Divestment- SJP@USF
On March 1, Student Government President Brian Goff sent a letter stating that the “referendum will not be recorded as an official SGA Referendum”. We want to clarify exactly what happened.
How the referendum started?
In January 2013, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) approached Student Government (SG). SJP asked the Senate to consider a resolution that divested from companies affiliated with human rights violations. SG President Brian Goff and SG Senate President Jeff Gao voiced concern about introducing “international politics” to Senate and prevented the resolution from entering Senate.
SJP decided to take different route. SJP gathered signatures to place a referendum on the ballot. With 3 days left before the deadline for petition signatures, SJP defied the odds and gathered 2,500+ signatures in support of the referendum. Although many students worked hard on gathering the signatures, it is clear that this would not have been possible if so many students were not in support of the idea. Students found it EASY to UNDERSTAND and voiced their support for human rights and divestment.
What are the rules for a referendum?
The rules for referendum are clear:
- Get 20% of population that voted in last election. That meant 1,541 signatures.
- Submit it 10 business days before election. That meant the signatures had to be submitted by February 8.
- SG must verify signatures.
- SG must make the referendum public and accessible 1 week before elections.
We did everything by the book.
- We got 2,500+ signatures
- We submitted it on time.
- SG verified signatures.
- But SG did not follow its own rules on Rule #4. SG was supposed to put the referendum online a week before the elections.
Why did Student Government break its own rules?
SG was too busy trying to prevent the referendum from being on the ballot. SG was advised by a USF legal counsel lawyer – Ms. Joanne Adamchak. Ms. Adamchak created many excuses for not putting the referendum on the ballot. Her excuses were:
- She claimed, USF does not take political stances, and since SG is an arm of the university, SG cannot take political stances either.
- She said it was illegal for a student employee to “directly or indirectly advice where a government entity spends its commodities.”
- She claimed it was illegal to discriminate against corporations.
Why was Joanne Adamchak wrong?
- Adamchak did not provide where it was written that USF does not take political stances.
- This referendum is strictly humanitarian not political.
- It is illegal to restrict a referendum based on its content, regardless of whether it is political or not. SG had previous referendums on the ballot which were political in nature as well. For example, the Real Food referendum and the Health Care referendum were both political and on the ballot.
- The student body is not composed of government employees, therefore this law does not apply to the non-binding student referendum.
- The referendum is non-binding.
- The referendum is legal and simply an outlet to exercise our first amendment right as Americans to “freedom of speech.”
After it was clear that the referendum was legal, student government placed it on the ballot. But the goal was to undermine the student voice from the very beginning and this is clear with the “advise” by Ms. Adamchak. It does not take 9 business days to verify signatures. SG should have verified them in the first week and placed it on the ballot by the second week. This did not happen. Because Ms. Adamchak caused so much confusion, SG did not make the referendum public and accessible in time. Therefore, because SG did not follow its own rules, it had to revoke the referendum from the official record.
Students call on Genshaft to Support ASA Boycott
On January 6, 2014, President Genshaft unilaterally condemned the American Studies Association (ASA) academic boycott of Israel. As students at USF, we are disappointed that she has ignored the student voice and the plight of the Palestinian people. In light of the fact that students at USF overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, it is surprising that Genshaft would take a radical decision in favor of sponsors of racial segregation. Genshaft should have consulted USF students, staff, and faculty before she made a statement on behalf of USF.
Israel’s academic institutions have been complicit in Israel’s subjugation of Palestinians. All of Israel’s major universities have relationships with security-military industry of occupation. The ASA notes,
“For example, Haifa University and Hebrew University have special programs for military intelligence and training for the Shin Bet (the security service known for its torture techniques). The Hebrew University’s Mount Scopus campus is partially built on Palestinian land in occupied East Jerusalem (illegally confiscated by Israel in 1968), in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Other Israeli institutions are also built on illegally confiscated Palestine.””
The assertion that the academic boycott restricts academic freedom is a sham used by proponents of Israel’s occupation.
“It is Israel — not those who participate in the academic boycott of Israel — that denies academic freedom and more fundamental freedoms to Palestinians. This is done through a variety of regulations and policies, such as giving priority of admission to soldiers and limiting transportation and residential opportunities of Palestinians. The most extreme denial of academic freedom to the Palestinian people results from the bombing of schools and universities as occurred in the 2009 Israeli assault of Gaza.
Under the status quo, the academic freedom of Palestinian academics and students is severely hampered, if not altogether denied, by the Israeli state and its complicit institutions, including universities and research centers. Palestinian universities have been bombed, schools have been closed, scholars and students have been deported, and in some cases killed. Palestinian scholars and students have their mobility and academic careers restricted by an apartheid system that limits freedoms by selectively awarded permits, according to residential location, last names, or license plates. Many Palestinian scholars cannot travel easily, if at all, for conferences or research because they are forbidden from flying from the Tel Aviv.”
We call upon Genshaft to retract her statement and stand in solidarity with academic freedom and equality.