Supporters of the NAACP's tourism boycott in South Carolina are facing an uphill battle to convince Duke Student Government representatives to pass two controversial resolutions at tonight's meeting.
The first of the resolutions would affirm DSG's role in taking stands on political issues. The second, also introduced by Trinity sophomore and at-large representative Jason Freedman, would have DSG officially endorse the boycott and help coordinate alternatives to vacationing in Myrtle Beach.
According to the second resolution, "every individual must still make their own personal decision on whether to travel to South Carolina; however, this resolution can assist these individuals in their decision by informing them that DSG believes the boycott to be a worthy cause." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People enacted the boycott Jan. 1 to protest the Confederate flag flying above the South Carolina capitol.
But many DSG legislators do not think DSG should weigh in on such a controversial topic. Trinity sophomore Joshua Brodsky, a legislator from West Campus, said, "I don't think it's DSG's responsibility to make a blanket judgment on something like this."
Brodsky said some legislators are squeamish about this issue. "I think it's a touchy situation," he said.
Justin Su, a Pratt freshman and DSG legislator, said he would vote against the resolutions because he does not support the boycott.
"I don't think DSG should get involved because the Confederate flag isn't really a symbol for racism, it's a symbol of the South," he said.
Su said other legislators also plan to vote against the resolutions. "Most people are against the boycott," he said.
And even the boycott's most ardent advocates do not necessarily support the DSG initiative. "I strongly agree with the NAACP boycott," said Trinity senior and at-large legislator Luis Villa, "but I'm not sure that taking this sort of stand on social issues is a good move for DSG to take."
Villa worried that linking a vote on DSG's role to a fiery political issue will cause the first resolution to fail, hindering the organization's ability to speak up in the future. "I am afraid this is going to set a precedent," he said.
Independent of DSG, many student groups are debating whether to continue the Myrtle tradition this year.
Interfraternity Council President Ken Collins, Trinity '99, acknowledged that a Duke boycott of Myrtle Beach would be successful only if selective houses, fraternities and sororities endorsed a new location.
Still, he remained unsure as to whether those groups would be willing to go elsewhere.
"Unless they just have ardent support for the flag coming down immediately..., it's very likely that they could choose convenience over supporting this cause," he said, adding that presidents of IFC fraternities will discuss the boycott at their meeting tonight. Although Collins initially opposed the boycott, he said he would encourage the fraternities to support an alternative vacation spot.
Old House CC President Matthew Sherwood said he has heard discussions about the boycott within his living group, which has not formally addressed the matter. During Myrtle Beach week, the group traditionally hosts the Purple Passion party, which draws hundreds of students.
"We're probably going to continue with our plans when the time comes to go down to Myrtle," the Trinity junior said. "If the gravity of the situation looms, we might change our minds. It's kind of early."
Mirecourt President Kat Kirchner, a Trinity junior, said her group will go to Myrtle Beach. "The problem was we had a deposit in advance, so we would lose a lot of money," she said.
Prism, on the other hand, voted to support the boycott, said President Cory Chen, a Trinity senior. "I would hope that DSG passes both resolutions," he said.
DSG meets tonight at 6:30 p.m. in 139 Social Sciences Building.
Jaime Levy and Greg Pessin contributed to this story.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.