*

Student Union senate meetings are relatively tame. Debate consists of differing parties sharing a speaker's list, moving methodically through the motions of democracy with the rarest of hiccups. 
*
However, when I heard the Cannabis Culture Club was on the agenda, I cleared my Sunday afternoon. The purpose of the club would be to advocate for the legalization of hemp and marijuana in a drug free environment. The club's representatives, a group of six diverse and spirited speakers, had quite a bit to say. They discussed the benefits of hemp, the trend toward legalization and the way in which discussion is fundamental to policy change. 
The Union then asked a few basic questions about the goals of the organization, and proceeded into a discussion where the members of the club had to leave the room, standard procedure for all clubs looking to be recognized by the Union.
*
What ensued could best be described as a dog trying to catch its tail. The debate began calmly, but quickly became contentious, polarized in the extreme and profoundly interesting. Analogies ranged between the Klu Klux Klan and the Queer Policy Alliance. Reasons to charter the club included: "Why not?" "discourse!" and "the administration doesn't hate it," while those against the club used arguments ranging from "they should join Students for Environmental Action" to "illegality" to "asthma." 
*
The end verdict 30 minutes later, 5 in favor, 11 against, and 1 abstain, clearly reflected personal opinions, as opposed to any constitutional reason to recognize the club or not. The discussion at its best was muddled, at its worst, crass.
*
Amid all the heated rhetoric and discussion underlies a more sinister and frightening truth: The Union has embraced its rituals, its unanimous votes and formalized rules, to the point that it has forgotten why it votes the way that it does. The Union has become so comfortable with what is easy to extract from its founding documents, that the senators have neglected the larger philosophies of purpose imbued within the Union's constitution and bylaws. 
They have so honed in on specific and simple reasons for not recognizing clubs, such as 'duality of purpose' and 'inclusivity,' that they don't have any larger principles to fall back upon.
*
Their division on the Cannabis Culture Club reflected the discord surrounding the Union's purpose, and the role that senators' votes play in that purpose. 
*
Some senators decided to vote based on constitutionality, moral right, constituent base, or personal feeling. It wasn't clear what they were supposed to vote on, so each senator decided for himself. 
*
I am not a proponent of marijuana. I don't think that people need another high-risk decision to make, I think that it is an abuse of the human body and physically addictive. Be that as it may, I am for freedom of speech. As is the saying so often surrounding the Westboro Baptist Church: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will always defend your right to say it." I personally believe that it is wrong for our student-elected officials to reject a club because of personal disagreements with its purpose. I don't think that the Union should reject a club for Democrats because they are Republicans, or to reject the Queer Policy Alliance because they believe that homosexuality is a choice. Without the Cannabis Culture Club, who will convince me that I am wrong?
*
When it comes down to it, rejecting a club based on any grounds other than constitutional ones is censorship. It is the imposition of the opinions of some to suppress the spread of the opinions of others. Our student government should not allow itself to be a part of this oppression of speech, and adjudication of opinion. Ultimately, I think that the right to freedom of expression is far more fundamental and far more important to Brandeis' mission of social justice. Good ole' Louie would never silence the Queer Policy Alliance, the Westboro Baptist Church or the Cannabis Culture Club.
*
The 20 words in the Student Union Bylaws on the recognition of clubs are that 1) The club may not be a fraternity or sorority, and 2) that the club cannot "duplicate the purpose or goals of another currently Recognized or Chartered Organization." When approached by a prospective club, the senators should only vote on these stated and explicit rules. The Cannabis Culture Club is unique.  It may share some motives of environmental activism with other clubs, but ultimately its overall message and purpose is the legalization of cannabis, a goal no other club on campus even remotely shares.  
*
Duality of purpose is the only stipulation in the constitution as to why clubs should not be recognized, and thus it is really the only reason the seante should not recognize. 
Clubs are the way in which ideas and thought are spread on campus, and ultimately allowing all people to share their ideas best serves Brandeis' social goals, and students' best interests.  
*
I expect more out of our elected officials. I expect the members of the Union to realize that discourse, in all of its forms is a positive thing. I expect the Union to look beyond its personal aversion to the desires of some members of its student body. I had hoped the Union would hold itslef to a higher standard. Not what they felt but what is right. Not what is easy, but what is just.
*
Luckily the Union understands that it needs to address this issue. This Sunday's meeting,  the Union decided on a date to discuss why they recognize clubs, and what the basis for recognition should be. I for one hope they choose well. 
*
Grady Ward is the non-senate committee chair of the Club Support Committee.