We would like to clear up some questions raised by the op-ed “Sketchy petitioning being done by the No Limits Project.” First, it was never the intention of the No Limits Project to carry out a “bait and switch” operation. Although the column’s author suggests that he was not fully informed of the full scope of the project by the student who approached him, we have received few other complaints about this happening. Every student who was collecting signatures for the project was doing so on a packet—the first two pages were a near-final draft of the letter and 14 demands, and the third page was left blank for signatures. The students who signed put their names at the end of the document with each demand listed explicitly.
So while we regret that this happened at all and apologize to those who feel they’ve been manipulated, we would also note that basic responsibility, and principles of self governance, require that one read, research and understand what one signs. Additionally, had any students felt misled by the petitioning process, they were (and still are) able to remove their names from the online list simply by e-mailing the No Limits Project email account.
Greg Hudson’s initial request to be removed from the list was initially overlooked, but when he sent a follow-up email four days later, his name was immediately removed—we are not holding those names hostage. And while approximately 15 students have removed their names from the No Limits Petition, about 100 more students have added their names in the past month. We apologize to those who did not understand what they were signing and thank the 300 people who are committed to the campaign.
Additionally, we would like to clarify what is meant when the No Limits Project describes itself as non-hierarchical. First, it should not be taken to mean that all 300 people who signed the list have been equally involved—we recognize that students will be involved to various degrees. Rather, non-hierarchical simply means that we don’t have leaders or assigned roles, in contrast to most student organizations on campus. In practice, anyone should be able to come to our meetings, be heard, and have their opinions taken into account—the NLP tries to arrive at a consensus before making decisions, without giving more or less weight to people’s opinions based on their previous involvement.
Finally, to clarify about the 30 student contacts—30 was an arbitrary number agreed upon at an open meeting of students to whom the Presidents, Deans and Trustees could direct official correspondence. This was a volunteer role, so the 30 student contacts are basically the first 30 signatories who volunteered, with some consideration by the entire group given to class year. Emphatically, no “preexisting group of leaders” chose them, and the only role they play is to receive responses from the original letter’s addressees.
