The College Democrats are writing in response to last week’s Staff Editorial, “College Democrats: time to shake things up” (Student Life, Nov. 12). While we appreciate Student Life’s interest in the activities of our group and its encouragement to remain engaged, we feel that it is necessary to respond to the misinterpretation of our involvement in creating a more politically-active campus for our members and all students.
First, the editorial ignores several important events that the College Democrats sponsored on campus this semester. The editorial commends the College Republicans for bringing high profile—albeit controversial—figures Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove to campus. While we strongly disagree with the ideology and actions of these speakers, we do agree that they succeeded in encouraging political engagement on campus. The editorial, however, goes on to state that the College Democrats “have not put on any major event that has stimulated the campus as much as the two sponsored by the College Republicans.” This is simply untrue. The editorial notes that the College Democrats brought Mo Rocca to campus in a successful event, but ignores other events the College Democrats hosted this year. Earlier in the semester, the College Democrats brought national security adviser Rand Beers to campus, an individual now under consideration to be the next secretary of state. At “Why Vote,” a Justin X. Carroll Residence Hall Honorary (XRHH) award-winning event hosted by the College Democrats, two Missouri State Senators and former “Rock the Vote” President Jehmu Green spoke to students. Finally, on the day of the debate, the College Democrats sponsored a speech by DNC chairman Howard Dean, an event that filled Edison Theatre with a crowd of more than 800, larger than the audience for either Alberto Gonzales or Karl Rove. Student Life—which reported on all these events—does not seem interested in whether the College Democrats have brought important political speakers to campus, but rather that they have not sought to spend tens of thousands of dollars from Treasury in doing so.
But more than just the inaccuracies and misrepresentations of our activities, we object to this editorial for its disregard of the College Democrats’ efforts to create political engagement on campus. The editorial says that the College Democrats should appeal to Treasury more often to bring outside speakers to campus, and describes having such speakers as “the most effective way to inform students of political issues.” We disagree. We support bringing political speakers to campus—and have consistently done so—but believe that political activity involves much more than just going to speeches. We feel that, above all else, it involves becoming engaged in the process. In this and past years, the College Democrats have been committed to this higher level of engagement. This semester, the College Democrats registered more than 1,000 students on campus to vote, and brought out more than 100 volunteers for voter persuasion and “Get Out The Vote” operations both on and off campus. With Missouri the last state to be decided in presidential race, and the margin between the two candidates less than 4,000 votes, the significance of this effort should not be disregarded. Our involvement in the campaign had an undeniably strong effect on this year’s election. Furthermore, it gave students a chance to be not just observers, but contributors to this election’s discourse. We believe that being politically active is not only about listening to speeches by those involved in politics, but becoming involved in politics ourselves. Student Life’s editorial suggests that “it’s time for the College Democrats to get to work.” During the course of this semester we have brought speakers, held forums, activated new voters and brought volunteers into a historic campaign.
We have been at work. And we will continue to do so.
