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.

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 New Feminism

THE RIGHT ANGLE: The New Feminism - Opinions

Being the poster child for conservatism on a college campus isn't easy. I'm routinely accused of being a "traitor" to the Women's Movement, when in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. For years, I've considered myself a feminist. I complain about sexist traditions (from wives taking their husbands' names to men having to pay for their dates), I'm upset by the lack of women's history in regular history classes, and I absolutely despise it when men who don't know me call me "sweetheart."

I thought that would be enough, but according to my fellow feminists, it's not. However, I've started to realize that the problem isn't me, but the ever-changing definition of feminism. Apparently, in order to be a feminist these days, one must believe that a woman's rights exceed those of a man.

Affirmative action is only one example of this. As a self-proclaimed feminist, I find it personally offensive that the government thinks I need their help in getting a job. A true feminist would take the term "a man's world" as a challenge and fight tooth and nail to make it to the top. She would not enlist government help, nor would she cry (as an article in Cosmopolitan once suggested). The fact that both the government and Cosmopolitan think I need their help is quite insulting.

Another reason I am apparently not allowed to be a feminist is because I am pro-life. People frequently accuse me of wanting to deny women the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. On the contrary, I think women should have the right to choose, and they make that choice once they decide to have sex. I also believe that if they make that decision, they should have to deal with the consequences. When did feminism become little more than fighting for the ability to kill an innocent human being?

I also firmly believe that this same modern form of feminism that has cursed us with affirmative action and abortion is responsible for the recent demise of morality. The idea that a woman should be able to do anything she wants with her own body, while basically true, has been taken to a new level. Abstinence didn't used to be such a crazy notion. Now, women are EXPECTED to have sex with men before marriage, with several different partners.

By itself, this may not sound that bad. However, by making promiscuous sex mainstream, we have developed several new STD's and made abortion much more acceptable. One night stands and multiple partners are shown on network television without a second thought. But before you shrug your shoulders and say, "That's life," I urge you to visit your local middle school. Count the number of pregnant students. Ask around and find out how many of the students have had sex, had abortions, or even had children. You might be shocked. These children are 11 and 12, and they're having sex. Where do we draw the line?

The feminist in me believes in equality at school and at work, the ability to take responsibility for one's actions, and the right to abstain without being pressured by friends, boyfriends, and the media. You can tell me I'm not a "real" feminist, but if that means cheating to get ahead, murdering for the sake of "choice", and being a slut, then I don't want to live by your definition of feminism. I guess I have a little more decency than that.

This article received several response columns and letters to the editor in the following weeks, and a weekly columnist responded to it in January 2007; a response column from me was published the next week.