In its last meeting of the 20th session, the Associated Students of Madison voted down the proposed Diversity Plan Framework, unless a list of conditions were met and executed by the authoring committee.
The Ad Hoc Diversity Planning Committee finalized a draft aimed at improving the campus climate and overall diversity efforts from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a mission that was assigned to the group in November 2012.
Numerous ASM representatives asserted that with the final draft, there were many areas of diversity that were left unanswered, including monetary action associated with the plan’s execution and accountability measures.
“It’s our one opportunity for the next five to 10 years to get an institutionalized plan for diversity on our campus, so it’s vital that we make this the best plan that we can,” said ASM Diversity Committee Chair Jessica Behling.
Among a list of conditional statements regarding the plan, ASM calls for the framework to include a Diversity Plan Funding Committee to research the plan’s funding sources and a measure of yearly accountability check-ins.
ASM would consider its support of the diversity plan, if and when the conditions are met and actualized.
“It’s not just about this plan or the words in this plan or even about diversity or even about access; it’s about student power on these issues,” ASM representative Emily Reich said.
Regardless of the decision from other shared governance bodies, Ad Hoc Committee Chair Ryan Adserias said University Committee and Faculty Senate intend to accept the draft as a report and move forward with the plan’s implementation.
Once the framework leads to a call for actual university changes, approval is required across all shared governance bodies before implementation can take place.
Though the framework may be accepted by the other governance bodies, Shared Governance Committee Chair Sarah Neibart said with the presented conditions, ASM is making a statement on what students want to see out of campus diversity efforts.
ASM members also approved a budget alteration for United States Student Association, a line item that was zeroed in the initial internal budget decision during first semester.
The USSA, a local and national level advocacy group, lost segregated fee funding due to the groups association with policy issues, including abortion and military involvement.
Based off assurances by the group’s leaders that the previous issues are no longer apart of USSA’s platform, the organization requested Student Council reassess its membership.
Following debate, Council members decided to fund half of the required $21,410 membership immediately, with the second half contingent on if USSA will maintain its separation from the policies.
