The controversy began on June 20, during a meeting of the FAU Boca Raton House of Representatives, when the body was considering the appointment of Olivia Catino as Associate Director of the Council of Student Organizations (COSO).

When asked about her experience and qualifications and s, Olivia explained that she and her friends had, “co-founded a club called Lavender Alliance (LA), which is an LGBTQ organization that provides a safe place for students who identify as such or for any allies who would like to come.”

Representative Augustin Gervasio followed with remarks explaining why he would vote “no” on her appointment, saying the following:

• “I believe that she will support [LGBTQ] activities from a leadership position, since I believe it’s wrong and destructive, basically.”

• “In this context, the issue that I have is that it has seeped into her professional environment, where she has started a club promoting that ideology.”

• “I just don’t believe that it’s helpful, and I believe it’s actually harmful for Florida Atlantic University — or any university — to be promoting this ideology.”

• “In describing her past with promoting certain ideologies — and I’ll just say it with regards to LGBTQ — that’s something I believe shouldn’t be [promoted].”

The following week, the House was presented with two resolutions: one to uphold merit-based hiring, and a censure resolution I authored against Representative Gervasio. The censure was based on the grounds that he had disregarded the principle of merit-based hiring by allowing his personal views to influence his vote.

Ironically, Gervasio stated that Olivia “seems to be pretty qualified” but still voted against her confirmation. The resolution to uphold merit-based hiring passed unanimously. However, the censure resolution — because it was not on the original agenda sent to Representatives—was deferred by two weeks (from June 27 to July 11) under Florida’s Sunshine Law.

That deferral led to nearly 50 minutes of discussion about the censure, its ethics, and its basis. During this meeting, Gervasio appeared to have a friend speak on his behalf during the public comment period. A recurring argument was that his comments fell under “free speech” and that censuring him would suppress dissenting viewpoints.

The FAU Office of Civil Rights and Title IX states:

“It is equally important not to stifle the dissemination of any ideas, even if other members of our community may find those ideas abhorrent. Individuals wishing to express ideas with which others may disagree must be free to do so, without fear of being bullied, threatened, or silenced. This does not mean that such ideas should go unchallenged, as that is part of the learning process.”

Olivia had already addressed this during her confirmation process, stating:

“Everyone, of course, can have their own political beliefs, and it’s important to realize from a professional standpoint that I’m not going to let my personal beliefs affect the way that I work… It’s important to still involve [students], whether it is against my personal beliefs or not.”

One concern raised by some House members was that censuring Gervasio would discourage dissenting opinions about LGBTQ+ topics. I found this ironic, given how long and heated the debate became. My stance was — and still is — that political or religious opinions are valid within debate, but they should hold no bearing during a hiring decision. Even FAU’s Title IX Coordinator, Bobby Brown, when I met with them, had no objection to that principle.

After the deferral, I knew passing the censure would be an uphill battle. The House’s advisor, Andrew Moreira, met with me after the June 27 meeting to discuss mediation. I said that an apology — particularly to Olivia — could resolve the matter without a censure by showing personal accountability. Moreira later told me that Gervasio instead wanted to establish a “founding principle” to prevent what he called “cancel culture.” It was clear he had no intention of making an objective or conciliatory gesture.

Between the June 27 and July 11 meetings, I surveyed nearly 30 students and alumni for their opinions and collected statements. Every person surveyed said the incident worsened their perception of Student Government. Two students who had been interested in joining SG said they no longer wanted to participate after hearing what happened. After the University Press covered the incident, two more told me they were no longer interested in joining.

The censure failed on July 11. I was unable to be present for the vote, as our study abroad program had moved from Tokyo to Hiroshima.

I followed up with Olivia after the original June 20 meeting and apologized for the display she had to witness. She told me it left her with a worsened perception of the House and feelings of embarrassment. We later discovered that we were in the same study abroad program — and while there was no accountability taken by Representative Gervasio, I like to think I received a silver lining: Olivia and I have since become good friends, and I now have the chance to speak out through columns like OutFAU!

If there’s one takeaway from all this, it’s that standing up for someone can feel isolating — but if you’re doing the right thing, positive change will follow.

Sign up to receive the OutFAU newsletter here