 "Photo: Matt Lanter | Student Life")
The appearance on campus this past year of conservative figures such as Alberto Gonzales, Phyllis Schlafly and Karl Rove does not reflect the political leanings of Washington University, according to both University students and administrators.
Last spring the College Republicans brought Gonzales, former attorney general, to speak. Earlier this month the group presented Rove, a political consultant who advised George W. Bush’s presidential and Texas gubernatorial campaigns and who served as the president’s deputy chief of staff.
The University’s Board of Trustees also gave Schlafly, a conservative author, an honorary degree in May, prompting many students and faculty to organize and stage protests before and during commencement in May.
And one of those trustees, Sam Fox—the current U.S. ambassador to Belgium and a Republican donor—claims the School of Design as his namesake.
Despite the honorary degree, Assistant to the Chancellor Rob Wild said that the University strives to recognize a multiplicity of viewpoints and that one honorary degree does not represent a political leaning.
“At our core as an institution of higher education, we’re not going to present a bias, be it conservative or liberal,” he said. “It would go against our core value of a free and open exchange of ideas. We had several honorary degree recipients. You want to look at all of those.”
In a similar vein, Wild said that the activities of Fox do not represent the views of the Board of Trustees, much less those of the University.
“You’d have to look at all the people who have been generous to the University,” he said. “Sam Fox has been a generous trustee but he’s one of many of our generous friends. I’m not clear on how one trustee among many can reflect a change in the political perspective of an institution.”
Wild added that the administration had no influence in the decision to bring Rove or Gonzales.
“We are a place that allows students and faculty to decide who they want to bring to campus in a fair and unbiased process,” he said.
Senior Charis Fischer, president of the College Republicans, said that the group brought those speakers in order to interest the student body in current events.
“The fact that we’ve brought big-name speakers reflects the hard work of our members and an effort to engage the campus in dialogue about political issues,” Fischer said.
But junior Ben Guthorn, president of the College Democrats, said that his group placed more importance on campaigning for President-elect Barack Obama than on bringing liberal speakers to the University.
“We were busy helping getting Barack elected,” Guthorn said. “We were more interested in getting more volunteers for Barack than causing controversy on campus.”
Guthorn added that the presence of the speakers does not suggest an increase in conservatism here, but that Student Union Treasury, which, in part, funds the speakers, does not have the opinions of the student body in mind when allocating money.
“They have a wishy-washy set of whether or not they deem things legitimate to spend money on, but they’re not always accurate in what people want,” Guthorn said. “The Treasury doesn’t take into account what students always want.”
Athough this year has featured conservative speakers, Barbara Rea, director of major events and special projects for the Assembly Series, does not think that the pattern of speakers is part of a trend in the University’s history.
“Students should be exposed to a broad range of thoughts,” she said, while noting that neither Gonzales nor Rove came as part of the Assembly Series. “If you looked over the speakers that have been brought to campus the past decade, we bring people who aren’t necessarily political, but they have liberal points of view.”
A pre-election survey conducted by the Gephardt Institute for Public Service at the University found that just 10 percent of students consider themselves Republicans, while almost 60 percent identify as Democrats. The remaining percentage considered itself moderate.
Freshman Steven White, a conservative student, said that he sensed negative political tension on campus for him leading up to the election.
“During almost the entirety of the election I felt incredibly uncomfortable telling people that I planned on voting for McCain,” he said. “I mentioned to my friend that I was a Republican and someone overheard. That person immediately became upset and made a large scene, just because I wasn’t a Democrat.”
But Wild said that the University remains an open and welcoming atmosphere to all political viewpoints.
“I don’t know what drives that perception,” he said. “I don’t know why people would think that we would be conservative or think that we would be liberal.”
Despite such conflicts, Isaac Weingram, a junior who describes himself as a “free-market liberal,” said that the appearance of Rove and Gonzales served more to heighten discourse than to change people’s opinions.
“I don’t think it’s changed anybody’s political views,” he said. “It energizes the campus, if only briefly. As for Karl Rove, that’s the longest line I’ve ever seen outside of Graham Chapel.”
—With additional reporting by Ben Sales
How dare you accuse me of such a thing! I would never stoop to such a level! I'm just trying to educate the IGNORANT WASH U MASSES! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
Don't feed the trolls. "Your name" is obviously a CLA plant.
Preach to me, I say! Preach!'Nuf Said.
-Z
When will you people see that your blind cult-like following of the WASH U STUDENT UNION AND ADMINISTRATION WILL GET YOU NOWHERE! College Republicans, the Chancellors Office, Student Union, no matter what they say THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME! I wouldn't be surprised if they had secret midnight meetings!
College Republicans, CLA, Chancellor Wright, Student Union, College Democrats, George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Hillary Clinton, Israel and Alberto Gonzales are all ONE AND THE SAME! STOP STEALING OUR MONEY! Using our tuition $$ for things we don't agree with is TANTAMOUNT TO SLAVERY!!!!!111
That is absolutely ridiculous. The administration has done nothing to make us believe that they are attempting to brainwash us. Student Union, however, is an obvious stooge of the far right faction on this campus, and whether they know what they are doing or not, have aided them greatly in taking this campus over from the liberal student body. The Conservative Leadership Association, one of the more secretive groups on campus, is in charge, behind the scenes, of this effort. It is time that we take our campus back.
http://studlife.com/forum/r.i.p._college_republicans
This is damned if you do, damned if you don't. Should we really just let Ben Guthorn decide which Republicans we bring to campus (ie none)?2. When Schlafly got her honorary degree, lots of liberals I knew said that it was her right to free speech and while they disapproved of the university giving her an honorary degree, they would approve of her speaking on campus. And by the way, if you call a bill the Equal Rights Amendment, you can load it with anything you want and forever claim the opponents are sexists or bigots without having to explain what the bill would do.3. The catalyst for Karl Rove being brought to campus was the treasury turning down funding for Ben Stein, claiming extreme views and that no one would probably come. Guthorn argued heavily against both speakers. He says here that the Treasury doesn't take into account what people want. So Rove comes and Graham Chapel is filled to the brim. That shouldn't be a sign that the university is a conservative, but it is a sign that Rove was a good speaker and that it was the right thing to do to bring him here. You're forgetting that in spite of the enormous tilt to the left for this school, liberal speakers hardly ever fill up even the lower level of Graham chapel.
Having those speakers does not complete the jump to say this campus is conservative so an article to say that in light of this the university is not conservative is idiotic to be honest. This is why people often criticize StudLife for throwaway articles like this one.
http://studlife.com/forum/r.i.p._college_republicans
This is damned if you do, damned if you don't. Should we really just let Ben Guthorn decide which Republicans we bring to campus (ie none)?2. When Schlafly got her honorary degree, lots of liberals I knew said that it was her right to free speech and while they disapproved of the university giving her an honorary degree, they would approve of her speaking on campus. And by the way, if you call a bill the Equal Rights Amendment, you can load it with anything you want and forever claim the opponents are sexists or bigots without having to explain what the bill would do.3. The catalyst for Karl Rove being brought to campus was the treasury turning down funding for Ben Stein, claiming extreme views and that no one would probably come. Guthorn argued heavily against both speakers. He says here that the Treasury doesn't take into account what people want. So Rove comes and Graham Chapel is filled to the brim. That shouldn't be a sign that the university is a conservative, but it is a sign that Rove was a good speaker and that it was the right thing to do to bring him here. You're forgetting that in spite of the enormous tilt to the left for this school, liberal speakers hardly ever fill up even the lower level of Graham chapel.
That is the problem.
These are not honorable or honest or upright citizens.
They are thieves, manipulators, liars and uber nationalists only interested in a theocracy for this nation.Now, WHO CHOSE THEM?