The Observer, April 6, 2007
Volume XXXIX, Issue 23
Ambiguous policies breed discontent
Letter to the Editor
To the Editor:
Isn't it the policy of our great university to deny funding and forums for politically active groups that invite politicians to campus for speaking engagements? Since 2004, the Case Democrats and the Case College Republicans have been consistently denied any funding or even the opportunity to invite speakers to campus. The university offers the rationale that it cannot sponsor political parties in any way in order to hold its non-profit status.
I'm confused. Isn't Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) a politician? Isn't Case for Peace a group that, while not named as a political party (e.g. Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Communist, Socialist, Green, etc), hopes to frame a discussion around questions of peace and stability in Iraq and Iran? How does our university draw a distinction that allows support for ostensibly non-partisan groups to host speeches made by politicians who cover issues carrying significant political content while denying spaces and any support to groups that are more overtly political in their attempts to invite speakers of a similar nature?
I think I have found it – Case for Peace states that it is"not officially connected with Case Western Reserve University in any way." As a consortium of students, faculty, and staff (all of whom are affiliated with Case in some way), Case for Peace is certainly not connected with Case. Indeed, the voices that express their interest in peace do not reflect the views of Case Western Reserve University, only those of a broad spectrum of individuals who either attend or work at Case.
Perhaps I am being cynical. Case for Peace's funding does come from sources that are totally private. So it would be in this way that all that hubbub of political speech heard all over campus in the fall of 2004 could be found acceptable by our administration, since Case funds were not used to bring Chris Matthews' show to Freiberger field or Terry McAuliffe to the now-dismantled Baker Hall. Nonetheless, the university certainly has not violated its own policies because these instances of political speech on campus are not directly sponsored or endorsed by it.
But we do find instances where inherently political expression has been endorsed by the university or, at the very least, supported by university funding. In the case of the Sex Workers' Art Show, presented by Spectrum, the performances rendered by the sex workers were in many cases laden with political messages. One of the acts consisted of an overweight woman clad in a costume made from an Old Glory pattern dancing erotically while pulling dollar bills first from her brassiere and then from between her buttocks.
I am simply questioning the validity of the decision to block any support for the organizations that desire to promote their party's agenda on issues of national importance. I find it especially confounding in light of the support rendered for Spectrum's presentation of the Sex Workers' Art Show and for Case for Peace's invitation to Rep. Dennis Kucinich to speak on Iraq and Iran. What precisely is the distinction the university employs to differentiate between these various forms of political expression and association?
As stated in Case Daily, the Case for Peace event is justified because, "Although Kucinich is a Democratic candidate for president of the United States, his appearance on campus is permissible by the university's bylaws because the event is an academic program which is open to the public, and not a campaign event or rally."
In my opinion, this is a dubious, formalistic distinction. Our university should reconsider its perspective on this issue and remember the pertinent words of the late Alexander Meiklejohn, who wrote that in the United States, "The freedom of ideas shall not be abridged." Perhaps at Case Western Reserve University this is only true for some.
Matthew Wholey
Undergraduate Student
