Wash. U. was right to cancel Target event
We believe Wash. U. made an appropriate decision in removing the First 40 Target trip from the freshman orientation schedule. Following the Citizens United Supreme Court decision in January, which opened the door for an expansion of corporate political contributions, Target contributed $150,000 to MN Forward, a conservative interest group. One of MN Forward’s sponsored candidates, Tom Emmer, has been linked to calls that LGBT individuals be put to death. Wash. U.’s cancellation of this partnership was a direct result of Target’s connection to such virulent anti-gay sentiment.
Some of the comments posted on Student Life’s news article (“WU ends partnership with Target,” Aug. 25) last week called Wash. U.’s decision an act of coercion or indoctrination. We disagree. This is not an instance of Wash. U. dictating behavior to the student body. Rather, it is a case of our private university acting in accord with its own institutional values. In previous policy decisions, such as removing bottled water from vending machines and banning tobacco on campus, Wash. U. has been open about the set of principles upon which it acts—principles such as sustainability and public health.
We see Wash. U.’s decision as well within the scope of its position as a private institution with explicit goals and ideals, and in keeping with an appropriate degree of autonomy to uphold these goals and ideals through policy decisions. In many ways, Wash. U. is very clear about the goals and ideals underlying the decision to opt out of its partnership with Target. The value of diversity, including with regard to sexual orientation, is a pillar of Residential Life programming and is actively advocated to freshmen. Wash. U.’s decision is thus consistent with its agenda and with the message it wishes to send to the freshman community and the student body at large.
We also believe that acting in opposition to anti-gay sentiments is commendable in itself; it is a decision in line with tolerance, diversity and human rights, and we believe that it is representative of the wishes of the overall undergraduate community.
The Citizens United decision allows corporations to donate funds in support of political agendas through political action committees. It also gives us, as citizens and consumers, the ability and responsibility to hold these corporations accountable for where their donations go. We commend Wash. U. for doing so.
We would also like to add some perspective regarding the value of the canceled event: We feel confident that Wash. U. freshmen will be able to acquire hangers and doorstops even though they are no longer being bussed to Target. We recognize that Wash. U.’s action was only a small gesture in a larger battle against homophobia, but we feel that for the small price of opting out, it was the right symbolic message.
As students, we can only hope to remember the University’s decision as we shop for school supplies for the rest of the year—though most of us will inevitably forget and shop at Target without thinking. We can’t all be perfect.
Another Liberal Institution taking advantage of young minds. Shame on you Washington University. I am glad we no longer pay into your coffers….especially the dollars spent on getting communist and America hater GREEN Van Jones. Hopefully, when you students graduate and start paying taxes you will see the light on what the progressive mind set is doing to destroy this country.
As a WashU alum and current Target employee, I’ll be sure not to pollute the school with any of my “dirty money.” You’re welcome.
There’s a kernal of truth in your statement:
“One of MN Forward’s sponsored candidates, Tom Emmer, has been linked to calls that LGBT individuals be put to death.”
He gave $250 to a Christian music group (called “You Can Run But You Can’t Hide”) that has said some pretty stupid things, among them an expression that the Levitical laws calling for the death of homosexuals still stand and are being validly practiced by some hard-line Muslims.
I should note this stance is far out of line with most of Christianity today. Even where a church or denomination sees homosexual acts as sinful, I can’t think of one (aside from those goons in Topeka) that calls for LGBT persons to be executed.
Thing is, the PAC to which Target donated (mnforward.com) also supported candidates who held positions that the HRC and pro-gay rights groups would support, notably Bonoff and Pelowski. Why this has never been brought up is a mystery to me, but their voting records are really easy to look up. And as students at one of the top universities in the nation, you ought to be able to form discerning opinions and perform your own research, rather than following the naivete and mass moral outrage that has coagulated around this story in the past few weeks.
Yes, Wash U has the right to form partnerships that reflect the University’s values. Well said. What is problematic with Wash U’s decision, and with the HRC’s condemnation of Target’s donation and the PAC, is that it assesses a rhetorical fatal flaw to association. Where the HRC and Wash U might applaud other MN Forward candidates for their support of, say, the bill that extends death benefits to domestic partners or prohibits bullying in schools on the basis of gender identity, that is obscured by Emmer’s presence in the PAC. Effectively, then, candidates are penalized for holding the views that the HRC supports because the same organization gives money to candidates that the HRC opposes.
It would be more effective for Wash U. to express solidarity with LGBT students and with the wider LGBT communities to support the PAC in its espousal of Bonoff and Pelowski and denounce Emmer’s views on LGBT issues.
I hope you didn’t strain your elbows patting yourselves on the back.
Wash. U. has used that same Supreme Court ruling to donate directly to organizations and political issues right here in St. Louis. Those are issues that are also controversial, but the difference between Target’s indirect support of a stance and Wash. U.’s direct support is that we are actually affected by Wash. U.’s donations. Target donated to a PAC that supported free-market candidates (one of whom happened to hold a social stance that Wash. U. does not agree with– that marriage is between a man and a woman) while Wash. U. directly gave money to controversial political issues that negatively affect its own population, like the earnings tax initiative that lowers their own employees’ take-home pay.
If you, the editorial board, don’t want to shop at Target, fine. Shop at Walmart (Oh, wait…) Ah, well, Wash. U. students are known for being spoiled rich kids, so I’m sure you’ll find somewhere expensive to go.
Unfortunately, as an alum, I cannot take back the tuition I have already paid to Wash. U., but they can rest assured that when I donate a building, it will not be on their campus. (And since I’ll be saving money now shopping at Target, I’ll have even more discretionary funds in the future!)
If you are going to write these sorts of editorials–because we all know you can’t help but be cluelessly self-righteous– try to be professional. Edit out second-grade quality statements like “We can’t all be perfect.”