THE RIGHT ANGLE: Immigration questions need new answers - Opinions
You can't turn on a 24-hour news network these days without being bombarded with images and stories regarding the recent illegal immigration problem in America. The proposed solutions to these issues range from completely ridiculous (building a wall on the border) to the completely unacceptable (granting amnesty to all illegal immigrants).
Illegal immigration has been quite the hot-button issue for some time now, and that won't likely change anytime soon. Spartan TV President Denise Jones interviewed me on the issue a few weeks ago, and asked how I felt about some of the proposed solutions to the problem at hand. I explained that the idea of attempting to end illegal crossing of our borders by simply building a wall or fence would be a complete waste of time and money. Does anyone really think this idea will work? I can think of about a thousand places our money would be better spent. On the other hand, I can't fathom anyone thinking that there isn't a problem with the current situation. It makes one wonder why we even have immigration laws at all, if our government is just going to allow people to break them and even organize huge protests against our laws after illegally entering the country.
Unfortunately, it seems there is no easy answer. I pride myself on having a solution to everything (no matter how unrealistic it may be), but when Jones asked me what I felt should be done regarding the issue, I found myself shaking my head and replying, "I have no idea."
Although most stories on illegal immigration deal with states along the border, North Carolina has more than its share of illegals. According to a study published July 26, 2005 by the Pew Hispanic Center, six Southern states had Hispanic populations that were growing at twice the rate of the country's. And not only was North Carolina one of those states, the study pointed out that we actually have the fastest growth in the entire country. The report did not fail to mention that the majority of this population does not speak English, not that this was a surprise to most North Carolinians.
The stereotypical redneck cry-of-outrage is, "They're taking our jobs!" That argument is a constant source of ridicule and parody, from the infamous South Park episode where outer space aliens invade earth, causing American citizens to run around screaming, "They took our jobs!" to the online Maddox cartoon depicting two Mexicans pointing to a white man and proclaiming, "Quick! There's an American! Let's take his job!" To justify this response, the pro-illegal immigration side has attempted to make it common knowledge that illegal immigrants aren't really taking jobs away from Americans.
This interesting little tidbit might not be as true as you all think. Recently, illegal workers have been taking jobs traditionally held by American teenagers. Employers are favoring these illegal workers because they are able to work longer hours than teenagers and they do not have to mold their work schedules around classes or homework. An anonymous commenter on a local blog recently gave a perfect example of this hiring bias by stating, "I hire a hispanic[sic] over a white person whenever given the opportunity� White people think they are above doing actual work� And I don't like to hire black people either because they don't do what you tell them, they get defensive when you use authority to get them to do something."
How can we not think this is a problem? Many teenagers from lower-income families find it necessary to contribute to their family's income through these jobs. With this influx of illegal workers, these same teenagers will be forced to make a choice between staying in school and keeping a job. Is this how we teach our children the importance of education? Take into account that at the same time the illegal immigrant population is growing, so are our college tuition rates. Faced with ridiculous tuition fees and less jobs to choose from, many lower-income teenagers see college as an unattainable dream. And we wonder why the high school dropout rate is so high.
The situation is outrageous, but so are many of the solutions. Many claim that we should grant amnesty, since America is a nation of immigrants. But these people also seem to ignore the differences between legal and illegal immigrants. We can't ignore that this is a problem in today's society. There has to be an answer to this pressing issue, but it's certainly not one that has been presented yet.
I received an amusing response to this article. Two days after it came out, I was walking to my 9am Political Science class, when I was spotted by two African-American female classmates who had already made their feelings about me known during the Angela Davis debacle. In an immature move, they waited until I was about to walk into the building to rudely push themselves in front of my path, pretending not to see me. Rather than stoop to their level, I rolled my eyes and let them get a few steps ahead of me. Annoyed that they had not received a response, they made a point to stop right in front of the stairwell (blocking my own access), and loudly point out a pro-illegal immigration poster which had been hung by the ISO. "Aww, poor little immigrants!" one girl exclaimed. "They're so cute! I wish I could help more of them." She the proceeded to "pet" the Hispanic girl on the poster with her finger while her friend laughed loudly.
It was then that I realized, if my opinions can piss people off so much that they revert back to middle school, I must be doing something right.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
First Amendment Applies to Conservative Speech Too
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Freedom applies to conservative speech too - Opinions
On April 12, Erskine Bolwes was inaugurated as president of the UNC-system. The ceremony was held at UNCG's own Aycock Auditorium and was preceded by a parade leading down Spring Garden Street, where many students lined the streets to welcome Bowles to our university. One day earlier, a student organization hung a banner in the Elliott University Center to greet Bowles in a very different way. The banner, which was visible the moment one walked in the front of the EUC, read, "College Republicans welcomeSenator President Erskine Bowles... Someone had to hire him!"
Most people, including Bowles himself, realized the sign was simply poking fun at Bowles' two failed Senate campaigns. Others were not quite so enamored with the sign, saying it was "disrespectful" or "inappropriate." One of these people, a faculty member from the Bryan School, actually took down the banner on the day of Bowles' inauguration. The banner was soon found and returned to its rightful place, and the faculty member was told it is not his place to make that decision. Ironically, Bowles found the banner so amusing that he personally asked the College Republicans if he could have it to hang in his office.
This stunt couldn't have come at a better time. The very next day, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Tim Johnston hosted an Honors Coffee with the topic, "Does UNCG welcome the expression of conservative opinions?" It ended up being more of a discussion than a speech, but enlightening nonetheless. Being one of only three openly conservative students who attended, I actually did a lot of the talking.
The reaction was not what I expected. I had come ready to fight with whomever dared tell me I was imagining this liberal bias in academia. To my surprise, Dr. Johnston as well as the other faculty in attendance seemed shocked to hear how openly biased some professors are with their classes. There seemed to be a general consensus that this was to be somewhat expected, since 90 percent of the faculty at this university tend to be left-leaning. However, it was generally agreed upon that professors never have the right to ridicule their students for their beliefs. I entertained them with several stories of my favorite sociology professor who enjoyed making fun of me and my arguments on a daily basis.
Almost two years ago, I wrote a column on liberal bias at UNCG, and I had to go looking for feedback. I asked students in my political science classes (both conservative and liberal) and other random students around school if they thought their professors tended to be more welcome to liberal comments than conservative ones. As a result, I found several conservative students who pretend to be liberal while in classes with liberal professors, and liberal students who admitted there was clearly a bias in their favor.
I can't be sure what it is that's changed. Whether professors have become more blatantly liberal, conservative students have become more angry and fed up with the bias, or Facebook has just made it that much easier for people to contact me, not a week passes that I don't receive several IMs or emails about ridiculously liberal professors. Not many go into detail, but they'll say things like, "Why does my Spanish teacher insist on telling us why we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq? You should write a column on this." Some of the best messages came back in January and February when students would contact me to let me know their professor was ripping my Angela Davis columns apart piece by piece, and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the class.
Now, I'm all for freedom of speech, and I would never advocate putting restrictions on what anyone can say (nor would I say we should use affirmative action to hire more conservatives, as one person suggested at Honors Coffee), but I would hope our professors could do the same thing. And if some of them are so intent on turning us all into bleeding hearts, they need to realize they'll catch more flies with honey. Many of my views on women's political issues have indeed become more liberal since taking a Women and Gender Studies course with a professor who was very open to discussion about other sides of the issues. And because my ideas were respected, rather than simply squashed because of their inherently anti-women, right-wing qualities, I was more likely to respect other views on those same subjects, which made a lot more sense than I cared to admit at the time.
Professors that refuse to hear conservative arguments in their classrooms are only teaching their students to be more close-minded. The students who were already liberal to begin with become more liberal, feeling justified in doing so. Likewise, the more conservative-leaning students band together and become more conservative because they are being attacked from every angle. The end result is fewer moderate students, and every little thing becomes a political war.
And, after being here for four years, I've found I learn more under professors who are less blatantly biased, I've learned who they are, and I've succeeded in filling my schedule with their classes.
However, not all the blame can be placed on professors. Conservative students who refuse to point out their views in class for fear of ridicule don't have very much room to complain. You can't accuse a professor of being liberally biased if you don't at least try to point out the inequalities.
Two years after my first "liberal bias in academia," I realize my anger isn't over having conservative views silenced in the classroom; it's having anyone's views silenced. We're here to learn, and learning means being able to take all views into account. Professors shouldn't make fun of our opinions or try to make us feel we'll be graded down for not agreeing with them, but students should also stand up for their own ideas in class. If we don't exercise our freedom of speech, we'll have no reason to complain when it is taken away.
On April 12, Erskine Bolwes was inaugurated as president of the UNC-system. The ceremony was held at UNCG's own Aycock Auditorium and was preceded by a parade leading down Spring Garden Street, where many students lined the streets to welcome Bowles to our university. One day earlier, a student organization hung a banner in the Elliott University Center to greet Bowles in a very different way. The banner, which was visible the moment one walked in the front of the EUC, read, "College Republicans welcome
Most people, including Bowles himself, realized the sign was simply poking fun at Bowles' two failed Senate campaigns. Others were not quite so enamored with the sign, saying it was "disrespectful" or "inappropriate." One of these people, a faculty member from the Bryan School, actually took down the banner on the day of Bowles' inauguration. The banner was soon found and returned to its rightful place, and the faculty member was told it is not his place to make that decision. Ironically, Bowles found the banner so amusing that he personally asked the College Republicans if he could have it to hang in his office.
This stunt couldn't have come at a better time. The very next day, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Tim Johnston hosted an Honors Coffee with the topic, "Does UNCG welcome the expression of conservative opinions?" It ended up being more of a discussion than a speech, but enlightening nonetheless. Being one of only three openly conservative students who attended, I actually did a lot of the talking.
The reaction was not what I expected. I had come ready to fight with whomever dared tell me I was imagining this liberal bias in academia. To my surprise, Dr. Johnston as well as the other faculty in attendance seemed shocked to hear how openly biased some professors are with their classes. There seemed to be a general consensus that this was to be somewhat expected, since 90 percent of the faculty at this university tend to be left-leaning. However, it was generally agreed upon that professors never have the right to ridicule their students for their beliefs. I entertained them with several stories of my favorite sociology professor who enjoyed making fun of me and my arguments on a daily basis.
Almost two years ago, I wrote a column on liberal bias at UNCG, and I had to go looking for feedback. I asked students in my political science classes (both conservative and liberal) and other random students around school if they thought their professors tended to be more welcome to liberal comments than conservative ones. As a result, I found several conservative students who pretend to be liberal while in classes with liberal professors, and liberal students who admitted there was clearly a bias in their favor.
I can't be sure what it is that's changed. Whether professors have become more blatantly liberal, conservative students have become more angry and fed up with the bias, or Facebook has just made it that much easier for people to contact me, not a week passes that I don't receive several IMs or emails about ridiculously liberal professors. Not many go into detail, but they'll say things like, "Why does my Spanish teacher insist on telling us why we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq? You should write a column on this." Some of the best messages came back in January and February when students would contact me to let me know their professor was ripping my Angela Davis columns apart piece by piece, and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the class.
Now, I'm all for freedom of speech, and I would never advocate putting restrictions on what anyone can say (nor would I say we should use affirmative action to hire more conservatives, as one person suggested at Honors Coffee), but I would hope our professors could do the same thing. And if some of them are so intent on turning us all into bleeding hearts, they need to realize they'll catch more flies with honey. Many of my views on women's political issues have indeed become more liberal since taking a Women and Gender Studies course with a professor who was very open to discussion about other sides of the issues. And because my ideas were respected, rather than simply squashed because of their inherently anti-women, right-wing qualities, I was more likely to respect other views on those same subjects, which made a lot more sense than I cared to admit at the time.
Professors that refuse to hear conservative arguments in their classrooms are only teaching their students to be more close-minded. The students who were already liberal to begin with become more liberal, feeling justified in doing so. Likewise, the more conservative-leaning students band together and become more conservative because they are being attacked from every angle. The end result is fewer moderate students, and every little thing becomes a political war.
And, after being here for four years, I've found I learn more under professors who are less blatantly biased, I've learned who they are, and I've succeeded in filling my schedule with their classes.
However, not all the blame can be placed on professors. Conservative students who refuse to point out their views in class for fear of ridicule don't have very much room to complain. You can't accuse a professor of being liberally biased if you don't at least try to point out the inequalities.
Two years after my first "liberal bias in academia," I realize my anger isn't over having conservative views silenced in the classroom; it's having anyone's views silenced. We're here to learn, and learning means being able to take all views into account. Professors shouldn't make fun of our opinions or try to make us feel we'll be graded down for not agreeing with them, but students should also stand up for their own ideas in class. If we don't exercise our freedom of speech, we'll have no reason to complain when it is taken away.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Breaking the Party Lines
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Breaking the party line - Opinions
Last week, UNCG's PRIDE group held its annual PRIDE Week, a celebration of the GLBT movement in America. They featured a different event each night, including concerts, discussions, and special speakers. Although I was unable to attend all of the events, I did make it to a few of them, including Tuesday night's "LGBT Politics Panel" and Thursday night's "GLBTQQSA� Huh?!" both of which were extremely interesting and enlightening events.
Now here is where everyone gets confused. I did not attend these events to protest the so-called "homosexual agenda" or to cause any sort of trouble. I went because I support the GLBT movement, and I consider myself a straight ally. For many young Republicans looking to someday break into the world of real politics, you might think this is career suicide, but I don't see it that way. The times are changing, and the political parties are too.
A couple years ago, I worked for the Republican Party during the 2004 elections. I spent a great deal of my time volunteering with people who were about my age, and whose views, like my own, seemed a little more socially permissive than the average Republican's. However, whenever an older person would ask them how they felt about allowing gay marriage, they would always answer more conservatively than they had when they were around their peers. My answer never changed, however, and I like to think that I was respected, by both groups, for being firm in my beliefs.
I believe then as I believe now that marriage, of any sort, should not be defined by the government. Marriage is a religious sacrament, and by allowing the government to define and control it, we are violating the separation of church and state. Many people will tell you they oppose gay marriage because of religious reasons, but with so many religions now openly allowing gays and lesbians to participate in marriage ceremonies, how do we pick and choose which religion (or more appropriately, which denomination) to mandate the norm?
I certainly don't want the government telling churches what they can and cannot preach and practice, and along those same lines, I don't want the church to control the government. I realize that this nation was founded by Christian beliefs, but it was also founded by people who wanted the government to stay out of religion. But when you have an issue like that of marriage which is clearly a legal and religious conglomeration, you're going to have people getting pretty upset when the government suggests changing anything about it.
There's a solution here, and although it may not be simple, it makes sense. Take marriage out of the government's realm and keep it in the churches (synagogues, mosques, etc) where it belongs. In its place, the government should legalize civil unions for all couples consisting of two consenting adults. This way, each church can decide how it chooses to define marriage, and "married" couples can still receive legal benefits.
And if America refuses to take my idea seriously (President Bush rarely gives any feedback on my weekly columns), then people should at least open their eyes and realize that change is coming. This issue, like many others throughout history, seems to be generational, as I saw in my dealings with young Republicans in 2004. Our parents' generation may be vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage or even homosexuality in the same way that THEIR parents' generation was opposed to interracial marriage or feminist movements. The truth is, social norms and traditions change with each generation. Only forty years ago, there were still laws banning interracial marriages; do we really think gay marriage will never be a legal reality?
In a column last July, I wrote about how many gay Republicans I seem to come across, and since then, that number has grown. Former PRIDE President Chris Wood is not only openly gay, he's openly Republican, and religious as well. Wood recently told me about a local Catholic priest who referred to the New Testament as "the greatest love story of all time." Wood then stated that, "It's hard for me to believe these fundamentalists who are using [this] to justify hate and oppression."
And he's right. People use the Bible to both defend and attack homosexuality, but every passage used can be turned into a question of translation or historical connotation. However, the message of "love your neighbor" radiates loud and clear throughout the entire New Testament with little question as to perspective.
Even young conservatives who continue to oppose gay marriage seem to agree that civil unions (where homosexual couples are given similar rights as heterosexual married couples) are an acceptable alternative. And while this may not be true equality, it's much more than the current national parties are willing to give, and further proof that the times are changing.
There is no doubt in my mind that gay marriage will be legalized within our lifetimes. The question is how long will we continue to let the government hold us to certain (and possibly misconceived) religious standards? And how long will we continue to treat an entire group of people like second-class citizens?
Last week, UNCG's PRIDE group held its annual PRIDE Week, a celebration of the GLBT movement in America. They featured a different event each night, including concerts, discussions, and special speakers. Although I was unable to attend all of the events, I did make it to a few of them, including Tuesday night's "LGBT Politics Panel" and Thursday night's "GLBTQQSA� Huh?!" both of which were extremely interesting and enlightening events.
Now here is where everyone gets confused. I did not attend these events to protest the so-called "homosexual agenda" or to cause any sort of trouble. I went because I support the GLBT movement, and I consider myself a straight ally. For many young Republicans looking to someday break into the world of real politics, you might think this is career suicide, but I don't see it that way. The times are changing, and the political parties are too.
A couple years ago, I worked for the Republican Party during the 2004 elections. I spent a great deal of my time volunteering with people who were about my age, and whose views, like my own, seemed a little more socially permissive than the average Republican's. However, whenever an older person would ask them how they felt about allowing gay marriage, they would always answer more conservatively than they had when they were around their peers. My answer never changed, however, and I like to think that I was respected, by both groups, for being firm in my beliefs.
I believe then as I believe now that marriage, of any sort, should not be defined by the government. Marriage is a religious sacrament, and by allowing the government to define and control it, we are violating the separation of church and state. Many people will tell you they oppose gay marriage because of religious reasons, but with so many religions now openly allowing gays and lesbians to participate in marriage ceremonies, how do we pick and choose which religion (or more appropriately, which denomination) to mandate the norm?
I certainly don't want the government telling churches what they can and cannot preach and practice, and along those same lines, I don't want the church to control the government. I realize that this nation was founded by Christian beliefs, but it was also founded by people who wanted the government to stay out of religion. But when you have an issue like that of marriage which is clearly a legal and religious conglomeration, you're going to have people getting pretty upset when the government suggests changing anything about it.
There's a solution here, and although it may not be simple, it makes sense. Take marriage out of the government's realm and keep it in the churches (synagogues, mosques, etc) where it belongs. In its place, the government should legalize civil unions for all couples consisting of two consenting adults. This way, each church can decide how it chooses to define marriage, and "married" couples can still receive legal benefits.
And if America refuses to take my idea seriously (President Bush rarely gives any feedback on my weekly columns), then people should at least open their eyes and realize that change is coming. This issue, like many others throughout history, seems to be generational, as I saw in my dealings with young Republicans in 2004. Our parents' generation may be vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage or even homosexuality in the same way that THEIR parents' generation was opposed to interracial marriage or feminist movements. The truth is, social norms and traditions change with each generation. Only forty years ago, there were still laws banning interracial marriages; do we really think gay marriage will never be a legal reality?
In a column last July, I wrote about how many gay Republicans I seem to come across, and since then, that number has grown. Former PRIDE President Chris Wood is not only openly gay, he's openly Republican, and religious as well. Wood recently told me about a local Catholic priest who referred to the New Testament as "the greatest love story of all time." Wood then stated that, "It's hard for me to believe these fundamentalists who are using [this] to justify hate and oppression."
And he's right. People use the Bible to both defend and attack homosexuality, but every passage used can be turned into a question of translation or historical connotation. However, the message of "love your neighbor" radiates loud and clear throughout the entire New Testament with little question as to perspective.
Even young conservatives who continue to oppose gay marriage seem to agree that civil unions (where homosexual couples are given similar rights as heterosexual married couples) are an acceptable alternative. And while this may not be true equality, it's much more than the current national parties are willing to give, and further proof that the times are changing.
There is no doubt in my mind that gay marriage will be legalized within our lifetimes. The question is how long will we continue to let the government hold us to certain (and possibly misconceived) religious standards? And how long will we continue to treat an entire group of people like second-class citizens?
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Affirmative Action Speaker Meets Packed House, Closed Minds
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Affirmative action speaker meets packed house, closed minds - Opinions
Race issues, as I mentioned in a column just a month ago, are some of the trickiest and most sensitive topics out there. Unfortunately, race seems to play into some of the most widely-discussed matters, including affirmative action, immigration, and, at UNCG, the SGA elections. White people often hesitate to comment against a lot of these issues publicly, for fear of being labeled a racist. When I took this job two years ago, I decided to avoid most of these subjects for that very reason, although that apparently went down the drain when my Angela Davis column was published. And now it seems I can't stop writing about them. My friends are praying for me, and my editor is pretty sure I'm insane.
But the issue of inequality is something I'm very passionate about. I recently did an interview with Spartan TV concerning affirmative action, immigration, and gay rights, mostly because the other College Republicans declined to comment on the issues, for the very reason I stated above. To me, affirmative action just seems to lower the bar for minorities and women, and while it may appear to help them, in reality, isn't it doing little more than assuming they can't do things well enough on their own? As a woman, I feel quotas are a slap in the face, and an assumption that maybe I couldn't get a job in this "man's world" without any help.
Last week, entrepreneur/entertainer Reginald Jones gave a speech at UNCG entitled "Betrayal: Sold Out by the Civil Rights Movement" which was co-sponsored by the College Republicans, the Young America's Foundation, and the Office of Multicultural Affairs. Jones is an African-American Libertarian and a 25-year veteran of the entertainment industry. He is very much opposed to affirmative action, and he bases his beliefs on the way he worked his way to the top from humble beginnings in the South Bronx. Listening to his speech last Tuesday night, I realized that I wasn't alone in my views on these issues, and that having these views did not make me a racist, as some people might claim.
As you can imagine, the response to Jones' appearance was not entirely positive. This is partly due to the advertisements that wallpapered academic buildings to announce his speech, which bore controversial messages, such as "Minority? Democrat? Why?" In fact, the fliers were torn down at an amazing rate, and many people wrote answers on them or comments such as, "Does anyone else find this racist?" One person even "cleverly" made their own posters to combat the originals, which read "Demo-Minority? Autocrat? Why?" I am still perplexed as to what that means, and I welcome any explanations.
Now I know people don't like to hear views which disagree with their own, and I expected a rather small turnout based on this theory. I was partly right. The audience would have been rather pathetic had the African-American Studies Program not urged their students to attend the speech. The end result was a good crowd which held many viewpoints different from Jones'. Unfortunately, we can't be entirely sure how much of an effect that had on anyone in the audience. I sat in amazement as UNCG students, during the speech, reacted loudly in disagreement to Reginald Jones. "Redneck" and "race traitor" are only a few of the terms I heard thrown out as a reaction to his views. I know it's human nature to celebrate ideas that we agree with and to ridicule those we don't, but I also know if I can sit through an entire Angela Davis speech and keep my composure even as the audience stood to cheer and applaud her "Let's impeach Bush NOW!" line, Tuesday night's audience could have held in their rude comments until after the event.
Now whether or not Reginald Jones could hear the comments or not, they are nothing he hasn't heard before, and he continued with his speech without missing a beat. Other schools who have hosted Jones have said that he loves the question/answer session, and that he will debate everyone, and this event was no exception. In fact, the question and answer session ran so long that most students had to leave during it, and Jones did not leave the building until 10:30 p.m. Unfortunately, the majority of the "questions" from the audience were not questions, but rather comments regarding the problems people had with Jones' point of view. There were many intelligent responses to his speech, and a few that were a little "out there", including one College Democrat (who happens to be white) who stated that we should just "overthrow the government and kill all the white people." When Reginald Jones refused to humor him with a response, the audience overwhelmingly denounced Jones' "racism" and claimed that he would have responded to a black student who had made this same statement. Now, I'm not sure what part of Jones' speech made everyone think that he would promote that idea, or that he is racist against white people, but that seemed to be the group consensus.
I have to say, I expected a passionate reaction from the audience, but I never expected what occurred. An African-American Studies lecturer, Tracy Salisbury, who credited herself with bringing so many students to the speech, used a majority of the question and answer time to argue with Jones. Regrettably, there was little debate in what she said. It was mostly just anger or accusations at the fact that he was supposedly avoiding answering her questions. Salisbury seemed upset that Jones wasn't able to answer very many of the students' questions, yet she managed to interrupt several students and Jones himself on many occasions. She stood up and yelled her comments at Jones in what seemed to be a very unfriendly manner, all while proudly proclaiming that she is a UNCG lecturer and even lamenting the fact that there are rarely any white people in her classes.
After the speech, several students informed me that they were embarrassed by this lecturer's conduct, and I can see where they are coming from. I expected students to react in this manner, but I never thought a lecturer, someone who should be representing UNCG and its faculty, would put on such a show. If Ms. Salisbury is really concerned about the number of white students who take her class then perhaps she needs to stop blaming racism and look at the way she sells both herself and the African-American Studies Program. In last month's column, I asked why white students don't take AFS classes, but I think I got an answer to my question Tuesday night.
Race issues, as I mentioned in a column just a month ago, are some of the trickiest and most sensitive topics out there. Unfortunately, race seems to play into some of the most widely-discussed matters, including affirmative action, immigration, and, at UNCG, the SGA elections. White people often hesitate to comment against a lot of these issues publicly, for fear of being labeled a racist. When I took this job two years ago, I decided to avoid most of these subjects for that very reason, although that apparently went down the drain when my Angela Davis column was published. And now it seems I can't stop writing about them. My friends are praying for me, and my editor is pretty sure I'm insane.
But the issue of inequality is something I'm very passionate about. I recently did an interview with Spartan TV concerning affirmative action, immigration, and gay rights, mostly because the other College Republicans declined to comment on the issues, for the very reason I stated above. To me, affirmative action just seems to lower the bar for minorities and women, and while it may appear to help them, in reality, isn't it doing little more than assuming they can't do things well enough on their own? As a woman, I feel quotas are a slap in the face, and an assumption that maybe I couldn't get a job in this "man's world" without any help.
Last week, entrepreneur/entertainer Reginald Jones gave a speech at UNCG entitled "Betrayal: Sold Out by the Civil Rights Movement" which was co-sponsored by the College Republicans, the Young America's Foundation, and the Office of Multicultural Affairs. Jones is an African-American Libertarian and a 25-year veteran of the entertainment industry. He is very much opposed to affirmative action, and he bases his beliefs on the way he worked his way to the top from humble beginnings in the South Bronx. Listening to his speech last Tuesday night, I realized that I wasn't alone in my views on these issues, and that having these views did not make me a racist, as some people might claim.
As you can imagine, the response to Jones' appearance was not entirely positive. This is partly due to the advertisements that wallpapered academic buildings to announce his speech, which bore controversial messages, such as "Minority? Democrat? Why?" In fact, the fliers were torn down at an amazing rate, and many people wrote answers on them or comments such as, "Does anyone else find this racist?" One person even "cleverly" made their own posters to combat the originals, which read "Demo-Minority? Autocrat? Why?" I am still perplexed as to what that means, and I welcome any explanations.
Now I know people don't like to hear views which disagree with their own, and I expected a rather small turnout based on this theory. I was partly right. The audience would have been rather pathetic had the African-American Studies Program not urged their students to attend the speech. The end result was a good crowd which held many viewpoints different from Jones'. Unfortunately, we can't be entirely sure how much of an effect that had on anyone in the audience. I sat in amazement as UNCG students, during the speech, reacted loudly in disagreement to Reginald Jones. "Redneck" and "race traitor" are only a few of the terms I heard thrown out as a reaction to his views. I know it's human nature to celebrate ideas that we agree with and to ridicule those we don't, but I also know if I can sit through an entire Angela Davis speech and keep my composure even as the audience stood to cheer and applaud her "Let's impeach Bush NOW!" line, Tuesday night's audience could have held in their rude comments until after the event.
Now whether or not Reginald Jones could hear the comments or not, they are nothing he hasn't heard before, and he continued with his speech without missing a beat. Other schools who have hosted Jones have said that he loves the question/answer session, and that he will debate everyone, and this event was no exception. In fact, the question and answer session ran so long that most students had to leave during it, and Jones did not leave the building until 10:30 p.m. Unfortunately, the majority of the "questions" from the audience were not questions, but rather comments regarding the problems people had with Jones' point of view. There were many intelligent responses to his speech, and a few that were a little "out there", including one College Democrat (who happens to be white) who stated that we should just "overthrow the government and kill all the white people." When Reginald Jones refused to humor him with a response, the audience overwhelmingly denounced Jones' "racism" and claimed that he would have responded to a black student who had made this same statement. Now, I'm not sure what part of Jones' speech made everyone think that he would promote that idea, or that he is racist against white people, but that seemed to be the group consensus.
I have to say, I expected a passionate reaction from the audience, but I never expected what occurred. An African-American Studies lecturer, Tracy Salisbury, who credited herself with bringing so many students to the speech, used a majority of the question and answer time to argue with Jones. Regrettably, there was little debate in what she said. It was mostly just anger or accusations at the fact that he was supposedly avoiding answering her questions. Salisbury seemed upset that Jones wasn't able to answer very many of the students' questions, yet she managed to interrupt several students and Jones himself on many occasions. She stood up and yelled her comments at Jones in what seemed to be a very unfriendly manner, all while proudly proclaiming that she is a UNCG lecturer and even lamenting the fact that there are rarely any white people in her classes.
After the speech, several students informed me that they were embarrassed by this lecturer's conduct, and I can see where they are coming from. I expected students to react in this manner, but I never thought a lecturer, someone who should be representing UNCG and its faculty, would put on such a show. If Ms. Salisbury is really concerned about the number of white students who take her class then perhaps she needs to stop blaming racism and look at the way she sells both herself and the African-American Studies Program. In last month's column, I asked why white students don't take AFS classes, but I think I got an answer to my question Tuesday night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
