I'm a frequent critic of The Student Life's often very slanted coverage and holier-than-thou attitude, but at least this week, I have to given them some credit for avoiding these pitfalls.
- On page 2, they gave The Claremont Conservative credit for the blog post George wrote about President Gann's announcement on the endowment.
- On the editorial page, The Student Life wrote against the screening of questions by the Claremont Democrats. They write,
The members of the screening committee were not listed anywhere, nor were they made public. The only scrap of information that we heard was that the committee was composed mostly of active members of the Claremont Democrats organization. Now if the Claremont Democrats had been the hosts of the event, they would be well within their bounds to screen questions. However, it was a Pomona College event. How then did they get prominent members on the committee? And where were the Claremont Republicans to screen questions for conservative speakers like Kenneth Starr and Karl Rove? [Emphasis Added]Answer: Conservative students, long denied free speech on campus and long maligned for the views that they hold, know better than to censor questions.
They cited Associate Dean of Students Neil Gerard's email to The Student Life that said that the efforts to screen questions were to "get quality questions without providing a bullypulpit [sic] for those with an axe to grind." The etymology of that phrase, "an axe to grind," is found here and refers to someone who has an agenda. Does everyone have an agenda of some sort when they ask a question? Whether that agenda be to get to the truth or show the speaker to be a bit full of himself or both, it shouldn't be up to the question screener to surmise the intent of the question. As usual, The Claremont Conservative was first in arguing against the screening of questions.
- Rebecca Golden's article, "The Real Bias-Related Incidents Are Political," was also an eloquent appeal against the "ultra-left" on campus. She believes -- and I'm inclined to agree -- that this group is behind much of conflicts on campus. She writes,
"Views that all white males have led easy, pleasant lives; that the sponsor program isn't diverse enough and ought to be restructured or replaced; that it's ok to remove trays in the dining halls on Tuesdays without asking the student body first; and that every bias-related incident ought to turn into a lecture on recent performances at Pomona College are not and should not be the accepted norm on campus. . . . The knee-jerk, reactive wing of the liberal party that is so vocal on our campus needs to recognize that no one- themselves included- has a monopoly on Truth."Well said and thank you for calling attention to a real problem at Pomona College. I hope they don't go after you personally.
11 comments:
Since both you and the TSL don't read responses left by people who actually know what, they are talking about, let me repost Rachel Pelham's response to the screening of questions, posted in your previous article on the screening.
"I want to clarify that Victoria is only one member of the committee that selected questions, including staff and members of the ASPC, none of whom are actively partisan on campus. I contacted her to help solicit questions from the political community at CMC, and she dutifully notified her club as well as the Claremont Republicans, as requested. Additionally, we placed an open call on all campuses in the digester/inform/student-wide equivalent. As CMC has demonstrated, it is common to be a little more organized about questions when speakers draw such big audiences, I don't believe Rove or Chertoff were in the biggest venue on the 5C's with over 1,000 expected attendees. That changes things quite a bit."
1. Questions were screened not just by the claremont dems but by ASPC and other apolitical groups.
2. Questions could have been screened by the claremont republicans yet just like last semester, their leadership is too inept to do anything of value on campus.
3. Speakers who are speaking to large audiences almost always screen questions. This is due to the limited time of these sessions and due to the efficiency of questions being asked. We want good meaty questions to get through and not stupid pretentious ones. Once again, if the claremont republican leadership could have organized themselves, they could have engineered some real meaty questions to ask David yet they decided to sit this one out, again. I for one would have loved for a question about campaign finance to have been asked. Obama's retraction on his initial promise is what prompted me to stop donating to his campaign. Tough questions were not banned from this forum. The people who would have asked these questions just decided to sit this one out.
Signed
-An ex claremont republican who is fed up with the lack of leadership this year.
TSL's "holier-than-thou attitude"?
Do you read your own blog?
Anonymous # 2,
On occasion.
Anonymous # 1,
I agree with you about the fecklessness of the Claremont Republicans, but I am told that they will soon have an event that will redeem themselves.
1. Who were the members of this group?
2. I don't agree that they would screen questions.
3. Scalia didn't have his questions screened. Neither did Rove, nor Chertoff. (I'm referring to the Res Publica events in LA.)
"And where were the Claremont Republicans to screen questions for conservative speakers like Kenneth Starr and Karl Rove? [Emphasis Added]
Answer: Conservative students, long denied free speech on campus and long maligned for the views that they hold, know better than to censor questions."
Completely Wrong. Claremont Republicans could not have screened questions for Karl Rove if they had wanted to-- it was a CMC-Athenaeum (and Res Publica) event, where questions are never screened, regardless of the speaker's political viewpoint.
But make it into a liberal vs conservative issue and claim that conservatives "know better," why don't you?
I was referring to the events in LA at the hotel. Thanks, though, I already knew that about the Athenaeum.
I don't want to trash CMC but my understanding of the Res Publica private lunches (such as the LA meetings) are that they are meant as a way to give back to parents and alumnae. That aspect of the Res Publica event is a small meet and greet not meant for students, though I think they can attend some of them. Since there is a small audience with people who are willing to pay $1500+ a year to CMC, CMC assumes that the alumnae and parents attending won't embarass the college. I may be wrong on this but its my current understanding of the system. The Ath has the aforementioned policy yet it can only fit so many people so a typical q&a session is efficient and warranted. A large event held at bridges cannot have an efficient and unscreened q&a session.
Then again, Charles, they didn't screen questions for Hirsi Ali, and you weren't too thrilled with the turnout of questions there. Not saying the Bridges event was right, just pondering.
Charles, Res Publica is not a conservative organization. You're just trying to make an unnecessary argument about partisanship, I think, but it isn't really clear what you were trying to say when you brought up Starr or Rove. Their political leaning had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not their questions were screened and you know that.
The Res Publica society is a conservative leaning group. This is in light of the fact that so many alums were conservative (compared to today) and due to the fact that CMC administration whores itself out to alumni who feel we are too liberal. We can mask the fact that so many CMCers are libs currently by bringing many high profile hard right speakers to the RP program. Either way, screening questions is the way to go and its already been pointed out why the screening wasn't inherently biased.
The "Res Publica Society" isn't really a group, strictly speaking. It's a giving level-- if you donate between $1,500 to $3,499 in any given year, you're a member of the "Res Publica Society" for that year.
Sure, many of those donors may lean in one political direction, but there is nothing but anecdotal evidence to support how far our wealthy alumni lean in one direction.
It might be worth speaking that questions were screened when the Cheney sisters came to Scripps.
Post a Comment