The student activities fund was used- so the event was funded by student funds but approved by the college. It also means, whether they wanted to or not, every student paid for it. Calling the Wren cross a crucifix, while not correct, is just not that big a deal. I feel like the student activities fund could have been put to better use- and Nichol's still responsible for causing the nasty polarization within the student body over the Wren cross issue - he encouraged it.
Dozens of other groups received funding from the activities fund - its not like the SWAS is the only thing it gave money to. In fact, Students for Life received over $800 from the fund. Seeing as how the SWAS filled two shows in the UC Commonwealth, meaning ~600 saw it, I would say funding the show was an effective use of money.
I included the cross part because it goes to show how little Hugo actually knows about the alma mater he claims to care about so much.
Yeah -I don't like Hugo or Nichol, and I understand your logic, but the problem was some students felt very strongly about money they were essentially required to pay going to prostitution. And there's a difference between allowing an activity and supporting it - especially financially. The SWAS was by no means a necessary activity or use of funds. I understand it goes to various political and religious groups too, but the SWAS is viewed differently by the public- very different.
the policy regarding the decision over whether or not to approve an event is based simply on whether there is sufficient demand--can it fill a venue--NOT on the content.
Thats because the criteria largely depends on how many people are involved. About 20 organizations sponsored the SWAS and 600 came out to see it. No offense, but Rocky Horror is nothing compared to that.
So what if some students feel strongly about the content of the show? I am strongly against pro-life groups, but I am not arguing against giving them more than $800.
By the way, THE SWAS IS NOT PROSTITUTION. ITS AN ART SHOW. ANY MORE COMMENTS STATING THIS LIE WILL BE REMOVED.
Elliott Spitzer should join the SWAS, that would be grand.
sasquatch989 4 years ago
I'm from Northern Virginia, and I sure as hell am glad that he is NOT my delegate!
flautista20072011 4 years ago
What a terrible terrible person.
I wasn't for the Sex Workers Art Show but it went to several other universities. Nichol wasn't "PROUD" to have this event
omgjellybeans 4 years ago 2
Del. Hugo, you are pathetic.
SeventhGrade 4 years ago
The student activities fund was used- so the event was funded by student funds but approved by the college. It also means, whether they wanted to or not, every student paid for it. Calling the Wren cross a crucifix, while not correct, is just not that big a deal. I feel like the student activities fund could have been put to better use- and Nichol's still responsible for causing the nasty polarization within the student body over the Wren cross issue - he encouraged it.
Kamizilla 4 years ago
Dozens of other groups received funding from the activities fund - its not like the SWAS is the only thing it gave money to. In fact, Students for Life received over $800 from the fund. Seeing as how the SWAS filled two shows in the UC Commonwealth, meaning ~600 saw it, I would say funding the show was an effective use of money.
I included the cross part because it goes to show how little Hugo actually knows about the alma mater he claims to care about so much.
dpjoh2 4 years ago
Yeah -I don't like Hugo or Nichol, and I understand your logic, but the problem was some students felt very strongly about money they were essentially required to pay going to prostitution. And there's a difference between allowing an activity and supporting it - especially financially. The SWAS was by no means a necessary activity or use of funds. I understand it goes to various political and religious groups too, but the SWAS is viewed differently by the public- very different.
Kamizilla 4 years ago
the policy regarding the decision over whether or not to approve an event is based simply on whether there is sufficient demand--can it fill a venue--NOT on the content.
dmeistar 4 years ago
I understand that. Still, I did Rocky Horror 2 years, and we pretty much had to raise the funds ourselves.
Kamizilla 4 years ago
Thats because the criteria largely depends on how many people are involved. About 20 organizations sponsored the SWAS and 600 came out to see it. No offense, but Rocky Horror is nothing compared to that.
So what if some students feel strongly about the content of the show? I am strongly against pro-life groups, but I am not arguing against giving them more than $800.
By the way, THE SWAS IS NOT PROSTITUTION. ITS AN ART SHOW. ANY MORE COMMENTS STATING THIS LIE WILL BE REMOVED.
dpjoh2 4 years ago
Yah - but that's the way some students, parents, and alumni felt about it. I didn't say that was my opinion.
Kamizilla 4 years ago
fuck you, hugo.
marycatherine429 4 years ago 3
God forbid we give a voice to all, even those pushed to do something illegal.
Why doesn't Delegate Hugo worry more about the uninsured, the poor, etc then a simple art show?
auboy2007 4 years ago
Amen.
benk928 4 years ago