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.

It's Only College: I Realize This is Supposed to be Practice for the Real World, but There Comes a Time When You Must Draw a Line

THE RIGHT ANGLE: It's only college - Opinions

"You shouldn't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive." -- Ryan Reynolds as Van Wilder

I have to say, I never expected to begin one of my columns with a quote from a National Lampoon movie. But sometimes you find yourself in a stupid situation that can only be explained through a quote from a mindless college movie. That's where I'm at right now.

I've always been amazed by the number of college students who take themselves too seriously. For four years now, I've heard that silly statistic about how 60 percent of women meet their husbands as undergrads, and for four years, I've been urged by my fellow coeds to hurry up and find one. Now, I'm not sure what the real statistic is, as I've heard several different numbers from several different people, but numbers like that tend to send women into a panic. As a result, I've seen many desperate female college students spend more time trying to attract a mate than actually preparing for their own futures.

I'm not saying that doesn't work for some women, but if they're going to get terrified over that statistic, they should pay attention to the others. 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. With that in mind, do you really want to spend your college years stressing out over some guy? I'm almost 22 and single, and the last thing on my mind is marriage. Don't take insignificant things too seriously this early on in your lives. Years in the future, you'll look back and realize how trivial it all is in comparison.

Recently, I've encountered another group of people who take themselves too seriously. After the last issue of the Carolinian, a certain Opinions columnist (ahem) was accused of "leaking" information about one of the SGA Vice-Presidential candidates. Because I repeatedly refused to "reveal my source", I've been constantly answering to student journalists trying to guess my source and my motives. I can't even tell you how many times I've been referred to as Judith Miller. And I really can't do anything but laugh about the situation.

We are in COLLEGE, people! I realize this is supposed to be practice for the real world, but there comes a time when you must draw a line. Everyone wants this to be such a bigger deal than it actually is. The truth of the matter is, the information I gave the Carolinian was public information which can be obtained by doing a simple Google search. Contrary to popular belief, this is not the equivalent of leaking the identity of a CIA agent. The identity of my "source" is unnecessary, and seeing as how the information was already public, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I don't even think it's possible to "leak" public information.

Among the students who want this to be so much more than it actually is was a WUAG reporter who had already decided what "really" happened. He went around the school interviewing students he thought were involved in a manner which can only be described as harassing, and attempted to prove his own story through very leading questions. I'm sure this is a good technique to use when you're involved in a real news story, like the Judith Miller case, but on a college campus you're not going to win any Pulitzers.

I try to not take myself too seriously. I'm the first one to make fun of myself, my columns, and my own beliefs, but even I found myself getting caught up in the campus drama. I let it interfere with my schoolwork, as I got stuck in a wave of non-stop interviews and meetings, trying voraciously to save my reputation. And then one night, a friend of mine told me, "You think this is bad? Wait until the New York Times is gunning for you."

In an instant, things were put into perspective for me. If I worry so much about what the college media says about me now, how am I ever going to make it in the real political world? That's when I realized how ridiculous it all is. I'm no Judith Miller, and this isn't going to ruin anyone's life. We are in college to learn about and prepare for the real world, and we can't let extracurricular drama control our lives.

So the next time you find yourself in a situation that seems to be taking over your life, try to put things in perspective. While boyfriend/girlfriend drama might seem like the most important thing in your life right now, when you're applying to grad school years in the future, you'll wish you hadn't let a stupid fight result in an F on that midterm. Chances are, these are the best years of your life, and you shouldn't waste them stressing over the little things. And so, I'll leave you with one more quote from Van Wilder: "Worrying is like a rocking chair: it gives you something to do, but it doesn't get you anywhere."

Write that down.

Turning the Tables: Liberals Want End to Separation of Church and State

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Turning the tables: Liberals want end to separation of church and state - Opinions

Once upon a time, the ACLU wasn't just a big joke. I don't know a whole lot about that, because that was obviously long before I was born, and you should only write what you know. So I'm going to write about the ACLU being a big joke.

A few months ago, Michelle McCusker became pregnant, and as a result, lost her job. The ACLU says the institution that fired McCusker practices gender discrimination and that her rights have been infringed. In most cases, I'd be inclined to agree. The catch? McCusker was an unmarried teacher at a Catholic school.

In case you missed the significance of that statement, Catholics don't believe in premarital sex, something that's pretty much a prerequisite to McCusker's situation. Therefore, allowing this woman to teach small children about the Catholic religion might not be the best idea. These parents are paying to send their kids to a school where, ideally, they will receive a good, religious-based education, and not end up in Ms. McCusker's predicament. But it's hard to achieve that goal when one of the teachers is walking around pregnant, unwed, and refusing to get married.

I support any woman's right to not get married, and even their right to have children outside of wedlock. But this is different. This school's handbook warns that all teachers must "convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions." When McCusker took this job, she was aware that she would have to abide by the handbook and its restrictions on virtually everything that goes against the Church's teachings.

Enter - surprise, surprise - the ACLU. They make the argument that this policy discriminates against women, because men can't get pregnant. I find their argument laughable, and I'm just waiting for the day when the ACLU tries to sue some sort of God-figure for placing the burden of child-bearing upon women.

Their main argument is that male teachers could still practice premarital sex and get away with it, while female teachers risk getting pregnant and losing their jobs. The school responded by claiming that they would fire a male teacher if they found out he had gotten a woman pregnant out of wedlock. But the ACLU's assertion is that the woman's sin is much more visible, therefore, the rule discriminates against women.

To which I intelligently reply: DUH. It's the Catholic Church, people. It's been a patriarchy since Day One. I know that, and most of the rest of the world knows that. And even though the ACLU is suing the actual school for having discriminating policies, what they're doing in affect is suing the Catholic Church for having these policies. And forgive me if I'm mistaken, but is the government now allowed to tell churches what they can and cannot preach?

It just seems to me that this reeks of a breech of the separation of Church and State that everyone likes to scream about. Funny how every time someone on the Right wants the government to be more moral, the Left cries out, "Separation of Church and State!" but look at what happens when the roles are reversed.

This could create some potentially harmful precedents if the ACLU wins the case. Which church teachings are next on the list? Does the teaching of salvation discriminate because it preaches that atheists are going to hell? Maybe God needs to check with the ACLU before He publishes any more controversial material. We don't want to offend anyone, you know.

If you ask me, this woman is just looking for someone to blame. That's what our society does, it teaches you that nothing is ever your own fault. In this case, it's teaching Ms. McCusker that it's not her fault she chose to not obey the school's handbook - it's the institutions fault for just being so darn strict!

If McCusker really wanted to avoid all of this trouble, perhaps she should have called on the ACLU earlier. You know, to sue the Catholic Church for not allowing her to use birth control while having her forbidden premarital sex, and not allowing her to have an abortion. Or maybe, if she's going to work for a religious institution, she needs to stop picking and choosing which of the Church's laws she follows.

Dear George: An Open Letter to the President on Judicial Diversity

The Right Angle: Dear George - Opinions

Dear George W. Bush:

First of all, I want to thank you and Laura for the lovely Christmas card you sent several months ago. It was very nice of you to remember me, and I would have mentioned it sooner, but I'm a very busy person. Well, you know how that is, I suppose.

I'm writing to you in regards to your pick for the newest position on the Supreme Court. While I'm sure Mr. Roberts is a good, safe, conservative choice, I'm not so sure he's the BEST choice. After all, don't forget that you're losing a very intelligent moderately conservative woman. Do you really feel you should replace her with ANOTHER white male?

Now, don't get me wrong, Mr. President, I am very much against affirmative action, believe it or not. I do not think people should be chosen for a job based on their race and gender rather than their qualifications. But you see, sir, this is a very different and more delicate situation. In order for our courts to be as objective and fair as possible, we need different types of people. Females endure different types of prejudice than men do, just as blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and homosexuals all suffer through different types of prejudices. Going through these separate and different tests of discrimination gives each person a different point of view. This is the type of education that you cannot receive from a Harvard law degree.

That's not to say the Harvard law degree isn't important. I would never ask you to sacrifice intelligence and standards for race and gender in this type of situation. But you simply cannot tell me that there were absolutely no women in America who have lived up to the same standard as Mr. Roberts. I refuse to believe he is THE absolute best choice out of everyone in the United States.

I'm sure there were several other factors to your decision. Maybe Laura was being a bit too bossy that day, and you felt the need to add more testosterone to the Supreme Court. I know your home life has pretty much surrounded you by women, and you can't fathom why the country's largest court would need any more of them.

The fact is, Mr. President, I am worried. With the loss of Sandra Day O'Connor, there is only one female left on the Supreme Court. And, well, to be honest with you, I'm not even sure Ruth Ginsburg counts as a female. What we need is not another conservative white male. We need a conservative female.

Last year, I spent several hundred hours of my own personal time devoted to your re-election campaign. Why? Because I trust you to make the right decisions in times like this. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you couldn't find a conservative female who was willing to take the position. After all, it is a huge burden, and not a responsibility that should be taken lightly.

With that in mind, Mr. President, I would like to remind you that I am, in fact, an intelligent, moderately-conservative female. I have all sorts of opinions about how this country should be run, and because of that, I think I would make a great addition to the Supreme Court. I know I'm still fairly young, but I think that would only help bring diversity to the court.

I know it is huge responsibility, but I'm willing to take it for the sake of America. Please let me know your decision at least two weeks in advance, so I will have ample time to request off from my waitressing job. Oh, and don't worry about Roberts. I'm sure we can find an illegal nanny somewhere in his past.

I look forward to working with you and interpreting the Constitution!

Sincerely,

Melissa B.Westmoreland

PS - I am also very good at public speaking! Perhaps you and I could get together on a Saturday afternoon to go over some pronunciation. Just a suggestion.

Women's and Gender Studies: Why a WGS Class is a Good Thing, Even for Conservatives

Women's and Gender Studies - Opinions

Ahhh, it's that time of year again. The birds are singing, the flowers are blooming, and the stress levels are through the roof. Teachers are rushing to assign all the papers and presentations they possibly can, just in case we thought we might be able to relax and enjoy the nice weather for a minute or two. And on top of the tauntingly nice weather, the numerous assignments, and the looming promise of final exams in the near future, we're expected to find time to plan out a class schedule that will fit our lives four months from now.

My biggest problem with registration has always been finding classes I won't sleep through. I have a habit of picking classes that sound really interesting, just to discover that they are the exact opposite three weeks into the semester. And I know I'm not the only one.

But I'm writing this column to make your life just a little bit easier. I'm going to tell you all about the most interesting class I've ever taken in my three years at UNCG. I want to tell you why you should look into taking a Women's and Gender Studies course.

Before I lose half of my audience, I want you to give me a chance here. WGS courses are largely misunderstood. Contrary to popular belief, we don't sit around and discuss how much we hate all the males in the world. You might actually be surprised at the number of guys that take these courses, even if some of them do so to meet girls.

I am currently taking Women and Politics, and it's the first 9:30 class I've ever not wanted to sleep through. This class has taught me so much about the struggle of women throughout the years and has helped me appreciate all the opportunities we have now so much more. It has also helped me to truly understand present-day feminism.

For these reasons, I think female students at UNCG should take a WGS course. I think that as women, it is important for us to understand our history, realize how we have gotten as far as we have, and acknowledge that we still have a long road to equality in society.

The current argument of whether or not America is ready for a female President, whether that means Hillary or Condoleezza, is a great example of this. Unfortunately, I am fairly certain America would not elect a female President at this time, and I believe a lot of that has to do with an underlying bias in American society. Few people would admit to viewing men and women as "unequal", but many would never dream of electing one to such a high position.

It is also important that men take a WGS course. On such an adamantly liberal campus, you would think that courses that teach equality would be a big hit with everyone, but this is not the case. The consensus by many males on campus seems to be that WGS courses are full of man-hating femi-nazis. I've also heard same say that they don't need to take these courses because it's not "their" problem. This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, if you have ever uttered a phrase similar to this, you definitely need to take a WGS course. Because society is male-biased, it is important to educate everyone, including men, about women's issues. True equality will not be reached until we can all understand and accept our differences.

Variety is another reason to take a WGS course. Many of their courses are cross-listed with other departments, which means even you can get credit for a history course at the same time as getting credit for a WGS course. It's just like taking a regular college course, but from a different viewpoint, which can be refreshing.

Taking a Women's and Gender Studies course won't turn you into a crazy liberal man-hater, but I promise it will open your eyes and expand your horizons. I urge all of you to look into WGS courses, whether you are male or female, conservative or liberal. It's one class you won't regret taking, even if it does mean you can't sleep in past noon.

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.