Affirmative Action Speaker Meets Packed House, Closed Minds

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Affirmative action speaker meets packed house, closed minds - Opinions

Race issues, as I mentioned in a column just a month ago, are some of the trickiest and most sensitive topics out there. Unfortunately, race seems to play into some of the most widely-discussed matters, including affirmative action, immigration, and, at UNCG, the SGA elections. White people often hesitate to comment against a lot of these issues publicly, for fear of being labeled a racist. When I took this job two years ago, I decided to avoid most of these subjects for that very reason, although that apparently went down the drain when my Angela Davis column was published. And now it seems I can't stop writing about them. My friends are praying for me, and my editor is pretty sure I'm insane.

But the issue of inequality is something I'm very passionate about. I recently did an interview with Spartan TV concerning affirmative action, immigration, and gay rights, mostly because the other College Republicans declined to comment on the issues, for the very reason I stated above. To me, affirmative action just seems to lower the bar for minorities and women, and while it may appear to help them, in reality, isn't it doing little more than assuming they can't do things well enough on their own? As a woman, I feel quotas are a slap in the face, and an assumption that maybe I couldn't get a job in this "man's world" without any help.

Last week, entrepreneur/entertainer Reginald Jones gave a speech at UNCG entitled "Betrayal: Sold Out by the Civil Rights Movement" which was co-sponsored by the College Republicans, the Young America's Foundation, and the Office of Multicultural Affairs. Jones is an African-American Libertarian and a 25-year veteran of the entertainment industry. He is very much opposed to affirmative action, and he bases his beliefs on the way he worked his way to the top from humble beginnings in the South Bronx. Listening to his speech last Tuesday night, I realized that I wasn't alone in my views on these issues, and that having these views did not make me a racist, as some people might claim.

As you can imagine, the response to Jones' appearance was not entirely positive. This is partly due to the advertisements that wallpapered academic buildings to announce his speech, which bore controversial messages, such as "Minority? Democrat? Why?" In fact, the fliers were torn down at an amazing rate, and many people wrote answers on them or comments such as, "Does anyone else find this racist?" One person even "cleverly" made their own posters to combat the originals, which read "Demo-Minority? Autocrat? Why?" I am still perplexed as to what that means, and I welcome any explanations.

Now I know people don't like to hear views which disagree with their own, and I expected a rather small turnout based on this theory. I was partly right. The audience would have been rather pathetic had the African-American Studies Program not urged their students to attend the speech. The end result was a good crowd which held many viewpoints different from Jones'. Unfortunately, we can't be entirely sure how much of an effect that had on anyone in the audience. I sat in amazement as UNCG students, during the speech, reacted loudly in disagreement to Reginald Jones. "Redneck" and "race traitor" are only a few of the terms I heard thrown out as a reaction to his views. I know it's human nature to celebrate ideas that we agree with and to ridicule those we don't, but I also know if I can sit through an entire Angela Davis speech and keep my composure even as the audience stood to cheer and applaud her "Let's impeach Bush NOW!" line, Tuesday night's audience could have held in their rude comments until after the event.

Now whether or not Reginald Jones could hear the comments or not, they are nothing he hasn't heard before, and he continued with his speech without missing a beat. Other schools who have hosted Jones have said that he loves the question/answer session, and that he will debate everyone, and this event was no exception. In fact, the question and answer session ran so long that most students had to leave during it, and Jones did not leave the building until 10:30 p.m. Unfortunately, the majority of the "questions" from the audience were not questions, but rather comments regarding the problems people had with Jones' point of view. There were many intelligent responses to his speech, and a few that were a little "out there", including one College Democrat (who happens to be white) who stated that we should just "overthrow the government and kill all the white people." When Reginald Jones refused to humor him with a response, the audience overwhelmingly denounced Jones' "racism" and claimed that he would have responded to a black student who had made this same statement. Now, I'm not sure what part of Jones' speech made everyone think that he would promote that idea, or that he is racist against white people, but that seemed to be the group consensus.

I have to say, I expected a passionate reaction from the audience, but I never expected what occurred. An African-American Studies lecturer, Tracy Salisbury, who credited herself with bringing so many students to the speech, used a majority of the question and answer time to argue with Jones. Regrettably, there was little debate in what she said. It was mostly just anger or accusations at the fact that he was supposedly avoiding answering her questions. Salisbury seemed upset that Jones wasn't able to answer very many of the students' questions, yet she managed to interrupt several students and Jones himself on many occasions. She stood up and yelled her comments at Jones in what seemed to be a very unfriendly manner, all while proudly proclaiming that she is a UNCG lecturer and even lamenting the fact that there are rarely any white people in her classes.

After the speech, several students informed me that they were embarrassed by this lecturer's conduct, and I can see where they are coming from. I expected students to react in this manner, but I never thought a lecturer, someone who should be representing UNCG and its faculty, would put on such a show. If Ms. Salisbury is really concerned about the number of white students who take her class then perhaps she needs to stop blaming racism and look at the way she sells both herself and the African-American Studies Program. In last month's column, I asked why white students don't take AFS classes, but I think I got an answer to my question Tuesday night.

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.

Student Division Addressed at SGA Debate

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Student division addressed at SGA debate - Opinions

As I sat in the Cone Ballroom last week during SGA's Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates, my column practically wrote itself. The usual generic questions were asked of the candidates: "What are your main campus issues?", "What kind of experience do you have?", "What do you want to change about SGA?" Then the candidates yielded to questions from the audience. Senator Larry Watson stood and asked how each candidate viewed campus race relations, and how they could be improved.

By the reaction of some of the candidates, you would have thought Kanye West had just personally asked them why they hated black people. Jonae Wartel responded that what UNCG needed was for students and organizations to increase their knowledge of different cultures. She pointed out that an African-American student might be more likely to only join the Neo-Black Society, while there are other organizations that could be helpful in helping expand his or her view of different cultures. All in all, a perfect answer.

Stefan McMorris-Santoro spoke next, and after giving the usual generic answer of "working together," he overshadowed his entire statement by informing the audience that his girlfriend was African-American. I suppose that was to make sure everyone knew that he personally was not a racist. The spotlight then shifted to candidate Kemp Allen, who nervously pointed out that he had no problem working with all groups on campus, and then, addressing Senator Watson (who happens to be African-American), responded, "Your name's Larry, right?"

Now, I'm not sure if Kemp's goal was to show that he knows the name of some African-American students, but that's certainly how it was taken by the audience, who erupted in laughter. The laughter eventually died down and Kemp finished answering the question.

I hope everyone there realized that Kemp only had good intentions, and that he actually did a good job under all the pressure. The truth is, race is a very tricky issue, and talking about it is even trickier when you've never personally had the same experiences as someone else. This is why, when confronted with an issue about race, many white people tend to get defensive and start listing all their friends who are different races, or in Stefan's case, announce that they're dating someone of a different race.

When the question was directed to the VP hopefuls, candidate Matt Hill Comer pointed out that students seem to segregate themselves when it comes to their different backgrounds. He stated that when you see students in the EUC or the Caf, they tend to be sitting in different groups: African-American students, white students, Latino students, Asian students, and so on. And while I know that this is not always the case, it occurs often enough.

Jonae has the right idea. Why aren't students as individuals attempting to gain more knowledge about different cultures? I think it's a common misconception among white students that they don't "belong" in any African-American Studies courses. Why not? There have always been at least a few men in all the Women's Studies classes I've taken, yet only a few weeks ago, a teacher from the AFS Department lamented to me that there was not one single white person in her class.

For that same matter, the greater part of student organizations tend to have a very low minority membership, unless they are catering to a specific minority group (Neo-Black Society, Asian Student Association, etc). Why not have more diversity within the groups? I believe it's important to learn about and embrace our cultures, but we're not going to have true diversity until we educate ourselves about each others' cultures.

Matt Comer also made a point to tell the audience that as a Southern white male, he did not have the experiences minorities have had in their lifetimes, but that he is prepared to help race relations the only way he can: by sitting down with different students on campus and listening to their issues. That's what we all need to be doing: sharing our unique experiences with other people, and be willing to learn about theirs in return.

I've been actively following these elections, and I think it all comes down to experience and leadership ability. While there is no doubt that all three Presidential candidates and all three Vice-Presidential candidates are qualified, there's no doubt in my mind that Jonae Wartel is the right choice. She has the qualities of a born-leader and the confidence to really get things done. I also think Matt Hill Comer would be a great choice for Vice-President, as he is probably one of the most active students on campus and has a great deal of leadership experience within SGA. But don't take it from me. Go to sga.uncg.edu/candidates to learn about the candidates, and don't forget to vote by 11:59pm, February 28!

Refuting Accusations of Racism

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Refuting accusations of racism - Opinions

I have come to realize that my last column has generated a great deal of controversy, and I would like to take this time, if I may, to explain myself in greater detail.

I have been approached by several students in the last week saying that they found the views expressed in my previous column to be racist. I would like to apologize to anyone who took them in that way. My column was not intended to be racist, and had I known it would be taken that way, I would not have written it. My overall objective was to express my disapproval with Angela Davis as the school's choice for a MLK Day speaker. It was my opinion that a more fitting speaker could have been chosen, and I stand by that opinion.

I have received a lot of emails asking me what I meant specifically when I used the word "sheep" in my last column. A lot of students took that to mean that I was referring to the entire audience, which was predominantly African-American. I was actually referring to the many people who seemed to be deeply engrossed in the socialist propaganda that had been handed out at the entrance to the event. I apologize profusely to anyone who thought I was making a racist comment with that statement. I tend to use the word "sheep" to represent anyone who adheres to the socialist ideals, whether they be white, black, or purple with yellow polka dots, and I saw audience members of ALL backgrounds reading the newsletter.

Some people have also accused me of saying that racism is not a problem in America today. On the contrary, I realize that racism IS a problem in America, but I feel that Angela Davis used that racism to promote socialism. The race issue is a touchy one, and I don't know for sure if it will ever be solved, but I do not think that socialism would eradicate racism, as I think Davis tried to imply.

The reason I felt the need to write out this apology is because I know I would not want to feel that my race or gender had been targeted by a student columnist. As a woman, I myself am from a historically disadvantaged group, and if a male columnist had made statements that I found to be sexist, I'm sure I would be angry as well as hurt. I never wanted to put anyone through that, and I'm very sorry if I did.

An Evening With Angela Davis

THE RIGHT ANGLE: An evening with Angela Davis - Opinions

In last week's column, I suggested that Angela Davis might not be the best choice for a Martin Luther King Day speaker. While many people agreed with me, there were also those who tried to tell me that a person did not have to necessarily emulate Dr. King in order to speak in honor of him. I decided to give them all the benefit of the doubt and attended the event.

I arrived at Aycock Auditorium early Tuesday evening with about eight friends of mine. We were greeted at the door not by ushers, but by socialists handing out anti-Bush fliers, signaling what kind of event this would prove to be. Although we thought we were early, the auditorium was already packed, and we were forced to find seating in the balcony. As we settled into a row that could accommodate all of us, I looked around to get a glimpse of my fellow audience members. I found myself completely surrounded by hundreds of people who seemed to be deeply engrossed in reading the socialists' "Impeach Bush" flier. That's about the time I realized I would be spending the next two hours with a couple thousand sheep.

Angela Davis opened her speech with some thoughts on Dr. King: some background on his work, the hardships he faced in his career, some of his beliefs, and so on. I was shocked, yet relieved, to hear her actually speak on what she was supposed to be speaking on. Of course, it didn't last. Within a matter of minutes, Davis had not-so-subtly changed the entire mood of her speech from "Let's Honor Dr. King" to "Let's Impeach Bush NOW."

For the remainder of her time on stage, Angela Davis preached a message of hate to her audience. She spent a good deal of time making jokes about famous black conservatives such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Clarence Thomas. Apparently, according to her logic (and judging by the supportive applause from a good majority of the audience), African-Americans who become successful are no longer considered to be "really" black. Or maybe that only applies to conservative African-Americans. Davis never really specified, nor gave any reason for the apparent race change that occurs somewhere along the way.

And then of course there was the obligatory blaming of George W. Bush for Hurricane Katrina. Davis' conclusion on the issue? Kanye was right: George Bush does indeed hate poor black people. In fact, he spends so much time hating them, that I can't believe he has time for anything else. The way Davis painted President Bush, he apparently spends his every waking moment playing golf and dreaming up new ways to get rid of all black Americans.

Around this time in her rant, several audience members left the auditorium, including three of the people I was sitting with (who later told me they had better things to do with their time). Among the students leaving in disgust was a fellow College Republican who had actually been looking forward to hearing Davis speak. This student's uncle was one of the twelve miners that recently died in the Sago mine disaster only a few weeks ago, and she understandably had a serious issue with Davis blaming the Katrina debacle on racism. As she stood up to leave, she whispered to me, "Those people were left in that mine for hours while everyone just sat around wondering what to do. People called them rednecks and 'backwoods faggots,' but [Davis] doesn't want to mention that."

And she made a good point. Angela Davis seemed to be pushing the message that racism is the root of all evil in this country, but at least her tunnel vision was apparent to a few of us. If you're going to point to the African-Americans who have been hurt by an inefficient system, why not at least mention the whites who have suffered as well? Maybe racism isn't the problem in the Katrina disaster - maybe the problem is that humans make mistakes, and people suffer as a result, regardless of ethnic background.

Angela Davis ended her speech, not with some deep thoughts on how to bring about change in racist America, but by screaming, "Let's impeach Bush now!" After the cheering died down, Davis took questions from the audience. The very first came from a student who expressed disappointment over the fact that Davis had spent two hours telling us all what to be angry about, but not what to do about it. He asked her, "What can I do?" Davis' cowardly reply was that it was not her place to tell him what to do. Rather, she told the student, "You should be telling me what I can do."

This cop out of an answer shows the real problem in America. Everywhere, people are willing and ready to complain about the state of things, but no one is really interested in doing anything to bring about change. People like Angela Davis spend their lives telling people about how wrong and evil everything is, and yet they expect someone else to fix it for them. Davis needs to realize that nothing will ever get accomplished if everyone stands around blaming everyone else for their problems - just like I was forced to realize that I'll never get those wasted two hours of my life back.

UNCG Ignores Martin Luther King's Legacy

THE RIGHT ANGLE: UNCG ignores Martin Luther King's legacy - Opinions

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man, and there are very few people who will dispute that. Around this time of year, Americans remember Dr. King for his wisdom and courage in striving to bring about racial harmony in a peaceful, non-violent manner during such a tumultuous time in history.

On Tuesday, January 17, UNCG will hold a celebration in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The keynote speaker for this event will be Angela Davis. Sean Olson from University Relations has described her as being "one of the biggest names in black feminism" in a University News article found on UNCG's website. In that same article, Audrey Daniel, director of the Office of Multicultural Affairs, stated, "The significance of Angela Davis to Martin Luther King's legacy is the fact that she challenged and continues to challenge social inequality in our society."

Angela Davis has been quite the controversial character in civil rights history. A member of both the Communist Party and the Black Panther Party, Davis fell in love with George Jackson, a fellow Black Panther serving time in prison for theft and murder, in 1970. In several letters written to Jackson, Davis promised to dedicate her life to freeing him using whatever means necessary. That August, Jackson's 17-year-old brother, Jonathan, attempted to free him by interrupting a trial with an automatic weapon, freeing three prisoners (and giving them guns as well), and taking a judge hostage in exchange for the release of George. The judge was killed, as well as two of the prisoners, and several other members of the courtroom were injured. The weapons used during this raid all belonged to Angela Davis, who suspiciously fled to New York three hours after the event.

The shotgun that killed the judge was registered to Davis, and under California law, abetting a killer before the act is guilty of murder as well. After living as a fugitive for two months, Davis was arrested and taken back to California, where the incident had occurred. Her 1972 trial proved to be one of much publicity and debate, with many people claiming she was no more than a political prisoner. She was acquitted of all charges, regardless of the fact that the prosecution had submitted 201 exhibits and called 95 witnesses. Because Davis claims she suffered for 18 months in prison unjustly, she has dedicated herself to the abolition of America's prison system.

How can anyone read the above story and think, "This is the kind of woman that I'd like to speak at my university in honor of MLK Day?" Regardless of whether or not she's guilty of murder, her involvement in the violent Black Panthers alone should prove that she is clearly not an advocate of peace, as Dr. King so firmly was. Her almost undeniable involvement in the killing of the California judge certainly underlines the fact that she is not the kind of woman you want as a role model. Why are we honoring her as one?

On top of everything else, Angela Davis is a hypocrite. In Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Warning to the West, the author describes how, after Davis' acquittal and release from prison, she was urged by a group of Czech dissidents to stand up for the Czechs being imprisoned for opposing Communism. Davis' reply was a cold, "They deserve what they get. Let them remain in prison." Her logic is a bit confusing. After all, she supports the abolition of prisons in America, which I would suppose means she doesn't want our murderers, thieves, and rapists locked up, and yet, she was fine with the imprisonment of the Czech rebels. Nevermind the fact that Davis herself was considered a "political prisoner;" apparently, those who dissent against Communism "deserve what they get."

I support Davis' freedom to rage against the "prison industrial complex" in America. I support her right to preach the wonders of Communism. What I do not support is UNCG's decision to have her speak in honor of Martin Luther King Day. It is a travesty to compare that woman to the greatest peace-loving civil rights leader of all time. I am also fairly certain that Dr. King would not want a Black Panther speaking in remembrance of him.

It is true that we still have a long way to go as far as racial equality is concerned in America, but it is also true that was have come a long way from the segregated schools, water fountains, and lunch counters. Dr. King did a great deal to advance the civil rights movement in this country; the same cannot be said for Angela Davis.



Some information for this column was taken from William Manchester's The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative history of the United States 1932-1972.

Republican Oxymorons

Republican Oxymorons - Opinions

A black female, a gay man, and a Jewish rabbi walk into a polling place. They all vote for George W. Bush.

Funny? It shouldn't be. It happens a lot more often than the Democratic Party would have you believe. For years now, they've been making the Republican Party seem like the party that is against diversity of any kind. If you're not a straight white male and you're a Republican, you must be some kind of freak.

Even as a white female, I've picked up all kinds of grief from liberals about my political affiliation. I've been told that by taking a pro-life stance, the Republican Party is trying to keep women pregnant to cut down on the percentage of females in the workforce. Being pro-life, I found this theory amusing, especially since I am all for getting MORE women in the workforce.

I have recently stumbled onto a group of people that make the Democrats tremble in fear: gay Republicans. Throughout the past few months, I have encountered more openly homosexual men that describe themselves as Republicans than I ever have before. To the Democrats, these people are an urban myth. In their naive, misguided world of tunnel vision, gay Republicans are an oxymoron. I mean, after all, Republicans are "anti-gay", right?

Leonard Pitts Jr, a liberal columnist for the Miami Herald, writes a good percentage of his columns on why it is ridiculous for homosexuals and African-Americans to align themselves with the Republican Party. Most of his reasoning comes from the stereotype that all Republicans are anti-gay racists. Like him, many Democrats have fallen into the belief that all Republicans think exactly alike on every single issue. By their line of reasoning, gays, blacks, and women are fighting against their own personal freedoms by voting Republican.

The reason Democrats refuse to believe these people can be Republicans is that they refuse to let go of their stereotype that all Republicans are hardcore right-wing religious nut bags. But both of America's major political parties are just as diverse as the country itself. Within the Republican Party, there are people who are pro-choice, anti-war, and even pro-gay marriage.

So why do these people continue to support the Republican Party? What people often forget is that there is more to politics than just these few issues. Suppose a gay man would really like to see the Social Security system replaced with personal savings accounts. What should we expect him to do? Float around between parties? Very few Republicans or Democrats agree with their party 100% on all issues, and yet you very rarely see people running to third parties that may be a better match for their beliefs.

A lot of people within the Republican Party find themselves agreeing with many aspects of the Libertarian Party. The reason they don't switch is because they realize America is, for the most part, a two-party system. There is a much better chance of changing the world through the Republican or Democratic Party than through a third party. Republicans who do not agree with their party on every single issue should then work within the party to create change.

And yes, there are racists and sexists and bigots in the Republican Party. But I dare say there are just as many in the Democratic Party. Some of the most homophobic men I've ever met in my life were extremely liberal. People fear what they do not understand, and both parties have their share of ignorant members.

Several of these gay men I've talked to say they voted for Bush because they trusted him more with our national security, even if they didn't like his stance on gay marriages. Even John Kerry was in favor of civil unions rather than gay marriage. The way these men see it, why sacrifice one thing you believe in for something that might or might not end up going in your favor?

The battle for equality is far from over in America. Homosexuals, minorities, and women still battle bigotry every day. But when you try to characterize someone based on their political party, well, you're no better than those sexist, racist, ignorant bigots you claim to hate.