In Defense of the Taping of Abortion Awareness Week and What Really Happened

As promised, I've finally thought out where I stand on the clandestine taping of "Abortion Awareness Week." (See photo up top.) First, it's essential that I give a little background as my defense of the students in this case has little to do with my own somewhat pro-life views and more to do with both policy and the law than anything else.

On February 19, 2009, several pro-life students attended a discussion led by Serena Josel from Planned Parenthood. They asked very tough questions of Ms. Josel, including the systematic cover up of underage rapes that have tragically become far too commonplace in this country.

Understandably, VOX, which organized the event, didn't like that there were questions being asked that made Planned Parenthood's representative uncomfortable. The questions were about documented events that Planned Parenthood is unwilling to talk about because their actions are indefensible. Ms. Josel was totally unprepared for those kinds of questions, expecting as is usual, that college students would be enamored with Planned Parenthood and its defense of abortion on demand. Boy, was she wrong. As she answered the questions, she made several untrue and demeaning statements about Lila Rose, the head of Live Action, and Planned Parenthood's response to their alleged cover up of underage rape. (I'll have more on that in a subsequent blog post.)

Unbeknowst to Ms. Josel, one of the students was recording the event and her responses. He placed the camera on his knee and turned it on. It was openly displayed and perfectly legal.

I've watched the raw video in its entirety and have discovered that Deans Feldblum and Holmes's statement which they emailed out to the Pomona student body isn't true. They wrote,

"The students began asking disruptive questions, and one of the students was secretly videotaping the event without the knowledge or consent of the college or the individual participants. When the student organizers became aware of the videotaping, they requested that it be stopped. The students who were doing the recording refused."

The video recording shows something actually quite different. Several times one of the pro-life students asked if VOX wanted them to leave. A few of VOX members argued that the pro-life students had "violated" their "safe space" and the pro-life students returned that California law allows the taping of a public lecture.

The taping caused considerable stir. Two Pomona College deans, Dean Miriam Feldblum and Dean Holmes, emailed this out to the Pomona College student body. They refer to the recording as "hostile" and "harassment." They write,

Secretly recording conversations is a violation of the Women’s Union space and is contrary to the values of the Pomona College community. The Women’s Union, like many other spaces on our campus, is identified and recognized as a space on the Pomona campus where individuals are invited to participate in these kinds of discussions.

That's interesting that they are trying to portray the event as some kind of "intimate" session. If that were so, why were their fliers like the one above that advertised the event as raising "awareness" about abortion? It seems odd for something to be "intimate" at the same time one is trying to promote "awareness." One word suggests privacy; the other publicity. Shouldn't the students who raised "awareness" about "abortion" and the largest abortion provider in the country, Planned Parenthood, be applauded, not threatened?

Threatened they were. Pomona College, one of the pro-life students told me, has threatened to have Claremont McKenna bring the students before a judicial board. Although nothing has happened yet, given the sad history of show trials at J-Boards they could conceivably be convicted even though recording a public event is perfectly legal.

California Penal Code 632 (c) reads the following,

"(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded." [Emphasis added]

There were fliers promoting the event, so it's fair to say that it was open to the "public." There's little precedent for suggestion that the event was closed. In the case, Wilkins v. NBC, Inc., 71 Cal. App. 4th 1066 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999), the Court ruled that NBC could secretly tape the conversation of two businessmen taking place in a public restaurant! The restaurant was a private owned establishment, much like Pomona College is a private university.

In this past week's The Student Life, VOX members Amal Karim, PO '11, Sara Aceves PO '11, Julie Braker PO '09, Erin Buika PO '09, Eliza Finley PO '09, Ariana Jones PO '11, Samantha Jones PO '10, Melody Liu PO '11, Reena Patel PO '10, Jeanne Segil PO '09, Bryn Starbird PO '09, Lauren Tonetti PO '11, Alexander Tran PO '09, and the Women's Union Staff 2009, signed an op-ed attacking the pro-life students. They write, [emphasis mine]

An individual began asking inflammatory questions of the representative from Planned Parenthood. It became apparent that other members of the group he came with had been secretly videotaping the discussion without any notice and without the consent of those in attendance. Not only are such actions a violation of the safe space that is the Women’s Union, but secretly videotaping is against school policy. The group left without deleting the footage or conceding that they had unlawfully flmed [sic] a private event in a private space (Pomona College is a private institution) without receiving consent from the Women’s Union, VOX, the other attendees, or the Communication’s Offce (as, to our understanding, is required by policy).

It may not have been allowed by Pomona policy, but I would doubt that such a policy then is legal. The Leonard Law protects students's "other communication" as if it were the First Amendment. If the event were private, why were there fliers like the one up top advertising the event? If the event were advertised, which it was, then "the private event in a private space" argument doesn't apply. It was a good attempt to try to punish or intimidate the pro-life students, but the laws are on their side.

Charles Kesler on WFB Jr.'s Legacy in National Review

Professor Charles Kesler once contacted WFB Jr. for a high school newspaper interview during the 1970s. Buckley was on a speaking tour in West Virginia and took Kesler on a trip to the airport in his car. He ended the interview with a recommendation letter to Harvard and later an internship at National Review. 

He recent gave an interview with the National Review on the legacy of WFB one year after his death.

I thought I might share it with you. 

---------------------------------------------------------------

Reading Bill
There may be no new e-mails, but William F. Buckley Jr. lives on. 

An NRO Q&A

Charles Kesler, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, was a dear friend, student, collaborator, co-editor, and so much more to the late William F. Buckley Jr. On the first anniversary of Bill’s death, he spoke toNational Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez about WFB, conservatism, and more. 

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: On what issues have you found yourself most frustrated that you couldn’t pick up the phone and call Bill, or go to your computer and e-mail him, to get his read and advice?

CHARLES KESLER: Bill must have quoted his friend Willi Schlamm’s line a hundred times: “The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists.” I’m sure he would have invoked it again in pondering the financial markets’ implosion, the stock market’s plunge, and Bernie Madoff’s high-flying fraud. At the same time, he might have been surprised, as nearly everyone was, by how soon after the collapse of Communism this putative crisis of capitalism erupted. I’d love to hear his take on it, as well as his opinion of what conservatives should learn — and how they should recover — from it. Up there in conservative heaven, he must be getting an earful from Milton Friedman.

LOPEZ: What do you miss most about Bill?

KESLER: Those misspelled e-mails with the 13 exclamation points. And of course having lunch or dinner with him was a joy. He always radiated such energy and delight. For 35 years, beginning in college, whenever I came to New York I would see him, and now New York seems gray without him. It’s lost its sparkle.


LOPEZ: Do you find yourself remembering stories about Bill you thought you had forgotten? Anything you can share?

KESLER: Bill and Pat were marvelous hosts. One summer when I came down to spend the weekend with them in Stamford, Bill announced that we would have special guests for Saturday lunch: Henry Kissinger and his wife. Our party of ten or twelve people ate at a long table on the patio overlooking Long Island Sound. Kissinger had recently left office as Gerald Ford’s secretary of state, and I was a young graduate student in Kissinger’s old department at Harvard. Bill sat me immediately to the great man’s right, and Bill sat at the other end of the table opposite the guest of honor. Through a long, vinous luncheon, Kissinger regaled the company with stories of his Paris peace talks with Le Duc Tho, as well as gossipy tales about current world leaders. Every now and then he’d ask me about the Government department, who I was studying with, and how his old enemies there were faring. Later that afternoon, after coffee, fruit, and dessert, and after Kissinger’s limousine had pulled away, Bill smiled broadly and said, like the old CIA spook he was, “Henry is terribly indiscreet, isn’t he?”


LOPEZ: WFB was so prolific, so engaged, so challenging, so kind. What was the secret to his success?

KESLER: Genius, deep faith, a colossal work ethic, and, especially as a young man, the ability to learn from — and to use what he learned from — men like Willmoore Kendall and James Burnham, who knew much more than he did.


LOPEZ: What is the state of conservatism? Is it dead or dying? Is it too divided or muddied to every rise again?

KESLER: Conservatism is an unholy mess right now. But it’s not fatally divided or compromised. It needs to reacquaint itself with its principles and think them through more intelligently than it has hitherto, which means both connecting them anew to the deepest principles of the American political order, and expressing them in a manner that speaks to today. It would also help if conservative politicians realized how much they have to learn, and how hard they have to work, to begin to accomplish this task. The caliber of the Right’s recent political chieftains, with one or two exceptions, has been embarrassingly low. George W. Bush is not one of those exceptions, admirable as he was. And then there are the books that conservatives read these days! They may be best-sellers, but no one will ever call these talk-show tomes classics. Better to go back and read Bill Buckley and the books that he read . . . as well as a few that he never got around to reading.

LOPEZ: What should conservatives be most encouraged about?

KESLER: There are elections in 2010.


LOPEZ:What should conservatives be most worried about?

KESLER: There are elections in 2012.


LOPEZ: How’s academia doing?

KESLER: Remarkably, it’s getting worse. Almost 60 years after God and Man at Yale was published, the academy is farther left than ever. Here and there a few thoughtful teachers and enterprising programs shoot up blades of grass through the concrete. But they are few and far between. We can take heart, however, that a few fields, like economics, are sounder than they were in 1950, despite the general leftward trend.

LOPEZ: Some conservatives find themselves looking for the next Ronald Reagan, the next WFB. Is that the right or wrong approach? Is there a WFB to be friends with a Ronald Reagan as he’s in his formative political years?

KESLER: With the publication of Reagan’s radio scripts, selected letters, and diary excerpts, we’re beginning to understand just how hard he worked to become the Ronald Reagan we know and love. He was constantly reading (including NR, Whittaker Chambers, Friedrich Hayek, Friedman, WFB, and other serious sources), writing, trying out arguments and putting them in his own winning words. We could certainly use another Reagan, though life never gives you such a wonder. Nor will we get another WFB, of course. Such blessings don’t repeat. But they point to standards we can shoot for and models we can emulate. Attention, Sarah Palin: Get busy and put yourself to school, if you ever hope to do great deeds for your country. The same goes for every would-be or rising conservative star.


LOPEZ: How would you hope WFB is remembered and why?

KESLER: With fondness and deep gratitude, as he should be. That means we, and especially young conservatives, must read him. Non-conservatives can learn much from him, too. He would never object to a good argument, after all.

Cut Student Government Compensation!

From page 3 of The Student Life's Senate Briefs:

Dornbach-Bender brought up the issue of payment because he felt that without greater compensation, some students, specifically those that have to hold other jobs, would be prevented from running for the top ASPC positions. Dorchbach-Bender also said that CMC senators' significant reimbursement made him feel inferior. After 20 minutes of discussion, Finley informed Dorchbach-Bender that ASPC Presidents could hold jobs outside of their Senate duties. Senate decided to postpone the remaining discussion to a time when such spending was more economically feasible.

Good for Finley for being responsible with her money! But really it is public service. Why should any of the students get paid for showing up to vote away our money? And does anyone know just how much ASCMC senators get paid? I can't find any figures....

If only Brad Walters, last year's ASCMC president, had led their first. Brad, though, increased compensation for members of the government because he worried that people would be more inclined to become dorm RAs.

I will vote for whichever candidate promises me that he'll be more fiscally responsible. A good start would be waiving the compensation that the job brings.

My Picks for Tuesday's City Council Election

Schroeder and Calaycay

The Claremont Insider has a write up of the local newspapers' pick for the City council elections this Tuesday. I'm voting for Corey Calaycay and Larry Schroeder.

Schroeder's a smart finance type who gets that some of the spending that the City has been visiting upon us -- the Trolley anyone? -- has been a big waste. Check out The Insider for more on him.

Calaycay's a serious fiscal conservative who has been a lonely vote against madness. Still, I was disappointed by this vote against property rights. He says that he'll reconsider it in two years, but I'd like him to come out and say it was a mistake. Still, he's generally been a great member of the council and I'd like to see him continue.

For more on what they both have to say, please view this article in The Daily Bulletin.

Both men clearly beat their alternative. I heard their opponent speak at the local Republican club. She didn't seem to get that we are in a financial crisis. She was talking about all these social programs that she wants them to embark upon.

I wouldn't tell you to vote unless you were informed, but if you take the time to read up on these issues, please vote well.

They're Back.... The Planned Banning of Trays Continue

From The Student Life, "Pomona Food Committee Recommends Changes: Cuts to save upwards of $100K," (not online) here are the essential bits, with my bolding:

According to Pomona's Dean of Campus Life Ric Townes, these three changes will save the college approximately $133,000. The college will save approximately $36,000 by forgoing trays, $25,000 by cutting one night of snack, and about $72,000 by charging for take-out containers.

. . .

Both Dining Services General Manager Dave Janosky and Food Committee Co-Chai Stephanie Aleimda PO '11 felt it was unnecessary, so the elimination of trays will likely not be implemented until the fall. Many students seemed willing to give up trays as part of the changes to dining services.

...

Although there is still room for negotiation on the price, it is likely that students will be asked to pay 50 cents for a take-out container, flatware, and a cup. These materials cost about 51 cents, so by asking students to pay for materials the colleges will be essentially reimbursing themselves. This will also eliminate food waste for the colleges, since students will be unable to take more than one take-out container per meal and will be forced to choose whether they swipe in.

On the first paragraph, I'd love to know how they got their figures. Given that we know environmentalists have been deceptive before in their efforts to get us to use less of what we pay for, you'll have to forgive me for being just a little bit skeptical.

If it's costs that the colleges want to cut, maybe the colleges could reconsider building all the very expensive green buildings that they continue to build.

On the second and final paragraphs, I'm glad to see that the elimination of trays won't be considered until at least the fall, but I see little evidence that eliminating trays would reduce waste. More likely, it would just increase students' time in the cafeteria as they had to wait through numerous lines, meaning you'd have less turnover at the tables in the cafeteria, meaning you'd have more crowding.

The "Food Committee" also wants to place a 50 cents per container "surcharge." What happens when you tax something? You get less of it, so at the margins, fewer people will be getting those containers, meaning you'll have more people crowding the cafeteria. And while we're at it, why can't we pay to use a tray? Or bring our own containers and trays?

I've long written that the way to reduce waste is to have people pay for every item they purchase. As someone who is on the 8-meal plan, it currently costs me about $20 a meal at Collins. I don't usually eat $20 of food or even use all eight meals, but I certainly try to so that I can get my money back. You can bet that I'll be getting off the meal plan soon as I (often) get sick from the food!