What did the Student Assembly's resolution about concealed weapons accomplish?

After I received the Student Assembly's Resolution 17 in my inbox, I nearly fell out of my chair. If passed by the Student Assembly (SA), this legislation would express support for carrying concealed weapons on campus.

In the wake of the tragic events at Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech, I thought (and I still think) it was absolutely ridiculous that the SA might support such a policy on campus.

As word spread around campus that the SA would be discussing this issue, I witnessed a media explosion from campus newspapers, blogs, personal Web sites and even my Facebook wall (thanks to people posting videos and news stories).

As someone who has worked hard to improve the tainted reputation of the SA, I was nervous that the introduction of this resolution would cause people to think that we were looking for a cheap publicity stunt. Knowing the sponsors pretty well, though (SA representatives Mark Coombs '08 and Ahmed Salem '08 and co-signers Rachel Quigley '09 and Carol Glenn '08), I knew that wasn't what they were looking for.

From talking with SA members, reading countless editorials and conferencing with senior administrators, I was confident that Resolution 17 would fail … and I was right: The Student Assembly voted March 6 to reject Resolution 17 by a vote of three for the resolution, 14 against and two abstentions.

There were legitimate concerns from those who voted in the negative: The general consensus from SA members was that this policy is completely unnecessary and radical. Others cited hypothetical situations of being in a lecture where a shooting match could take place, or where someone would fire warning shots. One memorable sign declared that "Frat Party + Guns = Disaster."

The sponsors of the resolution did bring up good points: How do we expect our faculty and staff to protect themselves from intruders? How should students react to a shooter going on a rampage?

Unfortunately, the debate turned into a fight over the Second Amendment -- something that I don't think the SA should be discussing. I think everyone can agree that our time might be better spent elsewhere.

While Resolution 17 did fail, I think it accomplished something a bit more abstract than showing that the SA does not support a concealed carry resolution.

Resolution 17 engaged the community in a healthy debate about an issue that would directly affect the Cornell community.

Frankly, I don't think we have enough spirited debates on this campus regarding decisions that directly affect our daily lives. I have been at far too many SA meetings where there were only one or two people in the gallery. It is certainly disheartening, and it fuels an argument made by some that Cornell students are "apathetic."

Cornell students aren't apathetic, though, and that has been proven to me time and time again. By discussing controversial issues, the SA engages the community in policies that may directly affect them. I'm happy to see individuals who come into the Memorial Room with signs, quarter cards and an overall interest in the business at hand.

I hope that Resolution 17 is only the beginning in a series of healthy debates over the issues that affect our lives on East Hill.

C.J. Slicklen '09, a student in the School of Hotel Administration, is president of the Student Assembly and can be reached at cjs75@cornell.edu. The Student Assembly meets 4:45-6:30 p.m. every Thursday during the academic year in the Memorial Room of Willard Straight Hall.

Media Contact

Media Relations Office