"Conservatives Get Campus Run-Around, but Show Will Go"

"Conservatives Get Campus Run-Around, but Show Will Go" Editor's Note: It's often very hard to be a conservative student on a liberal university campus today. But we salute Rich Stowell and his fellow conservatives at California State University at Hayward, who are working hard to get the conservative view heard on their campus. This article may be a classic example of the run-around that liberals give conservative groups on some campuses today. But this show will go on: see details at the end about next Thursday's debate.

Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) at Cal State Hayward withdrew its sponsorship for a debate on school choice organized by a conservative student group set for next Thursday, only to have student government reinstate it days later.

Campus Conservatives of Hayward (CCH), along with several other student organizations, invited a panel to discuss the issue of education, particularly the place of school choice in K-12 education policy. The ''debate'' will still be held November 20, at 6 pm in the University Union, only without ASI sponsorship. The retraction of ASI support merely demonstrates the difficulty that conservatives face on college campuses in the battle of ideas.

Associated Students Inc. Programs had committed its endorsement to the debate, along with funds to help promote the event and pay for refreshments. ASI is the auxiliary of CSU Hayward whose purpose is to ''broaden the educational, social, political, and/or cultural awareness on campus while enhancing the overall experiences of students at California State University, Hayward.'' ASI Programs is supposed to be a vehicle for student groups to organize such events as meet the stated goals. Apparently a debate on public education did not rise to the standard of ASI support.

CCH received written confirmation on November 4 from ASI Programs Coordinator Precious Chambers that Programs would co-sponsor the debate. It, in fact read, ''ASI Programs is pleased to co-sponsor the panel debate on the topic of education choice.'' The next day, CCH received a notification indicating that support was conditionally withdrawn, citing concerns about fairness. Upon inquiry into the matter on November 11 CCH was told that co-sponsorship had been officially revoked.

In her November 5 memo, Chambers told CCH leadership that sponsorship would be delayed pending submission of the complete list of panelists. At that point, organizers were waiting to confirm the final panelist, Marsha Feinland, an Alameda school teacher and state senate candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party. The memo indicated that sponsorship would be granted—again—once the list was obtained by ASI Programs: ''In order to gain approval, please submit a full panel list that includes names of representatives from both sides of the issue. Additionally, panelists must share equitable credentials in order for the debate to be co-sponsored by ASI Programs.''

CCH knew from the beginning what they would have to go through to receive support from the University; for that reason they had created an unlikely coalition of student clubs: the History Students Association, Alliance 4 Social Justice, the Political Science Club, and Hayward College Republicans had all signed on to endorse the forum.

The fairness threshold was reached beyond scrutiny. Yet, ASI Programs pulled sponsorship. But fairness and equity were never really at issue with Chambers, it would turn out. In a letter to the CEO of CCH Chambers mentioned nothing about fairness. Her explanation was that a ''debate-style panel does not align with [ASI’s] mission.''

Chambers said that her decision was not based on any policy, but only her best judgment. In can attempt to clarify, she suggested that a panel discussion may have been more likely to gain approval.

This is exactly the type of formats that liberal educator love. Panel ''discussions'' are routinely held on campus as a way for professors and guests to preach liberal doctrines unchallenged. A debate is inherently fairer than any panel, but if organized by a conservatives group, it somehow falls outside the goals of the university auxiliary.

Chambers’ decision had been made, arbitrarily by her own admission. At this point the student government stepped in. Another CCH officer petitioned the ASI Board for funds and support, and it was granted. It was a case of the legislative power correcting the executive.

ASI Programs’ actions were not egregious, but they illustrate a larger problem on many college campuses: conservatives are routinely stonewalled, while others are not. A debate on an important topic was organized by an alliance of student groups representing all viewpoints only to be marginalized by a university official.

The debate will be held, and probably with more support now than ever. But why the confusion? Did the university have to give the conservative group the run-around? It could very well be that the ASI Programs Coordinator made a poor decision. More likely, university bureaucrats realize that they have something to fear from young conservative activists, and are eager to discourage activity. A word of warning: We are not going away.

The debate on school choice is an important one to university students and the community at large. The event, ''For the Public Good: The Debate Over School Choice'' will be held Thursday evening, November 20, at 6:00 pm at CSU Hayward, Room 311 of the University Union. Panelists are Matt Stowell, Peter Hagberg, Jim Hartman, Terrance Amsler, Marguerite Hinrichs, and Marsha Feinland.

For information on campus location, visit http://www.csuhayward.edu/campus_maps/directions.html

Rich Stowell is working on his teaching credential at the university, where he also edits the campus conservative magazine. He receives e-mail at: Cal_Statesman@hotmail.com

Of course they citied problems of "fairness".

A liberal vs. conservative debate is by definition "unfair" because the conservative side can be successfully debated by the normal rules of debate, whereas the liberal side is simply partisan invective, blind assertions, and appeal to emotion.

"Panel ''discussions'' are routinely held on campus as a way for professors and guests to preach liberal doctrines unchallenged."

Actually, the Russians found that once they killed all the opposition off there could no longer be a debate so they had to accept this style of "social discussion". I'm surprised there are any conservative kids left but hope springs eternal!

3 posted on 11/15/2003 7:29:48 AM PST by BeAllYouCanBe (Maybe this "Army Of One" is a good thing - You Gotta Admire the 3rd Infantry Accomplishments)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.