A number of resolutions calling for support of the objectives of several Georgetown student advocacy organizations went before members of GUSA and the SFS Academic Council this week, as student representatives attempted to address issues that recently have raised student concern.

The SFSAC unanimously passed a resolution Tuesday that establishes its support for Campaign Civil Rights, a Georgetown student advocacy group, and its efforts to oppose the USA Patriot Act.

The legislation, passed shortly after Sept. 11, consists of anti-terrorism legislation that allows for easier accumulation and sharing of intelligence information and records for individuals suspected of links to terrorism. The USA Patriot Act has garnered criticism from groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and, more locally, CCR, that maintain the act is a threat to individual rights.

Senior Representative on the SFSAC Arsalan Suleman (SFS ’03) said the council passed the resolution in hopes of raising awareness of the civil rights debate surrounding the USA Patriot Act and to publicly affirm support for the mission of CCR. He said that members of the council debated the purpose of the resolution and the potential impact of the USA Patriot Act before reaching the unanimous decision to pass the resolution.

“Civil rights of Georgetown students can and will be affected by the Patriot Act . as a student, the intellectual climate is affected when you feel your rights are being threatened. Georgetown students should not feel that way,” Suleman said.

The resolution asserts the council’s objection to provisions in the Patriot Act that permit FBI officials to access student files and library records without warrants and provisions that allow campus police to provide information about students to the FBI, and objects to use of university resources to enforce the Patriot Act’s provisions. According to Suleman, the council’s ultimate intention in their passage of the resolution is to apply pressure to university administrators to refuse compliance with the act.

Associate Director of Communications Doug Shaw said that, while the university is committed to both its students and the international character of a Georgetown education, it intends to comply fully with the USA Patriot Act.

“The Office of International Programs and other components of the university are working with relevant agencies to comply with pertinent legal requirements and assist our students in doing the same. The Office of University Counsel would respond to any specific requests from law enforcement authorities for information from the university,” Shaw said.

Suleman said that there are no current plans for any additional action to take place through the SFSAC but that future support will be discussed at its regular meetings.

While the SFSAC was discussing and passing the resolution in support of CCR and in opposition to the USA Patriot Act, scheduled discussion of a similar resolution before the GUSA Assembly was delayed as the assembly members debated a different resolution supporting AFIRMS (Advocates for Improved Response Methods to Sexual Assault).

Though the resolution, which will express endorsement of the AFIRMS objectives to alter university policy pertaining to sexual assault and disclosure, received much positive support, lengthy debate surrounded the nature of the resolution’s language, which some assembly members said was vague and could render the resolution ineffective.

According to GUSA members, the AFIRMS resolution will almost undoubtedly pass when it is recalled at the next Assembly meeting on Tuesday. “The mood in the room was very positive. The concern was how it was translated into a resolution . People wanted to give AFIRMS as strong support as possible from the Assembly,” GUSA Chief of Staff Tony Cani (COL ’04) said.

Sophomore representative Luis Torres (COL ’05) brought both the AFIRMS resolution and the CCR resolution before the Assembly after communicating with members of the respective groups. Torres and GUSA President Brian Morgenstern (COL ’05) said that they invited a number of administrators to attend the next meeting of the Assembly, including University President John J. DeGioia, Vice President for Communications and Public Affairs Daniel Porterfield and Vice President and University General Council Jane Genster, in hopes of learning more about the university’s policies and the reasoning behind such policies.

Morgenstern asserted the importance of educating the assembly on the issue before the resolution is put to a vote. Though Monday elections will result in new members being sworn in during Tuesday’s meeting, Morgenstern said he plans to ask the outgoing assembly members to deal with the resolution as a last order of business, as they are most informed on the issue.

Morgenstern maintained that questioning administrators at the meeting and reworking the language of the resolution will ultimately make it more effective and result in clearer objectives and means of effectively showing support for these groups.

“The only influence the Assembly has is persuasion . the idea is to use the resources GUSA has,” Torres said. “GUSA executives have access to certain administrative meetings . if we can get them to voice these concerns at all these meetings, we stand a good chance of making an impact.”

A resolution similar to that passed by the SFSAC will be presented before the GUSA Assembly at their Tuesday meeting. Though orgenstern emphasized that it was too early to anticipate how the resolution would fare, he noted that there has been more concerned discussion about its language. “Some discussion has focused on the fact that it doesn’t address how [the Patriot Act] affects our campus; its more of a political statement,” orgenstern said.

The AFIRMS and CCR resolutions are both on the agenda for Tuesday’s GUSA meeting.