This issue has gone beyond Catt Hall. It has gone beyond removing minority leaders from office. It has escalated into the issue of free speech which affects every student, faculty and staff of every color, gender and sexual preference who has legitimate concerns to voice to the university. If this issue doesn’t scare you, it should.

I have always been and continue to be supportive of the ideals behind the re-naming of Catt Hall. However, at the time of the Beardshear Rally, I did not consider myself a member of The September 29th Movement. I chose to participate in the rally not to address the symptom of Catt Hall, but to confront the disease: THE UNIVERSITY’S LACK OF COMMITMENT TOWARD MARGINALIZED STUDENTS. I wanted to address another symptom long overlooked by the university: the absence of an Asian Studies Program.

The rally was intended to be a town meeting where individuals could express their concerns. I practiced the freedom outlined by the First Amendment, knowing that there would be a repercussion. A written reprimand seemed like a small price to pay in exchange for the university’s acknowledgment of the existence of Asian Americans on campus.

I was not involved in any of the preliminary plannings, never attended 9/29 meetings prior to the Beardshear rally, and considered myself a “supporter” at the time. How then, can the university single me out as a “leader” and charge me with more violations than some members of the Central Committee? And how is it that one member of the Movement, photographed leading the march, could have the charges dismissed under the grounds of “lack of evidence.” If the university needs evidence, I have it right here in my photo album.

I would like this opportunity to challenge the misinformation surrounding the Movement. Speaking for myself, I never intended to escape punishment. If I would have been charged with one count of misuse of space as I was led to believe, I would have been delighted, said “thank you,” and gone along my merry way. However, I become concerned when the university tries to silence people. And I become incensed when my situation is handled in an unfair and un-professional manner to the point that I come to distrust the university judiciary process.

In addition, 9/29 is not a group of “uppity minorities trying to make a name for themselves.” Becoming infamous is not worth the mental stress that I went through. There was a time when I was not allowed to register for the Spring semester, therefore, no access to my financial aid because the administration decided to put my account on hold. How can you “enjoy” notoriety when you’re worried about rent money? The Movement’s attorney, Matthew Bowles, and I had to point out how wrong it was to punish me at the expense of my education before the hold on my account was temporarily released. Through much luck, I was able to get my instructors to sign me into class.

What evidence does the OJA have to label me as a “leader”? Is it the “organizer” nametag that 60 other people turned in? If so, why aren’t they faced with the possibility of suspension like myself? The only incriminating act that sets me apart from the crowd of 200 that turned out to watch was that I asked to speak my mind at the very end. If this is sufficient enough evidence to call me a “leader” of a movement that I was not a part of at the time, then let the AUJ and the Civil Court decide. Clearly the concern here isn’t whether or not I was a leader, but whether or not I bad-mouthed the university. And it’s crystal to me that their concern is not my education.

Theresa Thomas

Sophomore

Graphic Design

President, APAAC