Run Against Bush sponsored by St. Mary's College?

[Tonio]

Do we know if the college actually sponsored the event? Google's cache shows the item listed in the SOMD.com calendar, but it was apparently pulled:

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cachelWWEKqPj0sJ:www.somd.com/calendar/index.plx%3Fday%3D11%26year%3D2004%26month%3D9%26session_file%3D%26calendar%3D%26view_day%3Don+%22run+against+bush%22+%22st.+mary%27s+college%22&hl=en

And St. Mary's College's own Web site says nothing about a political affiliation for the event:
http://www.smcm.edu/newsevents/release.cfm?id=186

And then there's this on the RunAgainstBush Web site:
http://www.runagainstbush.org/nrabd/

I suspect that the event itself is nonpartisan, and that the local "Run Against Bush" members just had their own team in the event.

Still, I don't believe the college should let any teams like this participate. No Bush or Kerry teams, no pro-choice or pro-life teams, none of that crap.

 

[Oz]

The college is in bed with this horrible oppressive dictatorship in Ghana, (?-I think that's the right country) so nothing would surprise me about those cats down there...

 

[vraiblonde]

The college sponsors the event BUT they are not, to my knowledge, sponsoring the Run Against Bush team. Dave Kung was very careful to note this when he posted the event.

And the event was NOT pulled from our calendar. When he posted it, he put it on the wrong date and changed it apparently after Google picked it up. The run was on Sept. 18.

http://somd.com/calendar/index.plx?day=18&year=2004&month=9&session_file=&calendar=&view_day=on

 

[Tonio]

Thanks, Vrai. I'm glad the clarification is in the updated notice. I wonder if any GOPers at the college are going to "Run against Kerry" at the event?

 

[vraiblonde]

Now that that's cleared up, I don't think colleges should get involved in politics at all. I don't think they should let candidates hold debates in their auditoriums and I don't think they should allow rallies on campus. Professors who write politically charged books or appear on talk shows should be fired.

 

[ptbrien]

I missed the news . . .

Why is everything Anti-Bush and not Pro-Kerry? Are they afraid they might be questioned about what his stands on issues are? If he can't answer them, how can his supporters be expected to???

 

[Tonio]

Now that that's cleared up, I don't think colleges should get involved in politics at all. I don't think they should let candidates hold debates in their auditoriums and I don't think they should allow rallies on campus. Professors who write politically charged books or appear on talk shows should be fired.

That might be going a little far, but I agree with the sentiment. Professors should be free to express their political opinions, as long as they make it clear that it's an opinion and not some sort of political gospel. And students should be free to voice dissenting opinions in class--in fact, that kind of debate should be encouraged.

Anyone hear about this?
http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-525079.html

The U.S. Department of Education says a UNC lecturer's mass e-mail criticizing a conservative student constituted discrimination and harassment, but that the university handled the ensuing controversy properly...

In an English class called "Literature and Cultural Diversity," the student, Tim Mertes, mentioned his discomfort with homosexuality and spoke of a friend who was, in the friend's word, "disgusted" by a homosexual man's advances toward him.

That doesn't sound like homophobia to me. Now, if the student had delivered a Buchanan or Robertson-style rant about gays deserving to be exterminated, then the professor may have had a point.

Crystall, the lecturer, called out Mertes for his comments, criticizing him in an e-mail distributed to about 30 members of the class. In the e-mail, Crystall termed Mertes' comments "hate speech" and said they were an example of white male privilege.

She wrote in part: "That a white, heterosexual, Christian male, one who vehemently denied his privilege last week insisting that he earned all he has, can feel entitled to make violent, heterosexist comments and not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable is what privilege makes possible."

Privilege? Sounds on the surface like political correctness, but I think it's really just resentment. If the professor is black, I bet she was picked on in school by debutante WASP types and is taking out her anger. Come on, prof! Not everything that happens to a person happens because they belong to a certain gender or because their skin is a certain color.

 

[vraiblonde]

That might be going a little far, but I agree with the sentiment. Professors should be free to express their political opinions, as long as they make it clear that it's an opinion and not some sort of political gospel. And students should be free to voice dissenting opinions in class--in fact, that kind of debate should be encouraged.

I disagree. It's the same principle as sexual harrassment - the powerful exercising influence over their subordinates.

 

[flowerchild]

Why is everything Anti-Bush and not Pro-Kerry? Are they afraid they might be questioned about what his stands on issues are? If he can't answer them, how can his supporters be expected to???

I agree 100%. We all should understand that if I were to criticize you vover and over from day to night, even if I am right, it doesn't mean that I am without fault. I listened to Kerry speak the other day and all he did was list Bush's faults...I thought he was taking a "postitive new stance" in the campaign...Democrats simply play follow the leader.

 

[vraiblonde]

Why is everything Anti-Bush and not Pro-Kerry?

Because Kerry sucks and the Democrats know it. Therefore they can't tout the virtues of "their guy" because he doesn't have any. All they can do is say how much they hate Bush.

 

[hamsterfang]

If this were true and I was a student at that school who supported another presidential candidate (whether it be Bush, Nader, or Badnarik) I would most likely be upset seeing as how my money that is supposed to be covering tuition and fees is being used towards a partisan political event. Then again, we don't know the whole story. The college could be simply allowing them to use a track (Run against Bush people literally run against him).

 

[Erin]

Run Against Bush

We were at the Baltimore Inner Habor last weekend when a bunch of people wearing shirts that read Run Against Bush went by. My younger brother, in his true goofy fashion, went up against a bush at the resturant and started running in place against it.
My older brother thought about 'checking' them (like hockey players) right into the water. We kept walking around and the last of the runners were quite large and barely hanging on. Nice group to represent the party.

 

[KimStephens]

What is the big deal, anyway?

It looks like a group of students who have a common interest (apparently they don't like Bush) get together to share their thoughts and organize/participate walks/runs. So what is the problem? If a college did not allow participation for an opposing group (Run FOR Bush, perhaps?) I could see a problem, but just because a group of students have organized themselves doesn't mean the school has fully endorsed it. Kudos to the members for doing something productive with their political unsatisfaction - that's a lot better than doing nothing and complaining about our current state of affairs.

Kim
SMCM alum '99

 

[Bogart]

Kim
SMCM alum '99