Search News


Browse Archives

News

Slavic Immigrants vs. Gay Rights

October 3, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

In this election season, American River College is providing a useful lesson of what happens when you don't vote.

The elections for this year's Student Council attracted about 300 students out of some 37,000 enrolled at the Sacramento community college. Low voter turnout isn't unusual at American River, or at many colleges and universities. Nor is it unusual -- at colleges with low turnout -- for a group of students with a shared interest and a desire to serve together to run for office as a slate, and to win.

What happened at American River, however, is a little different. But it fits a pattern in which changing regional demographics can have a quick impact on community colleges. Sacramento has become a center of immigration from Russia, Ukraine and other parts of what was once the Soviet Union. As the Los Angeles Times reported in March, many of the new arrivals are evangelical Christians who have repeatedly organized protests against gay rights. At American River, no one knows how many of these immigrants are enrolled because records don't track that degree of detail. But about 4,000 students in English as a Second Language programs report that their first language was a Slavic tongue, so that is probably a low estimate for the number.

When only 300 students vote in elections, it's not hard for a new group to gain seats -- and so 5 of the 16 members of the Student Council are from the former Soviet Union. On Tuesday, they pushed a measure that passed 8 to 3, with 3 abstentions, to back the effort in California to ban gay marriage. Not only did the Slavic students provide the margin of victory, but their rhetoric angered many supporters of gay rights. One council member was shouted down, according to newspaper accounts, when he called gay people "the aggressors" and said that sexual orientation is a matter of "personal choice." Another accused gay people of organizing "propaganda for homosexuality in front of the cafeteria."

Some 200 students -- many of them with signs and at times shouting -- attended the meeting where the vote took place. The turnout and emotion are unprecedented for the college, officials said. (Here is a photo gallery from The Sacramento Bee .)

Like many of their fellow Californians, American River students believe that the best way to respond to an elected official they don't like is to organize a recall vote, and the college's regulations permit that. Two hundred signatures are needed and organizers say that they have twice that number against those who voted for the resolution, although the petitions haven't been turned in yet.

The students who pushed the measure did not respond to messages.

Keltie Jones, dean of student services, said that the college is trying to make the dispute a positive moment. "People are very energized, which I think is a good thing," she said. "At a commuter community college, it's difficult to get students engaged outside the classroom. This has made a lot of students take notice."

The college has been taking the attitude that students should express whatever their views are, but do so in a civil way. "There have been moments when voices were raised and people got agitated," she said, but people "have been heard." Jones stressed that the college was committed to being "safe" for gay students, whatever the Student Council says. And she said that the tensions over the Slavic-speaking bloc on the student government reflected part of the process of what happens when immigrant groups come to the United States.

"It's a wonderful thing for any immigrant community to become connected to or engaged in our higher education system," she said. "That's how people will learn more about the world. Sometimes there is some head-butting as that process gets worked through."

Loren Smith, a professor of behavior and social sciences at the college who also advises the gay student group there, said that the Student Council appears "to have ignited some fire in the 30,000 students who never voted," and he thinks that's a good thing. Smith said he would be happy to see those who voted to back the gay marriage ban recalled. Of the current student leaders, he said that "it was student apathy that allowed them to get away with this."

Smith said that the student body generally is not hostile to gay rights, but that a minority "figured out a way to be influential here."

While much of the debate has been about the proposal to ban gay marriage, some student government members raised other issues. Chuck Stevens abstained from the vote. He described himself as a committed Christian who has an opinion on on the statewide referendum on gay marriage, but who will express it privately, with his vote on Election Day, not in the Student Council.

"I didn't feel that it was necessary for the student association to take any side of this issue when we have bigger stuff to worry about. I'm worried about whether people have enough money to pay for school books for this year," he said. The discussions about religion and gay rights upset him, he said, because "I'm here to learn and I'm trying to keep religious politics out of my school."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Slavic Immigrants vs. Gay Rights

  • Someone enlighten me
  • Posted by kgotthardt on October 3, 2008 at 9:10am EDT
  • --“It’s a wonderful thing for any immigrant community to become connected to or engaged in our higher education system,” she said.--

    I don't understand how advocating against gay marriage connects student leaders to higher education. Shouldn't student leaders be representing and supporting ALL students, regardless of sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, or gender? Why should a Council member even address sexual preference?

  • Posted by Thomas Ratliff on October 3, 2008 at 9:45am EDT
  • I commend the Slavic immigrants for demonstrating the effectiveness of the American democratic process while simultaneously speaking out with their conscious. Our country would be a far better place if more citizens would act similarly.

  • Ironic, isn't it?
  • Posted by Hana , Assoc. Prof. on October 3, 2008 at 10:25am EDT
  • Isn't it ironic that people leave their home country to escape persecution only to persecute others in their adopted land?

  • Too late
  • Posted by Beffudled on October 3, 2008 at 10:35am EDT
  • How many of the people protesting voted? This is a perfect example of how NOT to do things in America. They want a recall after they didn't bother to vote? I say, “Tough!” Agree with the counsel or not, you had a chance to ensure your voice would be represented, but you chose not to get off the couch. I think they should be stuck with the counsel for full term. This isn’t a video game. You can’t just reset and do over.

  • Chalk one up for democracy
  • Posted by Kevin Drumm , College President on October 3, 2008 at 12:20pm EDT
  • The outcopme of the democratic process isn't always pretty but this example is very encouraging nevertheless on both fronts. The administration has not over reacted and in fact the Dean of Students is appropriately, in my opinion, working to make the events a good learning experience for all students. Kudos to the dean and the college in handling this (so far) by turning it into an important teachable moment. Protecting the rights of all students is the aim here and it isn't easy in highly diverse environments.

  • Posted by Laura on October 3, 2008 at 12:40pm EDT
  • "Shouldn’t student leaders be representing and supporting ALL students, regardless of sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, or gender?"

    Can student leaders represent students whose views don't match current ideas of political correctness? In other words, if there are students who do not support gay rights, can there be student leaders who represent those students? Or are they on their own because their ideas aren't popular among the people who matter?

  • Seperation of church and state
  • Posted by dundermifflin on October 3, 2008 at 2:10pm EDT
  • Not only do these "elected officials" not represent the student body as a whole, it is apparent that they see their office as a means to advance their religious beliefs.

    Why not just adopt a rule that requires a minimum number to vote in order to certify victory? If one person voted for all of the candidates would that have been enough? What exactly is "representative" about it? A little common sense is needed here.

  • not too late
  • Posted by Larry on October 3, 2008 at 2:40pm EDT
  • Beffudled, Recall elections and impeachments are a normal part of the democratic process. It is never too late to recall someone whose views you disagree with for any or no reason. In the case of this institution, recalls are possible. Therefore, you are wrong.

  • Posted by gianstefano on October 3, 2008 at 2:50pm EDT
  • Send them back to Russia. They clearly don't deserve to be in America spreading hatred against gays. We already have enough of those people as it is. Geesh!

  • Posted by Larry on October 3, 2008 at 2:50pm EDT
  • Obviously, Befuddled doesn't get it. Having the ability to recall elected officials is exactly the american way. It's been tried on presidents, mayors and school board members. It works and that's one of the things that differentiates us from places like North Korea and Lybia. It's one of our freedoms and people like Befuddled want to restrict us because they think they know better. Not so.

  • ARC Student Council Vote on Prop 8
  • Posted by Jerry Sloan , ARC Student Council Vote on Prop 8 on October 3, 2008 at 3:05pm EDT
  • Several of Slavic members of the ARC Student Council have been actively protesting gay events in Sacramento for several years.

    When many of the Slavic members of the Student Council originally ran for the council they stated in their applications they wanted to represent "Christians on campus" and "righteousness"

    These members have a blatant anti-gay agenda!! There are many pictures of some of the Slavic Evangelical council members picketing lawful, peaceful gay events.

    The animosity between the Slavic Evangelicals and the Sacramento gay community was started by the Slavic Evangelicals who started picketing gay events and whose behavior was appalling as they spit on people, pushed them and physically blocked peaceful gays as they went about their lawful activities.

    The Sacramento chief of police had to call the Slavic leaders in to tell them such behavior was illegal and if they persisted in it they would be arrested.

    And one can not overlook the death of Satender Singh, a gay man, at the hands of 6 Slavic Evangelicals in July, 2007.

    Many of these Slavic Evangelical students or their parents came to America to escape religious persecution in their native countries but they now using their religious belief in a very un-American way by persecuting other Americans

  • Wake-Up Call
  • Posted by DFS on October 3, 2008 at 3:20pm EDT
  • And that's what it is, a wake-up call. For those sloths who now realize they don't like the results of their apathy, they now realize (I hope) that they must now 'game' the system and be involved.

    Do something other than YouTube and video games and continually hitching up your pants.

  • Attack the person?
  • Posted by Befuddled on October 3, 2008 at 4:20pm EDT
  • Come on Larry, attacking the person and not the issue? That's a basic fallacy and I’d expect more on IHE.

    I don’t care if you agree with what these Slavic individuals stand for or not. They have a voice just like anyone else. The problem is the two groups are diametrically opposed, and to represent both fairly would take somewhat equal involvement from both parties. The Slavic students were very democratic and systematic in their approach. They got elected and pushed their agenda – there isn’t a more American way to operate. A “portion” of the student body is unhappy with the outcome, but the process worked. One group was more organized than the other. Unless you can demonstrate through factual evidence that the elected officials are going against the “majority” of the students’ wishes, I don’t see the problem. I’m not on either side of the issue. I’m arguing for the fact that the process worked and those that didn’t take part shouldn’t complain about the outcome and cry foul after the fact. I don’t have a problem with recalling when the official goes against the will of the majority, but I haven’t seen evidence of that here. They voted based on their circle of influence. How is that different than any other elected official in the US?

  • Slavic Immigrants vs. Gay Rights
  • Posted by Troy on October 3, 2008 at 6:55pm EDT
  • The Slavic Immigrant community wants to back Prop. 8 so they do it through the American River College Student Association? As a former member of that body I know just exactly how little they actually do. I would be surprised if after this they did anything else at all. Ironic might be the number of these same immigrants who can actually cast a ballot on November 4th when a vote will mean something.

  • Who cares what their nationality is?
  • Posted by Aaron , Student at ARC on October 4, 2008 at 6:40am EDT
  • Why do you people even care what nationality the student council members were? What if they were all Mexican? What a useless article, its only purpose appears to be anti-Slavic, attempting fuel the flames of bigotry against the Slavic community rather than focus on the issue at hand: prop 8.

  • Posted by Dennis Ruhl on October 7, 2008 at 1:40pm EDT
  • So student councils should stay out of politics? Wasn't anyone around in the sixties or seventies when communists, radicals and assorted oddballs ruled the student council roost? It was all about politics. Now when conservatives run things, politics is something to avoid. Isn't democracy wonderful?

  • Posted by amcgaffic on October 7, 2008 at 2:01pm EDT
  • Befuddled: "The Slavic students were very democratic and systematic in their approach. They got elected and pushed their agenda – there isn’t a more American way to operate."

    Well, there are aspects of their methods that bear scrutiny. Three of the students distributed campaign material with a photo identifying one of our transsexual students. Thus far, none of them have offered any credible explanation, and I am concerned for her safety. This cryptic act was vaguely menacing, and at the very least distasteful and personal.

    Here's a link to the ARC Current and to the
    local newsweekly.

  • Posted by Lisa on October 7, 2008 at 6:35pm EDT
  • Like Aaron, I too am a bit confused as to why the article repeatedly emphasizes the influence of the Slavic students when the numbers don't seem to match that.

    According to the article, out of the 16 council members, only 5 came from the former Soviet Union. Assuming that all 5 of them voted for the resolution (and that may be a large assumption; I'm not sure), that still leaves 3 non-Slavic students who voted for the resolution.

    In addition, 3 more members (again, presumably non-Slavic) abstained, which considering this is (as I see it) a civil rights issue, that's also quite a negative statement against the right to marry.

    Apparently, 2 people (again, presumably non-Slavic) couldn't even be bothered to show up for the vote.

    What I wonder is why only (a maximum of) 3 of the 11 non-Slavic members voted against the resolution.

    Certainly, the Slavic Evangelical influence is a factor. However, I'm not sure it could possibly be as big a factor as the article makes it out to be, judging by the numbers. There seem to be deeper issues here as well.

  • Posted by amcgaffic on October 7, 2008 at 6:35pm EDT
  • My apologies. I meant to cite my background information, without realizing that linking is not allowed.

    The incident to which I'm referring is described on the American River Current's website, dated 5/14/08, and the Sacramento News & Review, dated 10/01/08.

  • The attention to the student being Slavic
  • Posted by Jeff on October 10, 2008 at 4:55am EDT
  • The reason the article mentions that the students reps who pushed this are from a Slavic background (and the reason it matters) is that some elements of the Slavic community in Sacramento have been targeting gays and lesbians increasingly over the past couple of years. Some Slavic religious leaders have organized very aggressive protests in Midtown, and there has been an increase in anti-gay hate crimes committed by people of a Slavic background, including two recent murders in Sacramento. This student rep vote at ARC falls into a bigger context in the Sacramento area. For more information, see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2242818160877291149. It's a video of a LGBT town hall meeting from 2006 addressing the problems.