The stage was set in the third Student Senate meeting of the semester for a debate on accountable administration of Wolfpack Students, the Facebook group for the student body of NC State.

A bill was brought to the table to require Student Body President Paul Nolan, a senior studying material science and engineering and political science, to make a statement regarding why he removed Eric Low (although the bill does not explicitly name him), a controversial participant, from WPS. The bill also establishes a few guidelines regarding the regulation of WPS, including a three-strike rule, but does not include details as to what infractions students might commit to count as a strike.

“I question the sponsor’s intent,” Nolan said of the bill. “If Student Senate has the time to create a bill for WPS, I question why the bill was constructed in a way to put pressure on me to make a public statement and why effort was not put into the bill to actually fix the problem, which is creating guidelines and standards and a protocol for actually addressing the issue.”

Debate over accountability for administration for WPS, and specifically the removal of controversial participants such as Low, a freshman studying political science, on WPS, has been a frequent subject of debate within Student Government over the past year. Tensions reached a climax recently after Nolan removed Low from the group on Jan. 31.

This removal follows a long history of controversy surrounding Low, who is frequently involved in arguments on WPS concerning topics including President Donald Trump, abortion and immigration, among other things.

When asked why Low was removed, Nolan cited students’ concerns for their own physical health and Low’s mental health.

“Students feel concerned for their own physical safety, as well as for Eric Low himself when it comes to mental health concerns,” Nolan said. “I have to listen to what the students are telling me, and if they’re telling me this particular student does not align with our value system, [students] feel threatened for [their] physical safety, I feel like he’s not creating good mental health habits, it reaches a point where I can’t, in good faith, allow him to stay inside the group.”

Low responded to Nolan’s comments disappointedly.*

“It is downright absurd of people to make rumors about someone’s mental health because you do not agree with them politically,” Low said in an email. “I am disappointed in President Nolan for buying into these rumors, although I cannot say I am surprised.” 

In an email sent by Nolan to members of the Student Senate Wednesday morning (before the draft of the aforementioned bill), he expressed his frustration with Student Senate’s “failure” to develop a set of community standards for WPS. He expressed this frustration in a resolution that Student Senate “focus their efforts on issues that matter.”

Nolan attached to the email a draft of an unsigned executive order that would, if signed, establish a set of rules for participants in WPS. One guideline included in the order is a three-strike rule that would punish students by removing them from the group if they break the rules of participation three times. Such infractions include those of the Facebook community standards and NC State regulations. It would also punish students for posts that are destructive to the educational environment.

“Any post that creates an intimidating, threatening, harassing or abusive educational environment in general or towards individuals, groups or communities,” reads the unsigned order.

Senators defended the bill requiring Nolan to make a statement, saying that students removed from WPS deserve to know why they were removed, and many debated specifically about the removal of Low from the group.

“I don’t think it was a fair process,” said Zack Lentz, a graduate student senator studying biological and agricultural engineering.

Treasury Assistant Sean Harrington, a junior studying political science, argued that students should be informed of what they did wrong if removed from the group so that they are not “left in the dark.”

“There’s a reason we tell students what they’ve done wrong,” Harrington said.

The bill was ultimately passed 36-1 and now goes to Nolan, who can sign or veto the bill.

In addition, the Senate debated a bill which was tabled last week specifically drafted in reaction to the Colonial College event last week titled “Homosexuality and Christianity” led by pastor Brady Cone. Debate continued about the nature of condemning the event, with senators disagreeing about whether the bill would qualify as limiting free speech.

Harrington said that it did not.

“Saying you are against a type of speech is not the same as suppressing free speech,” Harrington said. “We can stand for both free speech and Christians on this campus, while letting people that we are going to defend a minority group on campus who have high rates of mental health issues due to what they face in everyday life.”

Senators including JT Klimek, a senator from the College of Sciences and junior studying statistics, and Tyler Huffman, a senator from the College of Sciences and senior studying physics, argued against this sentiment, saying that the bill is an attempt to limit free speech.

“I understand everyone doesn’t want people’s feelings hurt, but if that’s the primary concern, think of the other people we are attacking with this bill,” Klimek said.

Klimek, who was particularly vocal about his opposition to the bill, created a moment of tension in the chambers when Student Senate President Jamie Plummer, a senior studying polymer and color chemistry, found Klimek to be breaking parliamentary procedure as he tried to initiate debate out of line, and was warned that he would be removed if he broke with procedure again.

The issue of false advertising was also presented, with senators citing the Facebook event and other advertising methods as ways of marketing the event as positive toward LGBT people despite the speaker being opposed what he referred to as the “homosexual lifestyle.”

Belton Moore, a first-year senator studying management, questioned why the bill called out the Colonial College’s event specifically for false advertising.

“If we point out this event for false advertising, what about all the other groups [conducting false advertising]?” Moore asked.

Many students felt that the nature of the event’s advertising, with its use of the LGBT rainbow flag and other marketing elements, was meant to make members of the LGBT community feel comfortable coming to the debate, only to be presented with an argument against their identity.

“It was a trap,” Lentz said.

The bill ultimately passed 24-18, with language specifying the Senate’s opposition to the Colonial College event and reaffirming its solidarity with the LGBT community.

Disclaimer: Eric Low is currently a correspondent with Technician.

*Editor’s Note (02.10.2017): This article was updated with direct quotes from Eric Low. 

**Editor’s Note (02.20.2017): The author of this article has a close personal relationship with a member of the executive branch of Student Government and will not cover related topics in the future as per the Student Media Code of Ethics.