By: Amita Gowda

The ADHOC crisis committee started off their first session with a heated debate on if and how Muhammad Ali should speak at the university as an anti-war protestor. The main issue among the board was violence regarding whether or not the police should get involved. One delegate argued that there should be police to make sure no violence occurs. Another advisor rebutted, stating that the presence of the police force might provoke a violent response anyways.

Nevertheless, this morning, it was revealed that there were still protests among the actual event and on concerns about not having a valid permit to hold the event. The next big issue was whether the protesting students should be arrested or not. In the middle, a few delegates backtracked leading to the start of a new directive. Directive “Permit 1.0” stated all pro- and anti-war protests should automatically be permitted to happen. After speaking to Adam Ross (the sponsor for this directive) he revealed by sponsoring this directive, his intention was to encourage more pro-war protestors to speak out. Despite his intentions, most delegates were focused more on the long term consequences over the benefits leading the directive to eventually be rejected with a vote of 5-10.

The next unmoderated caucus brought forth the previous issue of debating if they should mass arrest the protestors. After a few extensions and a crisis, the focus of the committee shifted to a heated debate of the inaccuracy of Hayden’s article (an editor for the Michigan Daily). Fortunately, debate continued, this time over how unrealistic the process of getting a permit is.