Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound

Thursday, November 02, 2006

"Student groups protest against US-Mexico border fence, College Republicans demonstration"

Here is the Daily Watermelon story on the WSU College Republicans being denied free speech rights. For some reason (I can guess why), it's not on their online version.

Typical response from the Young Democrats and others: There's nothing wrong with illegal immigration and anyone opposed to it must be a racist.

It's the "Passion of the Musical" all over again. Someone needs to get in touch with FIRE. Yet another black eye for free speech at WSU.

BTW, did anyone get any pictures of the flag being flown upside down today? I hope so. E-mail me if you did.

14 comments:

Paul E. Zimmerman said...

I saw that piece today. I noted how they played up the idea that the objection to the wall display is that it is being put on during their "culturally sensitive" moment, rather than illuminating the fascist attempts at suppression of ideas different than their own, driven by their leftist ideology that those groups (and that one department in particular) are known for.

At least the Eversocialist writers squeezed in a passing comment on the fact that the racist insurrectionists physically assault a member of the CR's.

Cougster1 said...

How can you guys so obviously try and confuse Free Speech with lack acceptance of your message? How is your free right to free speech being violated? Did the administration ban you from putting up the wall? NO. This is nothing like the Passion musical. This also nothing like what happened at Columbia when the minute men came there and their speech was stopped.
If people call you racists that doesn’t mean your free speech rights are in any way being abridged. What are you going to call FIRE about? You protested on the mall, nobody stopped you. Others protest against you. That’s America (God Bless it!).

Your second sloppy argument is that the young dems are calling you racists. There are DIFFERENT groups protesting the wall they are NOT all the same. Most young dems might be against the fence for different reasons but they are not calling you racist, those are other groups. In fact the young dems disavow that guy quoted in the paper as a young dem, he is not a member.

It is too bad there is not more dialogue on these issues instead of yelling but that is different than suppression FREE SPEECH.

P.s. any takers on my offer…
http://palousitics.blogspot.com/2006/10/with-one-week-to-go-mcgavick-closing.html#links

Tom Forbes said...

Wow! You guys are disavowing Sean Gallegos faster than Hillary ditched Kerry.

The Red Knight said...

That was interesting! I appreciate your concerns, Cougster1, but I must clarify a few things.

A lot of things are being said about these resent events; some true, some false, some I'm not sure about. For one thing, I haven't heard anyone claim that our right to free speech was taken away. What has happened is that several groups on campus and lots of their members have told us, point blank, that we should not be allowed to do this. We were not stopped, but there were lots that said we should be.

Second, whether or not it was the Young Dems or an ethnicity-oriented group on campus that called us racist, it doesn't matter. The fact is, members from these groups called us (very publically) racists, fascists, and even Nazis. Much of this occured even before we set foot on the Mall, before we had had the chance to be heard. It is this type of prejudice that gives your respective groups a very bad name to many people on campus. I would suggest that you try to distance yourselves from such talk. It is the best way to further polarize issues.

Can you name for me one time the College Republicans went before the WSU community and insulted others because of their political stance, ethnicity, race, or sex?

Paul E. Zimmerman said...

You might want to check into the incidents of harassment, threats, and physical assault from opponents of this project, cougster1. The fact that the display is now present on the mall does not mean that all is well and good. This campus has a growing problem with intolerant leftists who will not allow debate, who try to intimidate people into silence by various means, and unfortunately, some of these CR's were victims of that. That means that there is a threat to free speech present on campus, even if some of us refuse to be intimidated by these degenerate traitors to liberty.

laura said...

I seriously take offense to this posting. First off, as noted, Sean Gallegos is not a YD and has been to zero meetings this year. You state that it doesn't matter what group called the CRs racist and that is ridiculous. Clearly, when you accuse the YDs of something and it is proven false that does matter. Additionally, while motivation for the wall includes racist elements, most YDS acknowledge that race is not the entire issue. I am a member of the YDs and if you would check our forums at www.wsudems.com/forums you would maybe understand the actual debate about the issue instead of lumping everyone in one basket. I, as a liberal, acknowledge the complexities to the issue of illegal immigration and it would be nice to see a similar level of complex evaluation from republicans.

Tom Forbes said...

"Sean Gallegos, an academic coordinator for the Department of Comparative Ethnic Studies and a WSU Young Democrats member"

If it's in the Evergreen, it must be true, right?

With as many of your members that are staffers on the Evergreen, are you now going to bite the hand that feeds you? Were there any complaints when Amelia Veneziano got to rant about Republicans or Jimmy Blue trashed Wal-Mart and those in Pullman that support it?

Stinks when you can't get your side of the story out, doesn't it?

http://palousitics.blogspot.com/2006/10/paper-of-record-for-pullman.html

April E. Coggins said...

Posted by Laura: " I, as a liberal, acknowledge the complexities to the issue of illegal immigration and it would be nice to see a similar level of complex evaluation from republicans."

I guess I'll pull my finger out of my nose long enough to be "offended" by Laura's condescending post of "lumping in one basket" of Republicans.
The stereotyping continues.

Uncle Bubba said...

Stopping the flood of unregulated people coming across our borders has nothing to do with race.

We as a nation rightly expect everyone to comply with the law of the land when entering our country for any reason. That's the
difference between legal and illegal immigration!

Scotty said...

"I, as a liberal, acknowledge the complexities to the issue of illegal immigration"

What complexities? You are making it complex. It is pretty simple and black and white. It is illegally entering this country.

Cougster1 said...

Still waiting to know how the CRs right of Free Speech was taken away. Is the blog post going to be corrected? What is FIRE going to be called about?
Zimmerman says:
You might want to check into the incidents of harassment, threats, and physical assault from opponents of this project, cougster1.

I did. I emailed Ryder, I got no response. Please name a couple SPECIFIC incidents. I would post them on Cougster.com without a doubt. We at Cougster would condem anyone who assaults or threatens asssults over a person right to free speech (we are supper free speech at Cougster, just read the forums (we love scotty!)). But I am sure if a democrat said what you did, you would demand proof or some details of specific incidents.

Would you except a paper with out the source being cited? I would think not.

ps...still up for any bets on McGavick... I will over 2 to 1 odds, $20 to your $10....many of you guys said he was going to win....

Tom Forbes said...

From todays's Daily News:

He said one professor called him a “white s--tbag.”

...

Clark, who is black, said he doesn’t get called racist like his fellow College Republicans do. Still, he feels like people on campus are trying to stifle his freedom of speech.

The College Republicans postponed the demonstration for a day after one of their members was physically assaulted, Ryder said. The group also received threats that their posters and materials would be destroyed if they did demonstrate.

The student who was assaulted was talking on his cell phone to his father about the planned demonstration, said Scott West, assistant chief of WSU Police. After he hung up, a male standing next to him who overheard the conversation allegedly swatted him on the back of the head and said something to make the victim believe he was from a Latino student organization. He also told the victim to be careful.

Is that specific enough? Verbal harassment from faculty members, threats of violence, and physical attacks. Where's the outrage from the YD's? Oh, I'm sorry, you're too busy holding up signs downtown that Cathy McMorris cut your veteran's benefits.

How about a bet whether Sean Gallegos will ever hold elected office? I'm down for $20 on that.

Paul E. Zimmerman said...

But I am sure if a democrat said what you did, you would demand proof or some details of specific incidents.

That's true, because I ask that of everyone. And had Tom not beaten me to the punch, I would have given them to you just as he did. When (hopefully not if) the photos and/or video are available, I'll be happy to point you in the direction of those, too.

Would you except a paper with out the source being cited? I would think not.

No, I would not make an exception for a paper without cited sources, nor would I accept a paper without them.

But, last time I checked, we're typing back and forth on a blog. There's nothing with the requirements of an academic paper going on here. On top of that, recall that your original statement on these matters was:

How is your free right to free speech being violated? Did the administration ban you from putting up the wall? NO. This is nothing like the Passion musical. This also nothing like what happened at Columbia when the minute men came there and their speech was stopped.

As soon as you moved from question to assertion, the burden of proof shifted back to you. What's worse for your position here, you cited examples of rights violations that actually mirror what has happened to the CR's in this endeavor, perhaps not in degree but definitely in kind: the administration did not stop any of these events in advance, but the "heckler veto" was used against them each time (obviously to varying degrees of effect, but that still doesn't change the character of it). Violations against free speech do not need to come from officials; individuals can visit such violations upon each other, too.

Paul E. Zimmerman said...

One other thing, cougster1: I'm not much interested in gambling, so if I mentioned betting with anyone, it was purely figurative. I prefer to invest my money profitably, and I hate the idea of taking on pure risk with something I've worked hard to get, know the feeling?

But aside from that, here's the thing: if I decline your bet and McGavick wins, then my guy is in office and I still have my $10, which is good.

Conversely, if I decline your bet and Cantwell wins, then my guy is not in office and I still have my $10, which is also good... because I'll need that $10 to pay the new taxes any Dem would impose.

;)