard to comment on exactly what details it will be because Positive Space in Feds policy won’t just be for the LGBTQ community (from what I observe). It will be expanded to all minorities, such as Christians and Muslims. It’s action as opposed to a policy saying we support diversity. So wait a bit before condemming my motion…since you haven’t seen it or what we are planning. UW is not Queens.

Volunteers, whether straight or queer, must decide if they are willing to be seen as aligned with the queer community. The long-term goal of the program is to make that question irrelevant.

The point is to get people to be intentional about not being prejudiced, but it still feels like an opportunity for shrill voices to be raised on the “peripheral issues”.

Christine: One word – Google.

You may know it by “Safe Space”.

And as much as I hate exposing my ignorance – what is Postive Space?

I believe I was very knowledgable and informed to be able to have voted at 14. I know you are scared of the liberal bias in teachers (which I believe does exist). Though an argument could be used that on the other side you have people coached by their churches to vote a certain way. I believe that people’s views don’t change much between 14 and 18. I never shared the same political view of my parents, and they differed from the majority of my teachers.

And really, is it not up to them to decide if they think funding to education, etc. is worth voting for? You vote for what you believe at the present. That’s what a vote is for, is to represent you now. Nothing says you can’t change your focus later on. I do believe the civics class contributes to helping you to vote, but you do need to read the platforms and stay up with current events as well.

And you can’t honestly be suggesting that a high-school Civics course prepares one to vote, can you? Voters at that age would simply be proxies for their parents, or worse, their educators.

School-aged votes would basically just vote as a bloc for parties that support high funding to educational needs, without any real consideration for the viability or sustainability of the rest of the platform.