Dagur Gudmundsson is an environmental management and protection sophomore. Letters to the editor do not reflect the opinion or editorial coverage of Mustang News. 

I hate to have to argue with a movement supposedly based in trying to create a more accepting and safe atmosphere on campus, but the way in which SLO Solidarity has presented these demands is disrespectful to the people of this campus and toward the issues they are trying to address. 

For one, they employ the same tactics used by the Republicans in Congress by basically holding the administration hostage and threatening to have it replaced if it does not follow their demands. Where is the sense in all of this? What would they think if the other side of this issue employed the same tactics? Would they be more willing to see their point of view or not?

Instead of gaining support for the cause, they have successfully polarized the opposition further and split up the support for the issues they are fighting for. 

Secondly, where is the democracy in these demands? Why is SLO Solidarity’s position not one of an educator, gaining support for these issues through education and having people make up their own minds about what it is they want to do? These demands affect everyone in this school — why are the people of Cal Poly who didn’t attend the few SLO Solidarity meetings held before these demands were posted not allowed to have their voices properly heard?

I understand that SLO Solidarity says it will listen to input from students as the talks with the administration continue, but ultimately they have their agenda that they want to get through, and that therefore creates a biased atmosphere against the input of others. 

These demands should have been split up, and voted on by the school population individually. That’s how a democracy works. They claim to be fighting for the voice of the students of this campus and trying to create a more open, safe and accepting atmosphere, but have succeeded in doing the exact opposite. They approached this in a tyrannical manner by forcing what they believe to be the best course of action through to the administration. 

It saddens me to see how this was approached, because these issues are something I strongly support, and it deeply disturbs me to see the damage they are doing to the progress made and progress to come in the future by approaching it in this manner.

I strongly believe the way in which they do things matters, and I think by making these demands they are opening a dangerous can of worms.

Where does this end? Do campus clubs and groups get to make demands for what they want on campus that affect everyone else? It is sad to be arguing against something I believe in, because I believe in most (not all) of these “demands” and the issues they address. I just strongly disagree with the immature manner in which this was dealt with and how it will affect progress on these issues in the future on this campus.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.