A proposal to amend the student constitution at Southeast Missouri State University to add a nondiscrimination clause against sexual orientation was voted down by the Student Governament Association senate.

Senator Nick Maddock recommended the change because he has seen lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students called derogatory names.

"I see it as a huge issue that needs to be addressed," Maddock said. "This clause in the student constitution is the only discrimination policy that our students really have; therefore, I think that would be the best way to approach this issue and say from the student government body, 'Hey, to our LGBT students, we're here for you. We are behind you. We do not by any means or any type of discrimination against you, you're welcome 100 percent on this university.'"

The student constitution states "the right to vote and to freely participate in student organization elections shall not be denied on account of race, religion, creed, sex, or national origin."

Maddock recommended to add "or sexual orientation" to the clause.

When brought to the student government meeting on March 11, the senate voted against Maddock's recommendation in a 29-8 margin. This meant that SGA decided the clause should not be voted by students.

According to the student constitution, in order for an amendment to be proposed, two-thirds of the senate must vote in favor of it. Once it is passed by the senate, one-tenth of the student population must vote on it and two-thirds of the one-tenth that vote must be in favor of the amendment.

"No one disagrees with the content aspect of it," SGA Vice President Greg Felock said before the vote. "It's just really the procedural side to it that is a little scary and shocking so far."

The constitution never has been amended and it mimics the Missouri constitution, Felock said.

"Other universities all around Missouri have made this exact same clause, so for them to say that we need to abide by this because it's politically correct, that's just illogical," Maddock said. "There are a lot of universities who have passed that."

The University of Missouri and the University of Central Missouri include no discrimination against sexual orientation clauses in their student constitutions.

There were several other arguments made against proposing the amendment. Senator Dylan Lloyd said he believed that there was no reason for it to be changed.

"First, the Americans of the United States, no matter what your sexual orientation is, get to participate in the government by voting and/or running for office," Lloyd said. "The United States constitution does not say anything about sexual orientation -- and neither does Missouri's or Southeast's. Therefore, if there are no issues on higher levels of government, then why should we change it? Second, I talked to some of my constituents and they were not comfortable with adding this. At the end of the day, I am here to be their voice, so I voted no."

There were other issues of whether Maddock's clause was the right way to word the amendment.

"It refers specifically to the right to vote and to freely participate in student organization elections, so it's not necessarily an all-encompassing non-discrimination clause," Felock said before the voting. "There's a lot of discussion whether or not it's necessary or in a sense might be kind of repetitive because you can take different parts of it different ways. You know when you're talking about 'creed' that could mean a lot of different things."

Some senators wanted to change the clause to make it more general. Others made the point that other specifics would need to be added to the clause such as no discrimination against people with physical or mental disabilities.

"Some people said, 'Well, why not eliminate all and just say any type of discrimination,' which hey, like, I think that would be a small step up but that doesn't entrust the bigger issue of what I'm trying to address, which is the discrimination of LGBT individuals here," Maddock said.

Lloyd and Felock said they have not been told of any discrimination against sexual orientation on campus through student organizations.

"I do not believe that we have a big problem with discrimination against sexual orientation when it comes to clubs or organizations," Lloyd said. "I have not heard anyone complain about there being any discrimination towards those about their sexual orientation, and I have a few friends who are very active on campus who haven't said a word to me about discrimination in their organization."

Maddock disagreed and thinks SGA should be proactive rather than reactive. Instead of waiting for a problem to occur or worsen, he wants to take care of the problem now by amending the constitution.

Lloyd doesn't think this will be the end of Maddock's recommendations to amend the constitution.

"Student Government will battle over this issue 'til the cows come home," Lloyd said. "In a year or two, it will be brought up again, and if we see that there is discrimination going on, then we will respond to it. As for right now, we don't need to fix what isn't broken."