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?

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.

A Final Word on the Debate

This column was written in respose to the second College Republican/College Democrat debate, which seemed to get a little out of hand. Each group was told to choose a representative to voice their side of the story. I wrote about the recent tension that had plagued the two groups; their representative chose to talk about abortion instead.

A final word on the debate - Opinions


When I became active in campus politics about two years ago, I wasn't delusional about it. I realized that labeling myself a "Republican" on this campus was not going to make me popular or well liked. And even now, although I've been called the "most hated person on campus" on more than one occasion, I wouldn't trade it for anything. As College Republican President, I have been more than willing to work with people and organizations whose views differ from mine, which is more than I can say for the College Democrats.

At the end of last year, when the College Democrats began to get organized, Jonathan Rosamond (their president at the time) made a point of contacting me. We discussed having our two groups work together in the future, to illustrate the sort of cooperation we'd like to see between the two parties within our government. This is where we first had the idea that a debate between the two groups could educate other students in issues that were important to both parties. Of course, the debates did not become a reality until this year, and by then, the CDs had chosen a much more liberal leader. Although I can't recall a single time when I was anything less than polite to him, the new CD President made it very clear that he did not like me, and had no qualms about personally attacking me, publicly.

A few weeks ago, members of both organizations met to decide on a debate topic for the first CR/CD debate of the semester. We eventually decided to debate life and death issues (abortion, stem cell research, death penalty, and assisted suicide), thanks to compromise on both sides. But that is where compromised ended. About a week later, the Carolinian printed the front page article insinuating the CRs and CDs were arguing over changes made to the Anti-Discrimination Policy.

This whole ordeal baffled myself and the other Republicans, as we had no idea we were supposedly feuding with the Democrats. But it only got worse from there. CR Ryan Radford designed different fliers for the event, and one, par the CD's request, featured a pregnant woman symbolizing the topic of abortion. CR Vice-President Daryn Iwicki and I took a break from our meeting to have the CDs approve the debate fliers. Upon entering the room where their meeting was being held, we were told to leave, cursed at, and then physically forced to exit. Considering that the CDs had claimed to have "no reservations about allowing a member of the Republicans... to join their meetings" in that week's article, we found their actions to be extremely hypocritical.

The Democrats made it clear that they would have us written up for an honor code violation if we posted the advertisements with their name on them, even though we had only put a pregnant woman on the flier because they told us to. Because we had done pretty much all the work for the debate, I told them if they wanted to change the abortion fliers, they could; the Republicans would stick with the already-approved, more generic fliers. Later, we were approach by CD Sam Bickett, who had made new posters for abortion, and when we tried to point out things we didn't like, he told us to "get over it."

This all culminated the night of the actual debate. Because the CRs had been told we were free to make our own advertisements without the CDs' name on them, we spent time and money creating copies of pink and blue baby feet to advertise the debate. We taped the footprints on the floor near the debate room, in a pattern that showed them "walking" up the stairs to the door. No sooner had we taped them on the floor, when Bickett came through and removed every one. When we protested that what he was doing was a destruction of property, he got about two inches from CR Iwicki's face and began to yell obscenities at the top of his lungs.

Whether you choose to admit it or not, it's incredibly hard to be conservative on this campus. When the three of us sat in front of that crowded room and made our views known, we knew that we were going to be criticized and ridiculed. The majority of that crowd came in agreeing with the Democrats, and nothing we could ever have said would have changed their minds. You can say what you want to about Republicans, but we stood by our views under the worst circumstances, and we were able to do so without shouting and cursing at those with differing viewpoints. So you tell me: who really won here?

I was later forced to retract the part of my statement which said we were physically forced out of the CD meeting. I will not post that retraction here, because I stand by what I said originally. I only issued a retraction to help mend ties between the two groups (and in part due to a "suggestion" from the administration), and now that I am no longer associated with that silliness, I do not feel the need to cover up their hypocrisies.

Students First? Not Anymore

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Students First? Not anymore - Opinions

When I first arrived at UNCG as a freshman in Fall 2002, the university motto was "Students First." Sure, it was the butt of a few jokes, but it served its purpose in expressing that UNCG felt a rightful obligation to its own students. I'm not aware of when the switch occurred, but at some point, UNCG discreetly changed its motto to the very vague "Service." It sounds nice, but as a student who often feels her needs are forgotten in the midst of a large bureaucracy, sometimes I have to wonder: "Service" to whom?

I started thinking about this last week while frantically trying to finish the several papers that had piled up on me while I was sick. Thanks to my technological illiteracy, I have managed to accidentally delete Microsoft Office from my home computer, which means I rely completely on UNCG's computer labs. I planned to spend most of the night in the Bryan Lab because it doesn't close until 3am, and I figured I'd have plenty of time to finish my papers. Unfortunately, the lab consultant working at that time was paid a visit by three of his friends, and they spent the next 45 minutes talking above the normal speaking level, in a place where students go to do homework. This isn't the first time I've had this happen to me, and it makes me wonder if maybe UNCG is unable to hire people who can do their jobs.

UNCG's disservice to their students doesn't stop there. Anyone who has ever lived on campus knows how wonderful it is to be forced to buy a campus meal plan. For those of you who have never known this pleasure, I'll go over the basics. Meal plans are required for anyone living on UNCG's campus (they think that if we don't eat on campus, we'll just forget to eat all together and starve to death). Freshmen are given one choice for a meal plan, and that is a plan that includes only the Caf. As you become a sophomore and so on, they allow you to choose meal plans with a little more flexibility.

The main problem with this is that UNCG is taking our money under the guise of allowing us to eat all semester, but not really treating us as paying customers. The Caf has horrible hours of operation. Also, if you happen to make it in right before they close, you're not likely to find much to eat, and some Caf workers will even complain vociferously about students that come in late. If workers at a restaurant kept the same attitudes that people working at UNCG's dining facilities have, the restaurant wouldn't stay open very long. But UNCG knows they have a captive audience for their food services, so they really couldn't care less.

In response to the abuse many students undergo at the Caf and other dining places on campus, some students are taking action. Matt Hill, a student who is very active on campus, was disrespected by two Caf workers, and upon complaining to the manager on duty, was actually threatened by one of the workers, who attempted to start a physical fight with him right there in the middle of the dining area. The entire experience has left this student feeling intimidated about dining in the Caf for fear that the worker might try to start another fight. Because Matt realizes that he is not alone (I myself have had several problems with Dining Service employees, including the manager of Spencers), he has started a website entitled "This $#!+ Has Got To Stop Campaign" (http://www.matthillnc.com/diningcomplaints). He is using this site to compile stories about similar abuse by UNCG Dining Service employees which will eventually lead to an SGA resolution concerning the conduct of these employees.

In what might seem like an unrelated story, the UNCG College Republicans were asked to stop using their logo by University Relations. Why? The CR logo features the Republican elephant sharing the yellow and blue shield with Minerva, our school symbol. The CRs created and used the logo to illustrate their connection with the university, and yet the university has told them that they have no right to their own school's symbols. The symbol of Minerva represents UNCG and therefore represents their students, and as a student, I feel I should have a right to use this logo which represents me. These ridiculous rules outlining how the image of Minerva may and may not be used are little more than just another example of how UNCG is trying to completely distance themselves from their students. It also makes one wonder if these people really have nothing better to do with their time than bust students for a simple graphic design.

It's fairly simple to understand why UNCG changed its motto to "Service." If it was still "Students First," they might have to make some serious changes, such as pretending to actually care about their students. But as they seem to be content with offering sub par lab services and even worse dining options, as well as restricting their own students' rights to show any sort of connection with the university through the Minerva logo, I doubt we'll ever see "Students First" again. In fact, maybe something more along the lines of "Shut Up, Give Us Your Money, and Enjoy Being Screwed Over for the Next Four Years" would be more appropriate.

Working Together for the Future of America

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Working together for the future of America - Opinions

I received a lot of good feedback on my article from a few weeks ago concerning bipartisanship. It seems as though everyone is in favor of seeing the two parties work together; apparently the national and state parties just haven't gotten the memo yet.

I'm not sure how many college students actually keep up with the North Carolina State Legislature's doings, but it's hilarious how juvenile these grown men (and a few women) can get when it comes to their political stance. Republicans refuse to compromise with Democrats (and vice versa), to the point that nothing ever gets accomplished. The state Democrats actually had to wait until one Republican was on his honeymoon and the other was out sick to get the lottery bill passed through. Some see this as dirty politics, but most just see it as necessary.

It gets even dirtier on the national level. When President Bush first nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Republicans everywhere praised his good judgment. And then they realized that the Democrats liked her, so they had to find something wrong with her. Miers ended up withdrawing from her nomination, most likely due to criticism she was receiving within the Republican Party.

The only thing that gives me any hope for democracy is the new generation of political leaders. The only reason I haven't completely given up politics is the determination I have in me that I will be one of the people who changes the country for the better.

Think about it. Most of the people in power who refuse to compromise or even discuss change are of the older generation. The majority of young people that you ask aren't going to see any problem with gay marriage, but seeing as how we're not the majority in this country (at least, not when it comes to voting), we simply have to wait our turn.

Take for example, the College Republicans and the College Democrats at UNCG. Sure, this is politics on a much less significant scale, but politics nonetheless. Although both groups represent two complete opposites of the America public, they manage to get along just fine, even when it comes to political discussions. Sure, there are arguments about the basics - the War on Terror, Social Security, taxes - but nothing like the juvenile arguments that seem to go on in the state legislature, or in Congress.

Perhaps it has something to do with the idealistic nature of youth. Even those of us who consider ourselves to be Republican still tend to see the world through rose-colored glasses at some time or another. I personally refuse to let go of the belief that things are going to change in the future: those older politicians who refuse to bend to anything are going to give way to a new group of politicians, those who grew up listening to the ridiculous partisan arguments of both sides, and who are willing to work together to make this country a better place for everyone.

If you don't believe me, maybe you should see it for yourself. The College Republicans and the College Democrats, in a bi-partisan event sponsored by the Political Science Department and the Political Awareness Club, are going to be doing a series of debates during this academic year. The first one is a debate on foreign affairs, and will be held in Graham 212 at 7p.m. on Thursday, November 3. It's a good way for both sides to get their views out in a friendly manner, and it's also a good way for students to have their questions answered about what each party really thinks about the war in Iraq and other things of that nature.

I personally think it's great that both sides are working together for this event. I have enough faith in these two groups to believe that it will be a friendly debate, and that there will be very few fist-fights, unlike Congress. I'd encourage everyone at UNCG who is interested in politics, concerned about our position in Iraq, or just curious about where a debate between these two groups might lead, to attend. You just might learn something you didn't know, or maybe you'll change your mind about something you already believed. Or maybe you'll see me get punched. Either way, it's a good time.

The Anti-War Coalition Identity Crisis

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Anti-War Coalition Identity Crisis - Opinions

Someone up there has a really screwed-up sense of humor. And no, I'm not referring to heaven when I say "up there." I'm referring to the Office of Student Life.

Those of you that keep up with my online blog (link below) may have been shocked at a picture I posted a few weeks ago. I have actually been approached by students on campus asking if it was a joke, or an altered photo. Unfortunately the picture is one I snapped myself, and it is nothing more than a photo of the sign outside cubicle 225M in the EUC. Two campus organizations share an office here as of about a month ago: the College Republicans and the Anti-War Coalition.

I have this mental image of people in OSL getting bored over the summer and thinking this up. "Hey, know what we should do? Make the College Republicans share their office with the Anti-War Coalition! That'll be a good time..."

Since the College Republicans have occupied this space for years now, it is of course already decorated with American flags and Republican paraphernalia. For several weeks, no one heard or saw any sign of the Anti-War Coalition in 225M. And then one day, out of nowhere, a couple CRs found evidence of their cubicle-mates' existence: someone had tacked up a piece of paper that read, "This wall reserved for the AWC."

I had heard about this from several members, and finally went up to the office to check it out. A CR had cleared off the back wall that the other group had "reserved", and there was nothing but a "Bring Them Home" postcard hanging now. That is, of course, to be expected. I was fairly surprised, however, to find a pro-abortion flier taped to the top of the AWC's cabinet. The flier advertised an event being sponsored by the International Socialist Organization, although down at the bottom someone had scribbled, "Also sponsored by the Anti-War Coalition."

Now, THAT is interesting. I found myself wondering what war and abortion had in common, and why a group that was against one was very supportive of the other. I couldn't help but feel that the flier had been placed there to annoy the pro-life CRs. Why else would the Anti-War Coalition feel the need to co-sponsor an event on women's rights?

As I left the cubicle and started walking to the door, I glanced towards the Socialists' cubicle. Leaning half in and half out of their office was a large sign that read, "Join the Anti-War Coalition."

Last year, I met a girl that was in the AWC who got very annoyed when everyone just assumed she was a Socialist as well. But now I understand everyone's confusion - apparently, if you are anti-war, you must be anti-capitalism as well.

Now I'm torn, because I'm not sure what to believe. Either the AWC is just an offshoot of the ISO (who thought that maybe people wouldn't be quite as annoyed being harassed by them if they pretended to be two different groups), or they're proving my theory that liberals don't believe in a middle ground of any kind (i.e., if you're anti-war, you must subscribe to all other liberal theories as well). If that's the case, then no wonder the liberals think I'm crazy. After all, how can someone claim to be a Republican and still hold some of the liberal views that I do?

Then again, maybe the Socialists don't have such a bad idea. Maybe the College Republicans should start creating offshoot groups: the Pro-War Coalition, Students for Life, Second Amendment Supporters. Maybe then they'll have a chance to score extra office spaces as well.

Socialists: Stuck Between Idiocy and Irrelevance -- Don't Let Them Fool You, Free Speech is Not on the ISO's Agenda

The Right Angle: Socialists: Stuck between Idiocy and Irrelevance - Opinions

It was a beautiful day in UNCG history. In perfect weather, two groups with completely opposite views were living in perfect harmony right next to each other. The College Republicans set up a pro-life table with facts about abortion and pregnancy, and the Voices for Planned Parenthood (VOX, Latin for "voice") set up a pro-choice table about ten feet away and handed out condoms.

Anyone can see the valid points that either of these groups were trying to make. The CRs were trying to convince students that fetuses are more than just a cluster of cells and should therefore have a right to live, and VOX wanted people to realize that women should have the right to choose whether or not they carry their pregnancy to full-term. Passer-bys had the choice of stopping by either of the tables or even flipping off one of the groups if they felt so inclined to do so (and apparently, some people did).

If you really can't figure out what side I was on by now, I'll give you a hint: it wasn't VOX. That doesn't mean I don't respect and understand their views. To be completely honest, in order to be as effective as possible in a situation like this, the two groups need each other in order to give students a choice.

It was a day that gave me hope for America. Here were two groups peacefully protesting each other without an argument in sight... until the socialists showed up.

Don't get me wrong here. You should all know by now that as a huge fan of the first amendment, I support anyone's right to speak their mind. But the second you try to suppress MY freedom of speech, we have a problem.

The International Socialist Organization, disturbed by the peaceful, harmonious freedom going on in front of the library, set up a table BETWEEN VOX and the CRs. Not content with simply handing out copies of "The Socialist Worker" (oh excuse me, SELLING "The Socialist Worker"... one day these kids will learn what socialism is and probably feel pretty stupid), they had to go one step further and start actually harassing the pro-life booth.

A couple latched on to me as I walked past them to bring lunch to the CRs. They screamed out angry, irrelevant questions such as, "WHY are you president of the College Republicans?" I am still perplexed by this one. I thought I was elected, but perhaps they think no Republican can hold office unless they "fix" the election.

Within moments, anti-first-amendment Socialists surrounded the pro-life table. The CRs calmly sat back and watched in amusement as the socialist argument went around in circles trying to explain itself.

I cannot stress this enough: regardless of your political affiliation, if you have any grasp of the English language whatsoever, you will win any argument with ISO. Give it a try the next time you see them around campus. I can guarantee you that the best thing they will come back at you with is, "Well, Europe does it, so we should too." They missed the history class where America declared independence from that wonderful continent.

Because they are aware that they'll never win an argument, the socialists have perfected the art of changing the subject in hopes that their opponents will become very confused and just give up. They began arguing with the CRs about women's rights, then moved to the war in Iraq, the death penalty, education, healthcare, and liberalism in public universities - all within three minutes. One socialist even tried to convince a proudly abstinent pro-lifer that she didn't know what she was missing by not having sex. Well, APPARENTLY, she's missing out on having an abortion, a vital part of any healthy sexual relationship!

For what seemed like an eternity, the CRs tried to convince the socialists that they were simply trying to educate students on abortion, not ban the use of it altogether. Many Republicans invoked the first amendment, but to no avail. The response was overwhelmingly, "All Republicans are liars, Bush stole the election from Gore and Kerry, and all conservatives are members of the KKK." You know, all the intelligent things we've come to expect from the ISO posters littering our campus.

Eventually, campus police showed up to insure that the groups respected each other's freedom of speech, although the CRs and VOX were already mature enough to handle that responsibility without police involvement. After about an hour of peace, the socialists had to leave; they were bored.

Anyone with any sense would realize that if the College Republicans' main goal for that day were to make abortion illegal, they would not have been demonstrating on the UNCG campus. The CRs tried to make it known that they were simply informing the students about abortion myths and such. Many people do not know about the consequences that may result from an abortion years later, because many pro-choicers want everyone to think that it is a perfectly normal and healthy procedure, and that is not always true.

So thumbs up to the socialists in respecting differing views from their own. Also, does anyone else find it ironic that these are some of the most prominent anti-war students on campus, and yet everything was completely peaceful until they showed up and attacked the Republicans? I can't wait until these kids grow up and realize how ridiculous they looked making these kinds of scenes. Who knows, maybe that will be the same day that they realize socialists should be the last people on earth selling their own propaganda for a buck a piece.

The Truth About College Republicans

THE RIGHT ANGLE: The Truth About College Republicans - Opinions

All of your life, you've been taught to never judge a book by its cover. And yet, you do it everyday without even thinking about it. Maybe you judge people by their physical appearance, maybe by their clothing, or maybe by things you've heard about them. Regardless of why you judge them, it's wrong, and you know it. Why then, do you continue to let hearsay dictate how you view certain groups around campus?

Today, I am going to introduce you to the UNCG College Republicans. I am well aware of the things they say about us, and so are most of you. The groups and individuals on campus that differ from us ideologically would have you believe that we are racist, sexist, and homophobic. I suppose these rumors are to be expected, but I have a suspicion that there are those of you who are capable of thinking for yourselves, and that is who I am speaking to right now.

According to our wonderful critics, the College Republicans are not interested in doing anything that is not controversial. They say we exist solely to cause trouble. These people have never bothered to listen to our side of an issue; they simply go by what they've heard and what they want to believe.

Last Wednesday, I attended a meeting of the College Republicans. If I were to believe everything I had heard about the group, I would have expected to do nothing all night but discuss how we could annoy the rest of the campus. But perhaps you'd be shocked to learn that we don't want to do that. During our hour long meeting, we discussed many things - food drives, community service, trips to Washington DC, fun group events - and yet, not once did I hear someone say, "Hey everyone, what are some fun, creative ways we can make the liberals on campus hate us even more?

I know for a fact that some people have avoided associating with the College Republicans because of our image around campus. I find it very unfortunate that so many of you blindly believe these rumors without even bothering to hear our side. Last year's Morals Week was not meant to promote bigotry, regardless of what you might have heard. It was actually meant to promote equality; had you opened your mind and looked at it from a different point of view for once, this would have been obvious.

Stop letting other people dictate your beliefs. Drop in on a College Republican meeting sometime and decide for yourself. I know from some of the emails I've received recently that there are more conservatives on UNCG's campus than one might think. It would be wonderful if their voice was louder on this campus.

Fellow conservatives, here is your opportunity to have fun with a group of people who share your views. This is also your chance to make a difference. Right now we are working hard to build our group up so that we can do great things for our community.

We welcome people of all backgrounds and belief. We may not all be "gun nuts", "Jesus freaks", or "rednecks" like you've heard, but we do welcome all kinds. Find out what we are REALLY all about. Stop by and join us on Wednesday nights at 7 in the Joyner Room of the EUC.