Greetings loyal Spin readers! It’s finally happened; I’ve torn myself away from editing the opinion page to write a blog post. What would drive me to do this? None other than SNL’s musical spoof of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s all-too-fleeting stay in New York: “Iran so far.” Get it … “Iran” as in that country that just can’t wait to nuke the hell out of Israel, and “I ran” as in the subject-verb construction … it’s what we call a pun in the industry.

Anyway, it goes without saying that anything with the line “You can deny the holocaust all you want, but you can’t deny that there’s something between us” is worth covering, but apparently, writing an editorial about Andy Samberg’s genius isn’t appropriate (who knew?). So here’s your reward for venturing into Daily Pennsylvanian cyberspace.

Side note: Amazing how a ridiculous three-minute SNL video can do a more effective job of skewering the Iranian dictator than any number of words could.

by Wilson Tong

As a member of the Undergraduate Assembly, Penn’s elected branch of student government, I strive to ensure the accurate representation of the interests of the entire undergraduate student body to the University community and administration. This past Sunday, a proposal — not on the official agenda — that surfaced from objections to University funding and support of Norman Finklestein’s appearance on campus was presented to the UA only hours before the meeting. An attempt to suspend the agenda rules to force the UA to debate and vote on the unexpected proposal failed. The outcome of the UA’s process to add this proposal to the previously established agenda has since triggered much frustration and disappointment.

Many are arguing that the UA did not succeed in representing the concerns of a portion of the student body. However, I contend that this is not the case. A vote on the proposal, which was fundamentally politically-charged and politically-loaded, would have ultimately forced the UA to take an official for/against stance on the University’s backing of one controversial individual’s appearance on campus, which the UA decided not to do within its purview. At its core, the UA would have had to issue an official opinion on a religious and cultural disagreement. I was not elected to take a stance on a religiously- and culturally-politicized issue, and I do not believe I would have honestly represented the student body if I had. Furthermore, forcing the UA to discuss and vote on the proposal would have undermined the credibility and legitimacy of the UA as an impartial, representative body of all undergraduate students.

The content of the proposal, presenting only one of many sides of the argument, would not have allowed members of the UA to make an informed and unbiased vote on an extremely divisive, yet obviously significant issue. It is wrong, irresponsible, and unwise for the UA to initiate and engage in a formal debate and vote about a proposal that presents one-sided and limited information and only would or would not have been supported by secondary information, hearsay, and opinions, rather than an objective and comprehensive set of facts. The UA meeting is positively a place for free speech and open discussion. On the other hand, a UA vote can only occur on those topics that the UA can address within its ability, right, and jurisdiction deemed appropriate for, beneficial to, the entire undergraduate student body.

I believe that the role of the UA fundamentally entails serving the undergraduate student body as a whole, addressing issues that behoove the entire student body. Making official stances, either directly or indirectly, on highly-politicized, highly-religious, and highly-cultural topics is not why I was elected to serve on the UA. However, I was elected to listen and to act accordingly, and that is what I did. I listened, and I acted accordingly.

I believe that the UA seeks to unify the student body and not to divide.

Wilson Tong is a College and Wharton sophomore from Cheltenham, Pa. He is also the Chair of the Facilities and Campus Planning Committee of the Undergraduate Assembly

by Zachary Roseman

A group of over forty students attended the UA meeting on Sunday night with a problem that so affected them that they were ready to give up the entirety of their night in order to sit through the meeting and wait patiently for the opportunity to be heard. They came with a purpose, with conviction, and with a great sense of urgency. They knew that as the elected officers of our student body, UA members are charged with representing undergraduate interests, their interests, to the University.

Sadly, the UA members must have missed that memo. They were given a golden opportunity to take a stand on an important issue, much like the University of Pennsylvania Student Government did when it issued a referendum calling for the “complete and immediate withdrawal of troops from Vietnam.” They chose instead to hide behind rhetoric and procedural shenanigans, deflecting criticism with cries of lack of preparation and insufficient time; another venue, another time — anywhere but here. They debated not the issue at hand, but whether that issue deserved debate. They had the audacity to say that had they allowed said debate the room would have turned into a circus, as if the mere presence of non-UA members degraded the very legitimacy of the meeting itself. They argued that the UA must steer clear of political debates, but by their inaction they have made a statement that can be taken as nothing less than political in nature. They posited that every speaker who comes to campus has an inalienable right to free speech, yet they stifled the speech of those who only asked them to listen.

In response to an email I wrote Sunday night expressing my extreme dissatisfaction and embarrassment at what occurred, I was told that they believed they were upholding the “integrity” of the UA by deciding not to hear the voices that assembled before them. I challenge them to explain how the silencing of their constituents demonstrates their integrity as a body. I further challenge them to explain how it is “inappropriate” for us, the tuition-paying students of this university, to criticize the decisions and beliefs of our professors. Finally, I challenge them to explain how their inaction on Sunday night can be construed as anything less than cowardice.

,p>When did the sole visible role of the Undergraduate Assembly, the representative assembly of the student body, become fixing the laundry machines?

Zachary Roseman is a College freshman from West Hempstead, Ny. He can be reached at Roseman@sas.upenn.edu.