Rutgers University’s The Daily Targum reports that the motion to reconsider sponsorship of the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund (PCRF) was defeated (hat tip: juvanya).
The Palestine Children’s Relief Fund will continue to host the fall 2009 meal sign-away after a motion to reconsider the award failed early this morning.
“As of 4:50 a.m. Monday I have certified vote results, and although several members have not submitted a vote, the outcome has already been determined,” said Werner Born, Chair of the Rutgers University Student Assembly, in an e-mail. “As of this moment the vote count has returned at 6-18-1.”
Although every member did not vote, Born said, it is mathematically impossible for there to be the required 2/3 yes votes to reconsider awarding PCRF the semi-annual meal sign-away program.
“I think that every member truly realized the gravity of this situation, and judging by the voting times, it seems quite clear to me that everyone took their time in forming a decision,” said Born, a School of Engineering senior. “I could not ask each member for more than just that in a circumstance such as this: that everyone learned all that they could, independently evaluated that information and then and only then made a decision.”
Judging by the comments to this report, I can imagine the debate was intense and emotional. I can also imagine the main argument of those opposing the motion, judging by this comment by Yousef J. Saleh of the Rutgers University Student Union.
The websites that say PCRF has very loose connections to ‘terrorism’ are written with a political agenda. Wikipedia has more legitimacy than those sites. To say that you even attended a research institution such as Rutgers is hard to believe because there was absolutely no concerted effort to do research on your part other than viewing blogs that spread innuendo and fear, just to legitimize your own opinions and fears.
Do people want to know why RUSA reaffirmed its vote with an even greater majority than the first time it won? The evidence AGAINST giving the meal sign away to PCRF was SO FLACCID, that no person who evaluated all the FACTS* would have reconsidered.
Leaving aside the likelihood that Yousef J. Saleh himself has a political agenda, the comments are interesting, considering one of the sources I cited was the New York Times – hardly lacking the legitimacy of Wikipedia. And I would have thought someone could have confronted Stephen Sosebee and Rosemary Davis/Shadya Hantouli about the their alleged statements/involvement with a website glorifying terrorism instead of casually dismissing the allegations.
If any of you were at the vote, please send me your observations or, even better, cell phone camera footage (!) I am interested in knowing whether or not the specific allegations were addressed, instead of blanket statements like the above attacking the sources of some of these allegations.
