Letter to the Editor of the Columbia Spectator
Adam Pulver
Class of 2008
To the Editor:
I write in response to yesterday's "A Call to Debate." For the past thirty years, the American conservative movement has used college campuses to develop a corps of ideologues, using its wealth to fund speakers and programs. These students become the party faithful, spewing rhetoric, challenging "liberal bias," and raising money while claiming to be "nonpartisan."
It is for this purpose, not education, that John Ashcroft comes to campus. Ms. Klibaner says that his visit shows the "presence" of conservatives. Really, the visit is less connected to Columbia than it is to the national conservative student campaign. Online, Ashcroft's visit is advertised by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a partisan machine existing solely to develop this "movement," and the New York Young Republicans Club, encouraging its members to RSVP promptly to ensure preferred seating.
Conservatives are not stupid. They intentionally posted vague posters that merely referred to Ashcroft as "American Patriot," aware of the response it would provoke. The claims that those on the left are the ones trying to make a partisan stink out of an "intellectual debate" cannot be uttered seriously.
Yes, I believe Ashcroft's tenure as Attorney-General turned back years of progress towards civil rights and liberties. But the conservative movement knew that when they brought Ashcroft to Columbia; a polarizing figure isn't brought here to persuade nonbelievers. I won't try to "get" John Ashcroft tomorrow, because doing so would let the right claim another example of those uncouth liberals. However, I refuse to allow my interest in his appearance here to be claimed as a victory for the right.
posted by Andy on 9:36 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
FYI, the editorial Adam addresses is here.
While sympathizing with his dislike of Ashcroft's actions, I disagree with Adam that Ashcroft's visit does not signify the presence of conservatives, and also that no intellectual debate is possible.
The pre-screening of questions by the conservative groups who are sponsoring the event, as Mike Nadler notes, may have the effect of blocking not only obnoxious questions but also challenging ones. We'll only know if that's true, however, if a) submit worthwhile queries and b) attend and hear which questions were chosen and how Ashcroft answers them.
As to Ashcroft's appearance being "a victory for the right," the only way to claim otherwise is to say that it would have occurred without conservative effort. That is, would the College Democrats and ACS have invited Ashcroft?
ACS has a fine track record of co-sponsoring debates with the Federalist Society and thus being a co-host for such polarizing figures as John Yoo, but the degree of contempt directed toward Ashcroft and the assumption that he (unlike Yoo?) has nothing worthwhile to offer for his side of the issues indicates that Ashcroft may be considered beyond the pale for a non-conservative group to invite, particularly in light of Ashcroft's hefty speaker's fee, toward which the money raised by the dinner will be directed. (As likely would occur with President Clinton and other Big Names.)
Post a Comment
<< Home