2008 Woodie Awards
Should FAC have funded Ward Connerly's speech?
Kelsey Landhuis
Issue date: 4/3/08 Section: Opinions
A week ago, Ward Connerly came to Truman to speak about a proposed amendment to the Missouri constitution that would end race-based affirmative action. The event was sponsored by the College Republicans (no surprise there), the College Libertarians (so far, so good) and - wait for it - the Funds Allotment Council.
"Why is FAC funding this guy?" some students wondered. "There will be a huge protest! Mass chaos will ensue! FAC can't let a speaker like that come to campus."
Actually, it can. And it should. According to FAC's constitution, the group "will strive to fund a variety of activities sponsored by a variety of organizations that will provide potential benefit to all members of the Student Association and the larger University Community."
This mission statement does not contain the clause, "as long as the opinions expressed during these activities are not too offensive." FAC has funded many speakers in the past, on topics ranging from drug and alcohol abuse to the environment to the Holocaust. The organization makes few value judgments on the content of speakers' messages when it is determining whether to fund them - it simply evaluates whether they will draw a crowd and generate interest among the University community. Connerly definitely met these criteria: Affirmative action is a subject of interest for many college students, and Facebook events encouraging students to protest Connerly's presentation confirmed FAC's prediction that the event would generate a lot of student interest.
So FAC did its job and was completely within its rights to fund this speaker.
"Yeah, but what about his $4,000 fee?" some persist, having read the fine print of the FAC slate. "Isn't that a bit much?"
Not really. Granted, for college students who consider themselves in the money when they can scrape together enough cash to order a pizza, $4,000 is a big chunk of change. However, for many speakers who come to the University, $4,000 is reasonable. In the spring of 2007, FAC allotted this sum to the Nursing Students Association for a speaker on health awareness who most likely generated much less interest within the University. Connerly was not unique in receiving a large speaker's fee, and judging by what I heard about the raucous crowd at the event, he earned every penny.
FAC simply fulfilled its duty by providing money to an organization to fund an event, like it has for many other speakers in the past. The reason people are upset this time is because of the speaker's views, and that in itself is disturbing. Expressing these trite concerns about funding sends the message, "We don't like what this guy has to say, so we don't think he should get to speak."
However, whether or not you agree with Connerly, he should have the right to express his opinion. If we only tolerate speakers whose ideas are similar to our own, where do we draw the line? Censorship might seem fine when it comes to the Connerlys of the world, but who would be next? The gun rights advocate? The feminist? The gay rights activist? The fact that these individuals might have views that differ from yours doesn't mean their concerns aren't valid, and it doesn't mean they don't have the right to be heard. Silence one voice, and you might as well silence them all.
"Why is FAC funding this guy?" some students wondered. "There will be a huge protest! Mass chaos will ensue! FAC can't let a speaker like that come to campus."
Actually, it can. And it should. According to FAC's constitution, the group "will strive to fund a variety of activities sponsored by a variety of organizations that will provide potential benefit to all members of the Student Association and the larger University Community."
This mission statement does not contain the clause, "as long as the opinions expressed during these activities are not too offensive." FAC has funded many speakers in the past, on topics ranging from drug and alcohol abuse to the environment to the Holocaust. The organization makes few value judgments on the content of speakers' messages when it is determining whether to fund them - it simply evaluates whether they will draw a crowd and generate interest among the University community. Connerly definitely met these criteria: Affirmative action is a subject of interest for many college students, and Facebook events encouraging students to protest Connerly's presentation confirmed FAC's prediction that the event would generate a lot of student interest.
So FAC did its job and was completely within its rights to fund this speaker.
"Yeah, but what about his $4,000 fee?" some persist, having read the fine print of the FAC slate. "Isn't that a bit much?"
Not really. Granted, for college students who consider themselves in the money when they can scrape together enough cash to order a pizza, $4,000 is a big chunk of change. However, for many speakers who come to the University, $4,000 is reasonable. In the spring of 2007, FAC allotted this sum to the Nursing Students Association for a speaker on health awareness who most likely generated much less interest within the University. Connerly was not unique in receiving a large speaker's fee, and judging by what I heard about the raucous crowd at the event, he earned every penny.
FAC simply fulfilled its duty by providing money to an organization to fund an event, like it has for many other speakers in the past. The reason people are upset this time is because of the speaker's views, and that in itself is disturbing. Expressing these trite concerns about funding sends the message, "We don't like what this guy has to say, so we don't think he should get to speak."
However, whether or not you agree with Connerly, he should have the right to express his opinion. If we only tolerate speakers whose ideas are similar to our own, where do we draw the line? Censorship might seem fine when it comes to the Connerlys of the world, but who would be next? The gun rights advocate? The feminist? The gay rights activist? The fact that these individuals might have views that differ from yours doesn't mean their concerns aren't valid, and it doesn't mean they don't have the right to be heard. Silence one voice, and you might as well silence them all.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Agnes Barthel
posted 4/11/08 @ 12:54 PM CST
I learned of Mr. Connerly's speech via Jet magazine, as I am a subscriber and I'm African American. I took the time to read Mr. Connerly's biography & familiarized myself with his political views. (Continued…)
ressex
Rick Essex
posted 4/23/08 @ 12:25 AM CST
Nice ramble Agnes. Let me tell you from someone who's been in the high tech business world for 23 years...affirmative action has hurt blacks because when many people see a black in a higher position they ASSUME they got it because of affirmative action, NOT because they earned it. (Continued…)
Post a Comment