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.

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.

Don't Fall Prey to the Partisan Monster

(I hope it's painfully obvious to everyone that I did NOT title this column... I'm guessing my editor is to blame for this gem.)

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Don't fall prey to the partisan monster - Opinions

Partisanship is ruining the world. There, I said it.

Some people may think that's an odd statement coming from me. After all, this is the token conservative column, and I am the president of the College Republicans. But I also think there is a fine line between party loyalty and stupidity.

I started really thinking about it this weekend while I was scanning through the UNCG Livejournal community once again. A student had posted an advertisement asking students to vote for him in the recent SGA Senate elections. Another student immediately responded, asking where they could find information about all the candidates, including their "political status".

I'm not sure why, but that immediately annoyed me. I could be wrong, but I just don't think SGA is going to be taking a vote to do away with Social Security any time soon. What possible advantage could knowing a student's political affiliation have? Should we have all students running for SGA offices list their preferred political party next to their name? Do we need to start offering students a "straight ticket" voting option?

What goes on inside partisan group meetings is one thing, but it's another thing completely to bring it out into the open. There are actually members of other campus organizations that refuse to talk to me, or openly glare at me around campus, simply because I am a well-known College Republican.

Ironically enough, on the few occasions that someone from a more liberal group will actually TALK to me, they end up telling me that I'm not quite the "monster" everyone claims I am (and yes, that term has been used). These same people are often shocked to find that I can talk about things other than politics, and that even while discussing politics, I'm very laid-back about it all. This is because I don't take my politics to extremes. I like to see both sides of an issue and decide for myself what's right. Anyone that reads this column knows that I would not be considered a "good" Republican by any means. After all, I don't let the Republican Party tell me what I do and don't believe in. And I would certainly never refuse to be friendly to someone just because of their political preference.

And honestly, we're in college. Yes, this is supposed to be preparing us for the real world, but everything doesn't have to be a life or death situation. I personally enjoy debating politics with someone, and then going out for a beer with that same person afterwards. So what if I think we should privatize Social Security and they think the government should handle everything? Doesn't mean we can't talk about something much more important later, like baseball, or who's going to win American Idol this season.

I know I seem to be contradicting myself, because I've always wanted people to be more politically aware, but aware doesn't necessarily mean "blindly loyal". In last November's elections, I voted for a couple Democrats as well as several Libertarians. Actually being aware of the candidates and the issues can help you make informed decisions - straight-ticket voting just elects a party platform, not necessarily a good politician.

Stereotypes are just all-around bad, whether you attach them to races, genders, or members of a political party. When it all comes down to it, does it really matter what my voter registration card says I am? After all, it's far more probable I'll dislike you for being a Boston Red Sox fan than for being a Democrat.