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.

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.

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.