Senate takes neutral stance on Taco Bell

Grand Valley Lanthorn 2/09/05

By AJ Colley

A senate subcommittee finds information about Immokalee, Fla. lacks validity from either side

Grand Valley State University’s Student Senate has made a final decision regarding the Boot the Bell campaign — it will take a neutral stance, not pushing for or against the removal of Taco Bell from GVSU’s Allendale Campus.

A subcommittee of the senate met Jan. 28 to discuss information that had been received from both sides of the issue. Each response explained how the situation in Immokalee, Fla. was being handled by both parties.

The validity of the information, however, could not be determined, said Student Senate President Jonathan Osborn.

“We received, in some instances, two different sides of information,” Osborn said. “One side said ‘we’ve done this’ and the other side said ‘they haven’t done this’ and we have no information outside of that to back that up, so it’s one person versus the other.”

As a result, the committee determined it couldn’t decide whether or not the information was valid.

Osborn said both sides talked about and submitted the information as set out by the criteria in the original resolution. Unless someone submits a new, different resolution, the stance brings closure to the issue.

“If you are not part of the solution, you automatically become part of the problem,” said Allison Kranz, an active participant in the Boot the Bell campaign for the past few years, in response to the neutral stance. “Apathy has the potential to be more dangerous than ignorance.”

Osborn said while the resolution states there is a problem in Immokalee, it also states certain criteria must be met to follow through with a push to remove Taco Bell from campus. The information put forth met the criteria, so, as a result, it confirms that there is a problem in Immokalee, but the committee did not think there was enough validity to the information to push for the removal of Taco Bell from GVSU.

“There were people [on the subcommittee] who didn’t want to take a neutral stance, but there’s no way that we could take a positive or negative stance,” Osborn said. “The only stance that we could take according to the way that the resolution was worded was a neutral stance.”

Wording of the original resolution, resolution F-04-04, made it difficult for the committee to have any stance other than neutral. Kranz said, “When rules become an end in themselves, rather than a means to an end, an organization’s conduct takes on a ritualistic rather than rational character.”

Students involved in the Boot the Bell campaign will “definitely not” be happy about the senate’s decision to take a neutral stance, Osborn said.

“I think the Students Against Sweatshops won’t be satisfied until we don’t have Taco Bell on this campus,” Osborn added.

He said he thinks that is Students Against Sweatshop’s right, as it is any individual’s right to be passionate about a topic and “work for the greater good.”

“Sometimes you can’t please everybody,” Osborn said.

“When ideals are ignored for the sake of upholding a status quo that is oppressive to some, the whole community suffers,” Kranz said.

The committee is now dissolved and will no longer be looking into the situation.

Students Against Sweatshops was unable to be reached for comment.