By
The Daily News staff
July 31, 2009
NEWS BRIEF
After months of planning and preparation, the group attempting to bring Tent City 3 to campus received news from President Emmert on Wednesday that their request to host the homeless encampment had been denied.
The Students for Civic Engagement on Homelessness is a group that was established to continue a proposal made by students in the “Community Development for Health” class at the University. The initiative was intended to bring Tent City 3, a homeless encampment of up to 100 individuals, to campus for a period of up to 90 days. The request to host the encampment was sent to President Emmert June 12, and was rejected Wednesday afternoon.
The Associated Students of the University of Washington, the Graduate and Professional Student Senate and the Faculty Senate passed resolutions in support of hosting Tent City 3 earlier this year. While President Emmert acknowledged this support, he heard arguments from the opposition as well.
His e-mailed letter, stamped 2:30 p.m. on July 29, states, "I have reviewed your proposal for the University of Washington to host a tent city for people experiencing homelessness, along with the resolutions supporting the proposal from the ASUW, the GPSS, and the Faculty Senate. In addition, I have received comments both supporting and opposing the idea. Though a case can be made for doing so, I have decided the University is not the right place to host a Tent City, and I am therefore denying the request.”
Abbey Pearl, president of Students for Civic Engagement on Homelessness, the group responsible for promoting Tent City 3 on the UW campus, expressed her thoughts following the letter.
"It is very disappointing that the president has such little faith in the students, faculty, and staff of the University of Washington," she said. "Although the campus is a complex and diverse place, I believe the individuals who converge on the campus every day have the potential to see past the differences in others, can overcome the complexity of the situation and embrace the challenge of hosting Tent City 3. In doing so, I believe these stakeholders would be enriched by the experience."
According to the Students for Civic Engagement on Homelessness, the president cited concerns with management of Tent City 3 in his decision to deny the proposal.
“The University is a diverse community of 60,000 people who converge on our relatively compact campus every day,” Emmert said in his letter. “To introduce a tent city into this mix would compound the complexity of our daily activity in ways that would further complicate the business of the University.”
Tent City 3’s open door policy has raised concerns regarding how the lives of the residents would be impacted by the large student population of the University if the school hosted the encampment. Seattle University was the last collegiate institution to host Tent City 3, with a student body roughly six times smaller than the UW.
“In our meetings with the administration they asked a few questions they felt were not adequately addressed in the initial report,” said Hunter Marshall, the treasurer of the student group, in a press release. “We were in the process of answering these questions and adding them to the report when we received this disheartening response.”
While the student group is disappointed by the setback, the members intend to continue educating the University community about homelessness this coming fall with a teach-in event and an art exhibit.
“Although we received an unfavorable response at this time, it does not mean that the issue or even the idea to host a tent city goes away,” Pearl said.
Reach The Daily news staff at news@dailyuw.com
33 Comments
#1 Russ W.
on July 30, 2009 at 5:05 p.m.(Redmond, WA)
Accusing the president of not having faith in us is a little disingenuous...
#2 Chris J.
on July 30, 2009 at 9:10 p.m.(Spokane, WA | UW Community)
This is a very disappointing decision to me. Emmert's reasons for the denying the request in the letter are pretty pitiful.
"To introduce a tent city into this mix would compound the complexity of our daily activity in ways that would further complicate the business of the University."
What does that even mean?
#3 Brad J.
on July 30, 2009 at 11:14 p.m.(Mercer Island, WA)
Thank goodness sanity won the day. Thank you, President Emmert.
#4 Dan M.
on July 31, 2009 at 9:03 a.m.(Seattle, WA)
Please join us!
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/gro...
#5 Nick J.
on July 31, 2009 at 12:17 p.m.(None, None | UW Community)
Great, great decision, Mr. Emmert. A public university is not the place for a tent city.
#6 Nick J.
on July 31, 2009 at 12:20 p.m.(None, None | UW Community)
Just wrote Mr. Emmert a letter thanking him, btw.
#7 Dan M.
on August 1, 2009 at 12:05 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Actually, during an event such as 'the worst recession since The Great Depression', a public university could be an ideal place for a tent city. Think of the opportunities forthe students of Social Work, Law, Psychology, Architecture, Public Safety, etc. It would not be easy, or without risk, but, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Years from now, what a proud legacy it would have been. Instead, once again Mark Emmert proves yet again how out of touch he is with those he leads. The U is overdue for a new President.
#8 Russ W.
on August 2, 2009 at 1:05 a.m.(Redmond, WA)
"Instead, once again Mark Emmert proves yet again how out of touch he is with those he leads. The U is overdue for a new President."
You actually think a majority of people at UW wanted tent city there?
#9 Dan M.
on August 2, 2009 at 3:57 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
He's clearly out of synch with the Student Senate, the Faculty Senate, etc.; the elected representatives of those he is paid to lead.
#10 John V.
on August 2, 2009 at 1:11 p.m.(Auburn, WA | UW Community)
wrt "opportunities for the students of Social Work, Law, Psychology, Architecture, Public Safety, etc."
I thought the claim was that this city would NOT be a site marked by unusual concentrations of abnormal psychology, challenges to public safety, and situations needing for lawyers. Are the architects supposed to design new and better tents?
#11 Brittany B.
on August 3, 2009 at 10:03 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
There are many things that President Emmert has done in the three years that I have been a student at UW that I have not agreed with.This is not one of them.
Thank you President Emmert for listening to our concerns.
And people, it has nothing to do with his lack of faith in the students. The students wouldn't really have had any control over TC3 to exert anyway.
#12 James L.
on August 3, 2009 at 12:03 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
Just another example of how 'out of touch' the University Community is with what it's like in the 'real world'.
The upside is that over half of the students attending will at some point need the services of a shelter or tent city. Hope it's still there when they need it.
They will of course be accepted with open arms and kindness, as opposed to stereotypical fear of the homeless that we are seeing today.
At some point people will need to get off their high-horse and see the world as it really is, not how they wish to perceive it through rose-colored glasses. The economy sucks and it's only going to get worse before it gets better.
#13 Jonathan M.
on August 3, 2009 at 12:43 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
“To introduce a tent city into this mix would compound the complexity of our daily activity in ways that would further complicate the business of the University.”
This is a college, for students to study at.
It's not a public park, for people to tent in. I wouldn't want *anyone* camping on campus, regardless of their status. It's not the proper place for it.
@James L.
"The upside is that over half of the students attending will at some point need the services of a shelter or tent city. Hope it's still there when they need it."
Nice stat you pulled out your ass. Half of all students? Yeah right. You can try to make it sound gloomy, but unless the entire nation gets to where it was during the 1930s, the large majority of us students will *not* need the help of a shelter/tent city.
Maybe you aren't as good with your money, but you're a jerk to assume the rest of us aren't or aren't capable of supporting ourselves in hard times.
#14 Jenny W.
on August 3, 2009 at 3:59 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
finally someone to stop this ridiculous madness
I will refrain from any more smug comments.
#15 Russ W.
on August 3, 2009 at 10:18 p.m.(Redmond, WA | UW Community)
"He's clearly out of synch with the Student Senate, the Faculty Senate, etc.; the elected representatives of those he is paid to lead."
The ASUW Senate isn't elected by students at large. In fact, many of its members are appointed...
#16 Andy M.
on August 4, 2009 at 3:40 a.m.(None, None | UW Community)
I see this as a huge triumph for rationality! Thank you President Emmet for listening to the silent majority!
As I've said in comments on previous articles, the fear of crime/violence/unwelcome advances by any student, staff, or faculty member was reason enough not to invite something so outside the scope of a university on to campus...
@Russ
The problem I see with the senate is that many 'special interest' RSOs have really powerful and influential senators that are going to pander to the things that are often not in the best interest of the campus as a whole. What we really need is for the senate to be filled exclusively by living group (RHSA, Greek, and Commuter) but I don't see that ever happening...
#17 kathleen_natalia
on August 4, 2009 at 10:28 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Obviously this topic is of high contention.
I went to a local Catholic middle school and luckily had the opportunity to learn more about Tent City. Although it was scary at first to visit their community, especially for a 12 year-old, it was an amazing experience. I learned that the residents have rules: no drugs, no alcohol, early curfews, ect. If they do not abide by these strict policies they are quickly evicted. The residences rely on each other and hold each other accountable. Honestly, although it might be a scary thought, I have no doubt there would be no issues in inviting Tent City to our campus.
I have lived in Seattle all my life, and one of my favorite parts of Washington, and especially Seattle, is the open-mindedness of the people that live here. We are a diverse community and have many unique quirks! I am disappointed that some of my college-aged peers are as closed minded as the previous posts. Although I would love to hear more of their opinions instead of just “thank you to the President”.
If the people that have opportunities do not help those that are underprivileged, there will always be huge economical gaps. Hopefully minds can be changed, and our community will still get the opportunity to grow and become more understanding.
#18 Sean K.
on August 4, 2009 at 2:13 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
Andy M:
"Rationality"? - what does that mean, specifically. Does "rationality" mean 'that which I agree with'?
Also, how is it that RHSA, Greek, and Commuter Senators do not "pander", whereas 'special interest' Senators do? Do you think that RHSA, Greek, and Commuter Senators are free from ideological commitment or somehow not responsive to the needs of those they represent? Any republican government necessarily assumes some degree of "pandering", on the part of representatives, to the wishes of their constituents.
Just wondering :-)
#19 Skye J.
on August 4, 2009 at 5:03 p.m.(Auburn, WA)
I'm actually really glad that the Tent City was denied. Why bring more people that are homeless around campus? One of my friends was almost robbed and hurt by one who was trying to steal his money from him!
A university is an institution where students learn.
Thank You so much President Emmert.
#20 Will S.
on August 4, 2009 at 5:26 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Thank you, President Emmert. I'm glad he listened to the majority of students and not the handful that participate in student senate.
#21 Alec M.
on August 4, 2009 at 5:43 p.m.(Burlington, WA | UW Community)
Looks like we know who the big man's REAL constituents are. Nicely done.
#22 Andy M.
on August 4, 2009 at 6:50 p.m.(None, None | UW Community)
@Sean K.
Rationality in the sense that the (perceived) safety and happiness of the students, staff, and faculty that work and live in and near campus have trumped the political message that would have been sent by hosting the tent city on campus.
In that sense, I'm looking at rationality as what makes the most sense in a situation based on any number of factors, but ignoring the extraneous factors (political ramifications, potential to incite personal dislike - things like that).
What I was getting at with living group senators being less 'pandering' comes purely from the groups they are accountable. An RSO senator from an RSO with only a few members is only accountable to them. If a bunch of small RSOs instruct their senators to team up and pass some piece of legislation, it might well deal with something that only a tiny fraction of the student population supports.
Living group senators (more specifically RHSA and Greek senators) are ultimately accountable to their organizations as well, both of which represent thousands of students made up hugely diverse backgrounds and interests. They are accountable to a much greater portion of the student body and, therefore, more likely to accurately reflect prevailing student opinion - especially when bound to vote as instructed by their organizaiton, which can happen with some issues.
Does that make sense? I have no hard numbers to back it up, but having served as a senator (for RHSA, if that makes a difference) I've seen it in action - the controversial bills tend to come from RSOs that really stick together.
#23 Ashley V.
on August 4, 2009 at 7:02 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
Thank you President Emmert!
We don't need a tent city on our campus to see that homelessness is a problem. The tent city only furthers enables people to stay homeless. There are other ways to help fight this problem.
#24 Sean K.
on August 4, 2009 at 10:23 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
Thoughtful response Andy (disagree, but you thought about it and rebutted/responded without being personal). Researching the Seattle University experience with Tent City... which differs from the UW situation by virtue of its SU's theologically based mission of service. Back to you on that...
#25 Russ W.
on August 5, 2009 at 7:10 p.m.(Redmond, WA)
"Also, how is it that RHSA, Greek, and Commuter Senators do not "pander", whereas 'special interest' Senators do? Do you think that RHSA, Greek, and Commuter Senators are free from ideological commitment or somehow not responsive to the needs of those they represent? Any republican government necessarily assumes some degree of "pandering", on the part of representatives, to the wishes of their constituents."
Yeah, legislators all look out for the interests of their constituents, but the ones who answer to large and relatively heterogenous populations (dorm residents, commuters and Greeks) are much more likely to have interests aligned with the student body at large. If you represent people who have intentionally grouped together to pursue a narrow goal then of course you are going to act in a way that is reflective of that goal, not of the wider population.
I would suggest that RSO seats are akin to giving the UAW, NRA, Focus on the Family, NAACP, and Greenpeace seats in Congress. Maybe it is more appropriate for the Senate at the UW to have such interest group representation than that analogy would suggest, but the effects are still there. Narrow constituencies are a funnel for extreme views (racial gerrymandering being a worrying example at the national level).
#26 Sean K.
on August 5, 2009 at 8:47 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
The pragmatic, Aristotelian tone is commendably rationale and measured. Was with you up till the "racial gerrymandering" dig [an argument for proportional representation? Welcome to the team bro!!!!!].
Our definition of what lands in the mean is probably different. What you consider "extreme" would probably be considered middling liberalism by most.
I would argue that the Daily's persistant contingent of (multiple) neocons seems rather disproportionate - as though it were planned.....the work of...an RSO?
:P
#27 Russ W.
on August 5, 2009 at 11:47 p.m.(Redmond, WA)
re: gerrymandering, it's obviously much easier to point out the problem than propose a solution. Not really for proportional representation but yeah, the status quo is not so hot.
To your second point... I can see how a lot of people would fall into that trap. Hell, we all probably do it sometimes. But anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty can tell when they're being a bit out there. I happen to support both abolishing Social Security and allowing abortion on demand, and also happen to know those are both quite "extreme" positions. (Not interested in debating those, just throwing out examples of how one can know where the middle is without being there.)
Cross-membership between the Daily staff and the College Republicans (or the Young Democrats, for that matter) is largely correlation, not causation :P
I bet if you did a survey of Daily op-ed writers' political views you would find them roughly in line with the UW student body--majority but not overwhelmingly liberal. I would argue that NOT having multiple conservatives (given that the op-ed staff is fairly large) would be itself indicative of more editorial bias than the current state of affairs.
As to the neocon thing... quoth wikipedia (Yeah, I'm using Wikipedia as a source, so sue me):
"In economics, unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes."
Yeah, not me. I agree with them on more things than I don't, but that doesn't make me one :P
I'm a little surprised you seem to think the Daily's conservatives are all carbon copies of each other in their views--put it this way, if we all wrote on the same topics (thank God we don't) you would quickly be convinced otherwise.
#28 Sean K.
on August 6, 2009 at 2:25 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Certainly.
Though..not too many responses to the columns written by the more liberal/statist columnists. Preaching to the choir possibly.
That could be a commentary on the student body (in terms the average student's ideological position) - or it could be that at 2am, more often than not, students who troll the Daily website probably think that Senator Bernie Sanders would make a great President.
[He's running in 2016; We could use a press secretary Russ - someone quick on his feet and able to stay on message]
#29 Russ W.
on August 6, 2009 at 3:08 p.m.(Redmond, WA)
Well, Bush had Mark McClellan, I suppose someone has to do the same for ol Bernie... ha.
"at 2am, more often than not, students who troll the Daily website probably think that Senator Bernie Sanders would make a great President."
That might be, although I've been staying up far later than that this summer. The night watch, I guess you could say. In fact, I just got up...
#30 Tia_L
on August 7, 2009 at 10:25 a.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
@James L.
"The upside is that over half of the students attending will at some point need the services of a shelter or tent city. Hope it's still there when they need it."
Just curious: Where did you get this statistic from?
And thanks to Pres. Emmert. We simply cannot have a homeless camp in a community that gets upset if it doesn't receive "Timely Police Warnings" of every criminal incident in a 5 mile radius of campus. These homeless people may not be the stereotypical drug-addicted, pissing-on-the-street homeless people, but if even one was, and an incident occurred, the community would blame the President for allowing it to happen. It is a complicated situation, but I feel the president made the correct decision.
#31 James L.
on August 7, 2009 at 1:54 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
Tia_L I just made that figure up. The actual statistics show that 1% of our population is currently homeless. Since homelessness is such a transitional crisis, many will be housed and others will take their place. Given this turn-over rate it is easy to assume that a major percentage of our population will at one time or another find themselves homeless. With the economy in shambles getting a job, even with a college degree is getting tougher. Keep in mind these statistics don't take into account many homeless that we don't see or count, just those who found a shelter. For instance the people who sleep in their cars or camp out, those who are crashing at mom and dad's house, the couch-surfing elite. Some may be homeless, but never consider themselves so and never get counted. During the One-Night-Street count here 2,827 people were found in the tiny areas that were covered and in the limited time the volunteers had. Many more were hidden from view and not counted in this report. Homelessness will touch each and every one of us in some way or another, be it you or someone you know or just the debate of hosting a tent-city. It's an unfortunate thing that in the richest country in the world we treat our most helpless citizens like dirt.
BTW the first battle may be lost, but the war is far from over.
Just my two cents. (All I can afford ;)
#32 Mike S.
on August 9, 2009 at 11:05 a.m.(Vancouver, WA)
I think it's a travesty that the University even considered hosting a tent city initially.
The UW is a place where driven and committed individuals further their education and life's pursuits, and frankly the fact that they are paying for this privilege should restrict the university from forcing the homeless problem into their daily lives.
If a tent city were established within the University grounds, the reduced quality and standards established should logically reduce the cost of both housing and tuition. What's the point of all the construction, all the building remodeling and refurbishing that goes on on campus--the point being to improve the quality and beauty of a stellar institution--if a tent city is established where students who have earned and purchased a right for decency learn and work and live?
Charitable works can be quality institutions, yes, but they're only effective when they are supported by those persons who believe in them--PERIOD. Installing a tent city on UW's campus would force those individuals who do not believe in such an institution to support it through their tuition and housing payments, as well as the sacrifice of any other values or needs.
Had a tent city bee established while I were still in the dorms, I would have moved out immediately, and I can guarantee--based on actual personal testimonies--that I would not have been alone.
Consider the rights of students to the education that they WANT and that they pay for before you try to commit them to living among the homeless in Seattle without their consent.
#33 Mike S.
on August 9, 2009 at 11:50 a.m.(Vancouver, WA | UW Community)
Okay, I'm trying to find the group that proposed this initiative. Do they have a central website/facebook page?
(Mostly I'd like to get a sense of the size of the organization and how many of the administrators are UW students, especially those living in the dorms.)
Post a comment