Showing posts with label Erskine Bowles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Erskine Bowles. Show all posts

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 welcome Senator 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.

Monday, October 18, 2004

A Tale of Two Men

The Right Angle : A Tale of Two Men - Opinions

All too often, people are elected based on what party they represent. I know people who vote Democrat simply because their parents did so. Whatever happened to voting on the issues, or voting on the person? Why is it Republicans are convinced Democrats are going to ruin the country, and liberals are convinced conservatives want to destroy the environment?

Today I'm going to force you to make a decision. I'm going to give you two candidates and ask you to chose which one you think would make a better leader. We're not going to go by names or parties, just issues and past experience.

Let's begin with Candidate A. Candidate A was born and raised in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. He attended a local university and began a career working for a local company. Candidate A worked hard for 17 years at the local company, with no dreams of political grandeur. He entered politics in 1994 when he realized that rising taxes were crushing North Carolina's businesses. His concern for the welfare of North Carolina families won him a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1994 elections, and he spent the next few years fighting for fiscal responsibility and affordable healthcare for North Carolinians. Worried that he was not serving his home state as well as he could be, Candidate A decided to run for U.S. Senate in 2004.

Candidate B, the son of a wealthy politician, was born and raised in Greensboro, North Carolina. He attended a business school in New York, and after graduation, he worked at a financial firm in New York City. He did not return to North Carolina until his father ran for governor of the state in 1972. With the exception of working on his father's campaign, Candidate B had basically no political experience until 1992 when he became involved in a fundraiser for that year's presidential campaign. As a reward for his loyalty, Candidate B was appointed to head of the Small Business Administration in 1993, deputy Chief of Staff from 1994-1995, and Chief of Staff in 1996. In 1998, the administration he was serving under found itself in a compromisingly sticky situation, and Candidate B suddenly missed his home state of North Carolina and could not wait to leave Washington. However, he must have started missing D.C., because in 2002, he ran for U.S. Senate. His campaign failed, and he is once again running for U.S. Senate in 2004.

I had the privilege of attending a senatorial debate between Candidate A and B a few weeks ago. Halfway through the event, it was blindingly apparent who the real North Carolinian was. Candidate A showed genuine concern for his constituents as he discussed repealing unnecessary taxes, attracting jobs to the state, lowering health care premiums, and improving education. Candidate B sounded like a tape-recording every time he opened his mouth, except for the few times he tried unsuccessfully to make a joke. Although the jokes were few and far between, they were all painful, as Candidate B apparently found himself much more amusing than anyone else did. The only issue Candidate B could stick to was that, when elected, he would work with both parties in the Senate. He never said what they would work on, but he repeated that same phrase several times. I found this amusing since he lost the 2002 senatorial race because of his lack of bipartisanship.

As a North Carolinian, do you see the predicament I am faced with? Candidate A is a hard-working family man with our state's best interests in mind, while Candidate B is simply trying to gain political power. For me, the choice is a no-brainer: Richard Burr (aka "Candidate A") knows this state, and he knows what we need. I was lucky enough to meet him on two occasions: once when I was 13, and again a few weeks ago at the senatorial debate. He is a genuinely nice person, approachable and very easy to talk to. Meeting him at the age of 13 definitely helped inspire me to go into politics.

On the other hand, I find Candidate B (Erskine Bowles) to be just a little scary. I have a theory that he is robot designed by the Democratic Party. If you think Bowles cares about North Carolina, you're sadly mistaken. It's not a coincidence that he chose to leave the Clinton administration during the middle of the Lewinsky scandal; he didn't want to ruin his future political goals. And if he had really wanted to leave D.C. so badly, why is he suddenly trying to go back? Bowles is no different from John Edwards; he only wants to use this Senate seat as a stepping-stone. He has much higher aspirations.

Take it from me: I've heard the issues; I've met the men. This goes far beyond party loyalty. A vote for Richard Burr is a vote for North Carolina's future. Trust me, North Carolina: when November 2 rolls around, elect Richard Burr to U.S. Senate. You won't regret it.