Presidential candidate Barack Obama could have spoken at Washington University on Saturday, for free, had the administration not denied such a venue by invoking a policy that forbids political candidates from speaking on campus.
On the surface, at least, this policy makes sense. After all, it is surely the case that maintaining the appearance of neutrality will affect the University’s ability to win and host future presidential debates. Given the University has violated its own policy in the past, however, we believe that there should be some flexibility on this decision. As a result, we are deeply disappointed in the University administration’s decision to ban Obama from speaking on campus.
In order for students to become motivated to take on their government and civic responsibilities, Washington University has a speaker series that seeks to bring current academics, activists and political figures to campus. The University has not shied away from allowing and paying controversial figures to share their ideas with the student body. Notably, the University, in conjunction with the College Republicans, will welcome (and pay generously) former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in a few weeks. Mr. Gonzales’ appearance will not violate the Washington University neutrality policy because he is not a candidate seeking office; paying him to speak will showcase the University’s belief that partisan political figures can provide educational benefits to students. Such benefits outweigh the negative side effects of potentially creating an image that the University supports one particular speaker.
More importantly than its decision to pay Alberto Gonzales to speak on this campus was the University’s decision to allow Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, to speak. Gov. Huckabee spoke at the Washington University Assembly Series on April 4, 2007 as a guest of the College Republicans. Governor Huckabee had already declared his intention to run for president on Jan. 28 of that year. After allowing a representative of one political party to speak on campus in violation of a self-declared neutrality policy, the only way to remain neutral is to also open the space to all other candidates who would like to use it. Otherwise, any further declarations of maintaining nonpartisanship are empty. The University allowed one presidential candidate to speak on campus-neutrality would require the University to allow other candidates equal access.
The benefits of allowing Sen. Obama to speak would be numerous. The student body has been working hard to bring more provocative and passionate speakers to campus, in order to motivate students. This has been the rationale behind Student Union’s reform of the Assembly Series. The entire point of bringing political speakers to campus is to educate students about the political process while simultaneously promoting discussion and debate. Bringing Sen. Obama to campus would accomplish these goals and help combat the stereotype of the apathetic college student. As students, we are asking for a chance to be educated, and we are asking for the sort of chance we envisioned a prestigious school like Washington University would be able to provide.
At Student Life we believe that a fair policy has consistent standards. The policy the administration has invoked to deny Sen. Obama access to our school has been applied inconsistently and unfairly. The senator has been turned away from our campus and consequently been forced to find a new venue. Particularly in light of the rare opportunity lost to host one of the nation’s leaders, we are embarrassed by our school’s decision. A protest of the University’s decision and policy is currently in the planning stages. We encourage students to make their voice heard with the administration so that future leaders’ voices can be heard by the University community.
Thursday 1/31
David Brody
Scott Bressler
Scott Bressler