|
|
| On CSBT: Point Right CSBT CEO discusses CSBT's role in the Furman community in Paladin student newspaper January 29, 2010--Greenville, SC 
| Barrett Bowdre CSBT Chief Executive Officer Let's play a numbers game. Combined attendance at all seven Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow CLP events this past fall: 550 students. Number of people who attended Phyllis Schlafly: 350. Ann Coulter: 1900. Which events should claim success? Obviously, as much as I want it to be true, Mr. Cote's statement that "the name CSBT alone is now enough to draw a crowd" rings hollow. Of course, that's not the point, just something to consider. Failing to see any distinction between getting students on campus to "have lively political discussions" and our goal of "contributing to a vibrant discussion of ideas" - as if the former were somehow antagonistic to the latter - let me for a moment defend CSBT's actions for dare bringing a speaker whom one might associate with a vile, contemptible, uneducated, crass and outright crazy group that elitists love to hate: that "Tea Party crowd," of course. Unhappy with hope and change, frustrated at higher and higher levels of government spending, nervous about the same people who bring you the DMV controlling your healthcare, angry about bailout after bailout for giant corporations, tired of more and more government and worried about the direction of this country, these Americans rightfully exercise their Constitutional duties to make their very valid arguments heard. So what if they're not as educated as the Furman elite, or that they make less money than our parents and haven't read their Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver so as to "properly" define conservatism - so what, in other words, if they're normal, average Americans? That's the appeal of conservatism: it is common-sensical and inclusive. Conservatism is a big tent indeed. That's why we present a very broad exploration of conservative ideals. We present conservative speakers who disagree with one another, and with whom I disagree on some points somewhat frequently (This is different, by the way, than Mr. Cote's assertion that CSBT does not agree with them - who knows what the eagle thinks, but I would prefer to let individuals within the organization make up their own minds). This year we presented Congressman Bob Inglis to speak about healthcare, and then three days later hosted Michael Tanner, of the Cato Institute, who disagreed with much of what Inglis had proposed. Former Congressman Mickey Edwards came six days after Mike Huckabee's campaign manager Chip Saltsman spoke at Furman, and the two did not agree on much. We present ideas - mainly conservative ones - and students make up their own minds about them. That students only flock to events that may cause controversy indeed is a pity. If students want something different from CSBT, come to our other events. Join our weekly book club to debate conservative thought, or, if you don't like to read, come see people like ISI Vice President Mark Henrie (Mar. 15) or historian of the "conservative intellectual movement" George H. Nash (Mar. 30). Senegalese business-woman Magatte Wade will be speaking on African-entrepreneurship on April 8 (co-sponsored by Furman Global Justice), and author Dinesh D'Souza will be here on April 26. And we have many more CLPs, movies, meetings and an upcoming service-project in between. So, if CSBT is failing at contributing to good conversation, perhaps there's blame to go around and students (and other groups, like the eventless-with-$21,500-of-student-fees College Democrats) should start joining in. After all, as any tea-partier will tell you, competition brings the best results. This article reprinted from the 1/29/10 issue of The Paladin newspaper. --END-- |
Greenville News: DeMint was right to Stop Southers January 29, 2010--Greenville, SC
| Mary Ann Sane CSBT A Jan. 21 headline in The Greenville News read, “DeMint’s stance scuttles Obama nominee.” Errol Southers, who had been nominated by Mr. Obama to head the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), came under severe criticism because of his stance on giving collective bargaining rights to TSA employees and for running background checks on his ex-wife’s boyfriend. Mr. Southers countered with an argument about his career being “politicized.”
The head of the TSA has a very important job: to aid with the implementation of policies that will keep Americans safe. Yet Mr. Southers simply doesn’t understand the nature of our enemy: “Due to connectivity that we have with countries such as Israel, France, countries that are seen by al-Qaida as being infidels or anti-Islamic — by the true nature of our alliance with them, means that we are subject to being attacked as well.” Really? Our alliance with France and Israel is bringing us under attack? Or is al-Qaida simply waging a war against all Western infidels, regardless of alliances?
Southers also said this: “Most of the domestic groups that we have to pay attention to here are white supremacist groups; they’re anti-government, and in most cases are anti-abortion.” Not only does Mr. Southers believe that al-Qaida is attacking the United States because of our alliances, but he apparently believes that the tea party movement and anti-abortion groups are the biggest threats to American security. Sen. Jim DeMint should be lauded as a hero and a patriot for his continual fight to protect America “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” And yes, Mr. Southers, that means you. This article reprinted from the 1/29/10 edition of The Greenville News. View it by clicking here. --END-- |
South Carolina Democrats Attack Furman Students Campus Reform writer describes incident October 30, 2009--Greenville, SC
| Kelse Moen Campus Reform On Tuesday, the Furman University Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow (CSBT) brought Chip Saltsman, a former National Campaign Manager to Mike Huckabee and contender for RNC Chair to give the lecture "Huckaboom! The Inside Story." CSBT described the event thusly: Chip Saltsman, Mike Huckabee's National Campaign Manager, will discuss the strategy and tactics of the Huckabee campaign as well as the cultural contexts that influenced their effectiveness. Mr. Saltsman will offer his insider's perspective on how an unknown preacher-turned-politician emerged to eclipse established frontrunners, earn 270 delegates and the 2nd place trophy in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, as well as establish himself as a cultural icon of the religious right. It seems like a nuts-and-bolts political speech. But not to the South Carolina Democratic Party. In December, while running for RNC Chair, Saltsman distributed copies of a CD containing the parody song "Barack the Magic Negro" to RNC members. Never mind that that is wholly irrelevant to his recent speech; the South Carolina Democrats continue to follow the old liberal shibboleth that one politically incorrect mistake is enough to discredit everything one might do in the future. They used this tactic to cast aspersions on the CSBT: South Carolina Democratic Party Third Vice Chair Jamarr Brown released the following statement in response to Republican Chip Saltsman’s Tuesday night address to Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow at Furman University. Saltsman, a former chief aide to GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, withdrew from the race for RNC Chair earlier this year after he distributed copies of a CD with the racially-inflammatory song "Barack the Magic Negro." "It's sad that Chip Saltsman would be chosen as a guest speaker for any college student group. His actions last year show that he is a poor example of real leadership for the Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow, unless these students want to be taught a lesson in modern southern racism," said Brown. It remains unclear to me how this talk had anything to do with "modern southern racism." But good for these Furman students: when the state Democratic Party comes out to criticize them, you know they're making a difference. --END-- |
Concerning Freedom: Point Right
CSBT CEO discusses the meaning of "freedom" in Paladin student newspaper November 6, 2009--Greenville, SC
| Barrett Bowdre CSBT Chief Executive Officer The following is a conversation between South Carolina's favorite senator (DeMint, of course) and the always-incredible Rick Sanchez, which took place after Sen. Arlen Specter finally decided to stop pretending he was conservative: "What we're seeing right now is that the biggest tent of all is the tent of Freedom." "What the hell does that mean? The biggest tent is freedom? Freedom? I mean, you've gotta do better than that." The exchange is humorous, but also important. Conservatism is freedom, and I'm not sure when it became such a laughable word, an idea so disconnected from our reality. Perhaps we've simply become complacent with a maternal government that we expect to grant our every wish, paying for it with its seemingly endless supply of other people's money - that we don't actually want independence. Maybe freedom is laughably antiquated, or maybe it's become perverted not to mean liberty, but equalization - each according to his need. Freedom is inherently scary and, left unbridled, it becomes a cruel master. After all, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This anarchic freedom is Mr. Cote's phantom argument, and has been since before J.S. Mill translated Locke and penned his harm principle: my liberty ends where yours begins. Obviously, freedom must be controlled, but our negative laws (e.g., you shall not kill) do a fine job of doing so. Conservative freedom is a little more nuanced than that, of course, and it urges for even more self-control. For many, liberty is, as it was for Lord Acton, "not the power to do what we like, but the right to do what we ought." In the vein of Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley, our choices - which we should be free to follow - should consider tradition and order, and we should not be afraid to "stand athwart history, yelling stop!" to freedom gone amok. Of course, one would think that for someone so weary of unrestrained freedom, this self-control would sound perfect. Unfortunately, it doesn't, and the real difference becomes unveiled: Who gets to decide whether you, personally, should venture beyond the no harm principle? I think you should decide. I think you're smart enough to decide, and I think I have no right to force you to do otherwise. Mr. Cote instead looks to the government to begin granting and enacting positive rights.
If the harm principle is to be taken seriously, I would imagine it should apply to groups as well as to individuals. I would obviously be in the wrong if I took a gun and demanded your money, even if I then gave it to someone who I deemed needed it more. But if a majority does this, through the weapon-wielding and jail-sentencing government, is this still not wrong? Am I still not harmed? - or is it ok if the "common good" (whatever that means) warrants the harm of the minority or of the individual? And if power corrupts (and the more power we grant to the government, the more it is corrupting), then this seems like an especially slippery slope. For me, then, liberty is the highest political end. With it, I can choose to help others, and even attempt to convince others to help others. I become successful by making others happy (e.g., selling goods or services they want). Without it, I am a slave to the will of the powerful few or the tyrannical majority - either way, I guess I should be thankful I'm at last equal with others in my lack of opportunity. This article reprinted from the 11/6/09 issue of The Paladin newspaper. --END-- |
"No love for climate neutrality" CSBT CEO discusses climate neutrality in Paladin student newspaper February 27, 2009--Greenville, SC
| Christopher Mills CSBT Chief Executive Officer Perhaps I was too narrow in criticizing carbon offsets several weeks ago, since no one actually likes the things. The more significant question is why the university should become climate neutral at all.
Climate neutrality means having no net greenhouse gas emissions, which Furman has promised to accomplish through a variety of mechanisms, including reducing energy use, changing energy sources, and buying offsets. In the interest of simplicity, I will ignore measurement issues, such as travel and new construction.
Some of the proposed campus projects may make economic sense in that the long-term financial benefit of the initiatives outweighs the costs. However, the campus environmental lobby seems to have little concern for the financial viability of their projects. Furman's "Case Study for Climate Action Planning" frets over the low cost of electricity in the Upstate because it makes other sources of energy look relatively more expensive. Only in the bizarro world of university policy is having abundant, cheap energy a bad thing.
Alternative energy sources are attractive options only when the goal of climate neutrality is elevated above every other concern, including the financial burden borne by students. Thus, at some point, the case for reducing emissions further and becoming climate neutral rests almost entirely on the increasingly shaky foundation of anthropogenic global warming (caused by humans).
Many scientists and policymakers, including MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen, are doubtful as to the existence of catastrophic global warming, whether humans play a substantial role in the warming pattern, and whether the costs of remaking society into some carbon-less state would be worth the small expected reduction in global temperatures.
The climate commitment Furman signed worries about the "unprecedented scale and speed of global warming" and says, "re-stabilization of earth's climate is the defining challenge of the 21st century." The commitment fails to mention that no statistically significant warming occurred between 1997 and 2007. Or that 2008 was the coldest year in the last decade. Or that Americans ranked global warming as the lowest priority of 20 issues in the latest Pew Research Survey. Even assuming the worst about global warming, if all nations had met their Kyoto Protocol obligations, the earth's temperature would be approximately 0.07 degrees centigrade lower in 2050. As economists Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore have pointed out, "to act unilaterally to reduce planetary greenhouse gases is the height of feel-good folly" - and they were talking about states and countries, not small universities.
A recent Paladin letter suggests climate neutrality will have benefits for our children and grandchildren. I assume they refer to the possibility of making our children's environment infinitesimally cooler. The letter justifies purchasing offsets by the fact that local projects will be selected, thus bettering the community. Great - I bet if we doubled tuition, we could find all sorts of ways to help the Greenville area.
The point is that if individual students and faculty want to be carbon or climate neutral, no one is stopping them. If the university wants to conduct infrastructure projects that are cost-effective in the long-run, go for it. If you want to put aside money for future generations or volunteer in the Greenville community, please do. But let's at least be honest about the only reason for Furman, as a university, to become climate neutral: public relations.
As for me, I fail to see the appeal. I cannot imagine that the most effective way to convince prospective students and donors of Furman's value is by spending money on gases rather than making actual improvements to student life or lowering tuition.
Oddly enough, no one in my tour group asked to see the GHG emissions inventory when I visited Furman.
Fundamentally, this climate question asks you to decide whether the purpose of a university is to educate students or save the world. The answer here is easy - climate neutrality accomplishes neither. This article reprinted from the 2/27/09 issue of The Paladin newspaper. --END-- |
"Don't follow the fad" CSBT CEO discusses carbon offsets in Paladin student newspaper February 6, 2009--Greenville, SC
| Christopher Mills CSBT Chief Executive Officer Over the past two years, Furman students have demonstrated they have little interest in buying pieces of paper called "offsets" that purport to atone for the sin of our existence. Yet, carbon offsets will soon be coming to your tuition bill because there is no stopping what can only be considered Furman’s established religion—Sustainability. A recent report by Furman’s Sustainability Planning Council declares that Sustainability is "integral to our institutional identity. It is what we are as an institution and not simply a program or set of programs." While Furman evidently has money to spend on an "Office of Sustainability" with its own director, administrative coordinator, environmental liaison, and environmental associate, students have to pay to tour Cliffs Cottage, where we might learn some useful tips on saving energy and water. Call me old-fashioned, but I always thought education should be the thing that defines Furman’s identity. I bet I can find a few communications majors (or wannabe majors) who agree and would love for Furman to spend a bit more on professors and a bit less on so-called carbon neutrality. The university has committed itself to becoming carbon neutral, and buying carbon offsets will be a vital component of the Climate Action Plan now being developed by the Sustainability offices and committees. After all, there is no way to become carbon neutral without some tricky accounting courtesy of the offsets. Carbon offsets are a growing fad that allow you to pay for some project, such as planting trees, providing forgiveness for the carbon you use. It is unclear if any carbon emissions are actually reduced that were not already going to be without the offset. As the Los Angeles Times notes, "the industry is clouded by an approach to carbon accounting that makes it easy to claim reductions that didn’t occur." The buyer receives nothing of any value, only the relief that comes from believing your life can be carbon neutral. Students already voted down the concept of offsets once. In 2006, the Environmental Action Group presented a proposal to AFS that would have added a required annual fee to our tuition bill, and the money would have gone to a wind energy company. We would have ostensibly been purchasing renewable energy credits, which are similar to offsets. In effect, Furman students would have been paying extra tuition to receive nothing—under any other worldview, this is known as a donation. After the student body soundly rejected the proposal, Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow began the CSBT Challenge, an opportunity for students to voluntarily purchase the same credits that the proposal’s proponents were trying to force us to buy. Two students donated a total of $60 through the Challenge in the past two years; unsurprisingly, the idea of spending money in exchange for nothing only seems appealing when it is someone else’s money being spent. By comparison, EAG’s proposal would have mandated payments of over $130,000 by now. Many of the ideas being tossed around for Furman’s climate plan seem to be more of the same ill-advised policies, including restricting driving, covering acres of campus with unsightly and inefficient solar panels, and buying carbon offsets so we can be carbon neutral, if only on paper. The notion of sustainability at Furman has been too often twisted from a positive force that could reduce costs and conserve resources into a university religion obsessed with spending money without regard to student benefit. Some "green" ideas, especially in construction, would save the university (and thus its students) money in the long-term and help the environment. Some others, like carbon offsets, would do nothing except further raise Furman’s high costs at a time when the university’s endowment is falling and the economy is in a recession. Students already established their opposition to the idea of offsets—and those who supported the offsets revealed their true colors by refusing to put their money where their mouths were. It’s too bad the Sustainability crowd is now trying to sneak a tuition increase past the expressed view of the student body to fund the same bad idea. This article reprinted from the 2/6/09 issue of The Paladin newspaper. --END-- |
Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow releases 2008 update letter See below for the latest on CSBT and its activities January 26, 2009--Greenville, SC | On behalf of Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow, I would like to take this opportunity to give you a brief update on our fall activities and upcoming spring events. CSBT presented two CLPs in the fall term. The first was an address by Dr. Burton Folsom, professor at Hillsdale College and author of The Myth of the Robber Barons, on "Why Franklin Roosevelt was the Worst President in American History." In addition, Dr. Barry Chiswick, noted labor economist from the University of Illinois at Chicago, spoke on "Ten Myths of Immigration." Both of these events were hosted at minimal costs to the Furman student body—Dr. Folsom’s appearance was funded by Hillsdale College, and Dr. Chiswick’s events were co-sponsored with Furman’s Department of Economics. CSBT also participated in the activities fair in September and saw a great deal of student interest. CSBT is looking forward to an active spring term on campus. We have scheduled an unprecedented seven CLPs (some pending approval), with several more in the works. Confirmed events include: - "Life Overcomes Death" with Gianna Jessen, abortion survivor (Jan. 22);
- "Why We Whisper" with Dr. David Woodard, Clemson professor of political science and author of Why We Whisper: Restoring Our Right to Say It’s Wrong (Feb. 9);
- "Russia Resurgent: A Challenge for the Obama Administration" with Dr. Ariel Cohen, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation (Feb. 12);
- "The Eight Not-So-Great Myths Against School Choice" with Dr. Vicki Murray, senior policy fellow at the Pacific Research Institute (Feb. 16);
- "Oil, National Security, and What We Can Do About It" with Anne Korin, director of policy at the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (Mar. 4);
- "Red Hot Lies: The Global Warming Methodology" with Christopher Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (Mar. 24); and
- "Faith and Politics" with Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (Mar. 31).
Last week, Ms. Jessen spoke to an overflowing crowd in Johns Hall 101 and held a book signing, and her event was part of CSBT’s annual remembrance of the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. We also had a table in the University Center, where we provided students with information about the consequences of Roe as well as post-abortion and community resources. We will continue to strive to keep costs low, and we will be co-sponsoring events this term with the Leadership Institute, Young America’s Foundation, and Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Furthermore, we have conducted successful fundraising efforts and received several grants to enable us to offer even more events to the student body. In 2008, CSBT events awarded a total of 1,965 CLP credits to students over 10 different CLPs, all of which were speakers. Faculty, staff, and community members represented over 1,100 more attendees, putting us over 3,000 for our total attendance figure on the year. As always, our events will be free and open to the public. You can find more details on our Web site, where we offer full videos of some of our events as well as our newsletter and links for voter registration. The address is www.furmancsbt.org, and it continues to be a popular destination for members of the Furman community, with over 10,500 unique (by month) visitors in 2008. Our event videos have been viewed some 1,750 times. Due to lack of interest, we have discontinued our annual "CSBT Challenge," an opportunity for students to give voluntary donations to a wind energy company. We started the Challenge after the mandatory wind donation proposal of two years ago was voted down by the student body. If the renewable offset proposal had not been defeated, Furman students would have since been forced to give over $130,000 to a wind energy company—and would have received nothing in return. As we said after the vote two years ago when we announced the Challenge, "Students who supported the proposal still have the opportunity to donate to wind power companies with their own finances without using the power of the university to force others to." Over the past two school years, two students donated a total of $60 through the Challenge. To replace the Challenge, CSBT is in the process of planning a service project for our members to help the Greenville community, and we will keep you updated on that opportunity. Finally, CSBT is very interested in co-sponsoring a debate with another student organization to bring in speakers with different perspectives. If you know of any group with a topic of interest, please let me or any CSBT member know. As CSBT continues to grow in membership and scope, we appreciate your continued support. Sincerely, Christopher Mills Chief Executive Officer --END-- |
Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow releases "Support our Seniors" letter of response May 19, 2008--Greenville, SC | Dear President Shi, Provost Kazee, and members of the Furman community: As we approach the end of spring term and the graduation of the Class of 2008, Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow wishes to present the following letter: "Support our Seniors." Our letter comes in response to the release of the faculty-led "(W)e Object" letter and the subsequent placement of that letter on the university's official Web site. The letter also details concerns with faculty members asking for "conscientious objector" releases from commencement exercises and the administration's handling of those demands. The letter is signed by over 700 members of the Furman community, about half of them students. We welcome the opportunity to meet with you should you have questions about the "Support our Seniors" letter. We appreciate your consideration of the views expressed in this letter and your continued support for Furman's students. Sincerely, Christopher Mills, Kyle Wilkins, Nathan Guinn, Barrett Bowdre, Carlyle Jackson, and Jackson Briggs Board of Directors, Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow (Click here for more information and media links) --END-- |
Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow presents Michael Steele Wed., May 21, at 7:00 P.M. May 19, 2008--Greenville, SC 
| Furman University’s Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow presents Michael Steele, GOPAC Chairman and former Lt. Governor of Maryland. Mr. Steele will give an address on “Healing the Conservative Coalition” Wednesday, May 21, at 7:00 p.m. in Furman’s University Center Watkins Room.
The event will last approximately one hour and will conclude with a question-and-answer session. The event has CLP status.
The event is open to the public without charge. All students, faculty, and members of the community are welcome. Seating is limited.
GOPAC Chairman Michael Steele was born on October 19, 1958 at Andrews Air Force Base in Prince George's County and was raised in Washington, DC. He graduated from Archbishop Carroll High School, earned his bachelor's degree in International Relations from Johns Hopkins University in 1981 and his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 1991. Mr. Steele also spent three years as a seminarian in the Order of St. Augustine in preparation for the priesthood.
In 2003, Chairman Steele earned a place in history when he became the first African American elected to statewide office in Maryland. He was the nation's highest-ranking African American Republican elected official and the only sitting African American Lt. Governor in the country.
In 2002, President George W. Bush appointed Chairman Steele to serve a term on the Board of Visitors of the United States Naval Academy. Other affiliations include the State House Trust, the East Baltimore Development Corporation, the Export-Import Bank Advisory Committee and the Prince George's County Chapter of the NAACP.
Among the distinguished awards and honors received by Chairman Steele, he has been named a 2005 Aspen Institute-Rodel Fellow in Public Leadership and was awarded a Bethune-DuBois Institute 2005 Award for his work in the ongoing development of quality education in Maryland.
--END--
|
Greenville News: Ann Coulter draws overflow Furman crowd April 17, 2008--Greenville, SC 
| Ann Coulter told a raucous overflow crowd at Furman University tonight that she has conceded the presidential election to the Democrats and fumed that John McCain is no better.
"I don’t see how any of the three of them can win," she quipped.
Addressing a McAlister Auditorium crowd in a near rock-concert environment, the ulta-slim, ultra-conservative blonde commentator said, "It’s looking like it’s 1992 all over again. We have to begin to start thinking beyond this election."
The fire marshal locked the doors on scores of fans outside after the capacity of 1,800 was reached. Furman spokesman Vince Moore said it was the first time he recalled an overflow crowd for an event at the auditorium -- which included a stop in January by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Wearing a black dress and sipping coffee from a Styrofoam cup, the columnist and TV commentator, who arrived a half-hour late, bashed the presumptive GOP nominee nearly as much as she did the candidates on the Democratic side.
"The fact that McCain is the only man left standing shows the state of vacuum in the Republican Party," she said, adding that the only thing he could do to earn her vote would be to add Mitt Romney to the ticket.
Security men lurked in the wings, scanning the crowd throughout the event. No cameras or recorders were allowed.
After her talk, Coulter took questions from the floor, including a few from detractors.
"I came here with an open mind, but I haven’t heard you talk in anything but sound bites," one questioner said, drawing applause.
She answered, "If it was such a bad speech, you ought to be able to come up with a very clever question," eliciting much louder applause and laughter.
One man proposed marriage. Another said he wishes she would run for president.
A line stretched outside the auditorium after the event with fans waiting to get autographs.
Casey Schuff, a 35-year-old discount store manager from Duncan, was among them.
"She speaks her mind, she tells it like it is," he said. "She says things that a lot of people would like to say, but she has the courage to say them." From 4/17/08 Greenville News written by Ron Barnett SCHotline coverage Greenville News coverage - "Coulter coming to Furman"
- Photo gallery Furman University coverage
--END--
|
"Ann Coulter could be good for Furman" CSBT CIO discusses pending Coulter visit in Paladin newspaper February 8, 2008--Greenville, SC
| Barrett Bowdre CSBT Chief Information Officer After RLC, FUSAB, and AFS devoted $2,000, $4,200, and $4,499, respectively, to Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow specifically to bring Ann Coulter, the campus has been abuzz with dialogue. This is precisely why her coming would be such a benefit to the student body and to the University. After all, the co-sponsorships of FUSAB and RLC demonstrate Coulter’s widespread appeal to students of all political persuasions.
Ann Coulter is a best-selling author and renowned conservative entertainer who has written six straight New York Times bestselling books, has appeared on numerous news networks as a political commentator, and has spoken on college campuses including Harvard University, Yale University and Penn State. As Syracuse University professor and director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television Robert Thompson said, Ms. Coulter is an entertainer, but one who points out essential but uncomfortable truths.
Having Ann Coulter come to campus would be very advantageous to the Furman community. If discussion is already occurring on campus simply because of rumors of a visit, it is clear that having Ann Coulter come would further create and promote the discussion. She both represents many students’ political opinions and delivers them in a comedic, entertaining way. And while I certainly don’t agree with everything Coulter has ever said, I believe that having her come would generate enough dialogue on campus that people will be forced to discuss the underlying conservative ideals she opines—unless, of course, Furman students have become too close-minded to consider perspectives other than their own.
After hearing all about “censorship” and “free speech” last year with the Kinsey Sicks, I am surprised that President Shi has not already come down on the side of CSBT this year. Just last year, he wrote, “A university’s mandate is not to insulate students from competing idea but to expose them to competing ideas.”
Even though I have been pleasantly surprised by many non-CSBT supporters actually adhering to their lofty rhetoric, some have not. Taking her words out of their proper context—that is, speaking in a comedic manner about current political issues (not unlike late night talk-show hosts)—opponents have argued that Ann Coulter promotes hate speech (whatever that is), and have gone directly for the funding without addressing any issues.
In a revealing and completely unprecedented show of partisanship, a minority of AFS members moved to revoke the funding for Ann Coulter that was allotted just the previous week. Thankfully, a substantial enough number of members of the council have enough respect for student opinion, the democratic process, and the intelligence of council members to quickly vote to delay the stunt until Feb. 11.
I can only hope that students opposed to Ann Coulter have enough respect for their ideals opined last year to uphold them when it is finally their turn to do so. As The Paladin noted on Jan. 18, “Let’s pray that the powers that be (AFS) don’t close their pocketbooks when it comes time to demonstrate some real tolerance.” This article reprinted from the 2/8/08 issue of The Paladin newspaper. --END-- |
Former Furman trustee praises CSBT in Paladin newspaper op-ed 
| Truth Was the First Casualty
There was a fight at Furman, but it wasn’t a fair one.
By Dean Williams
Charlottesville, Virginia
Furman University President David Shi recently published a Greenville News column, titled Campus controversy can be a great teacher. In it he expressed Furman’s values and the threats to them. At its core, however, was his strongly-worded public reprimand of a few Furman students. They had offered a petition opposing sponsorship of a visiting performing group. Many professors reflected President Shi’s actions by signing a faculty counter-petition opposing their students.
President Shi’s direct involvement was unexpected, since he is on sabbatical leave this year. Unfortunately, his column did not include any facts about the students or the visiting group which could be verified. These few facts, for example, could have allowed readers to learn more and make up their own minds: The visiting group is, “The Kinsey Sicks.” The students’ website is www.furmancsbt.org. Their petition reads:
To: (student organizations) FUSAB, RLC and EROS: We, the undersigned, recognize that FUSAB, RLC and EROS are co-sponsoring a drag queen show by the “Kinsey Sicks” and are trying to bring them to campus with over $10,000 in student money. We further recognize that the “Kinsey Sicks” is an overtly political activist group that uses tactics not in line with the values of Furman University. Finally, we recognize that there is no inherent educational value in the “Kinsey Sicks” production. Therefore, we request that FUSAB, RLC, and EROS reconsider their co-sponsorship of the “Kinsey Sicks.”
President Shi did not name the visiting group. He referred to them as a cabaret group and as a nationally prominent troupe known for satire. If he had given their name, readers could have learned for themselves about the cabaret group. A New York Times review judged The Kinsey Sicks act, “inspired silliness” and “seriously offensive to many.” Other reviews noted that their satire includes the view that Republicans are the same as the Ku Klux Klan, their song, “Why Can’t We (F**k)?” and parodies of Jesus in sexual situations.
Likewise, if President Shi had included the students’ petition in his column, readers could have decided for themselves if his public allegations about the students were fair and accurate, or even necessary. The students did not address their petition to the University. They addressed it to three other specific student organizations. The students did not demand that the University cancel anything. They used the word request and asked other students to reconsider their co-sponsorship.
The students did not ignore the other three student organizations or disregard any of their actions. It was to them that they addressed their petition. It was to them that they made their request to reconsider. Their concern was not voluntary attendance. It was mandatory use of their funds. The students did not call for censorship. It was the students who promoted awareness of the event and urged others to learn more. It was the students who gave us the group’s name. It was the students who researched and publicized the material that President Shi said they tried to censor.
Public censure of students for offering a petition is tenuous ground for university Presidents and professors, because they so frequently remind us of their own rights to freedom of expression. Their obligation for accuracy and fairness is always great, but especially so when making public accusations against their students.
University Presidents and professors have great power over their students. This includes the very real power to censor them by intimidation. Some may find this tempting because it requires so little courage, but it also threatens the very freedoms they assert so readily. Gratuitous display of this power sends a strong message to everyone. What will happen to the next small group of students at Furman who want to petition other students to reconsider something? Will they be censured in the press? Will they feel the same isolation and disillusionment that these students and their anguished parents must feel now? If they fear similar retaliation, each of us is diminished with them.
The students expressed themselves by the democratic means of petition. The words in their petition are neither harmful nor irrational. Their views are shared by many other Furman students, their parents, alumni and donors. Surely not all of them can be labeled, “partisans on the extremes.” In his column, President Shi lauded Furman as a place where, “different opinions and different students {are} cherished and protected.” If these students and their parents now find these admirable words to be hollow, we can understand why.
To dwell on the Kinsey Sicks and their act misses the point. They have come and gone. Time and the marketplace of ideas will judge them fairly. What endures is that these young Furman students have shown initiative, principle, courage, and commitment - all traits of character that we would welcome in our own children and wish for in our leaders. They deserve better than misrepresentation and public condemnation by the President of their University. They deserve our respect and our support. They have mine.
T. Dean Williams is a graduate and former Trustee of Furman University. He chaired the Finance Committee of the Board of Trustees and served five terms on Furman’s Advisory Council, most recently as its Chairman.
Contact: dean@arc-light.com Reprinted from the Paladin student newspaper Click here to read about CSBT's "Kinsey Sicks" petition. --END-- |
| |
|