The plot thickens

Yesterday, I wrote about WCU’s decision to uninvite the Chester County Peace Movement’s director from a panel hosted by the University’s Contemporary Issues series.  The student who helps coordinate the series responded this morning to my e-mail query about the decision by expressing his agreement with my claims.  In response to my specific question about the source of the complaints, he says that among others, the College Republicans are upset because they have a “Support the Troops” rally scheduled for the following day, and they’re mad that Contemporary Issues has scheduled this event the day before.

So now I’ve e-mailed the President of the College Republicans in hopes of opening an actual dialog.  My question to him, put simply, is how he resolves the following contradiction–

1.  Contemporary Issues violated the principle of balance by failing to invite a pro-war speaker to their panel.

2.  We (College Republicans) didn’t violate the principle of balance even though we didn’t invite a peace movement representative to our rally.

I can imagine a couple of responses here.  He might say, for example, that Contemporary Issues is a university-sponsored series and as such has a different obligation.  That would be true if the College Republicans didn’t get financial support from the university also.  He might also say that the explicitly partisan nature of the College Republicans gets them off the hook from fairness.  I hope he says this to me, in fact.  If that’s true, then the whole argument about fairness goes up in flames because it means that all you have to do is define yourself as unfair, and then you can say whatever you want.  If he wants to open that can of worms, he’s welcome to!

The student from CI didn’t take up my request to let me see some of the e-mails, unfortunately.  I’d love to see the talking points show up over and over and over again, as I’m sure they do.

More to come, I’m (sadly) sure.

5 Responses to The plot thickens

  1. Jenn Halligan says:


    Are you kidding me? This is ridiculous.

    What else is new with Republicans….

  2. sethkahn says:

    Maybe Republicans, but not the College Republicans. I think the CCVM folks are really behind this. They’re the ones who hate Karen Porter.

  3. Jenn Halligan says:

    CCVM hates everybody.

  4. suse says:

    Yes, it’s always the CCVM’s fault. What an excuse. Porter is a mentally unstable. She cannot handle debate. Her history is too shaky. Face it.

  5. sethkahn says:


    I wondered how long it would take for y’all to find this discussion! Probably better to have it here than on the street corner, yes?

    Karen Porter is as mentally stable as anybody on the planet. She’s spent the last 8 months taking non-stop cheap shots from CCVM and has stayed strong and on point. She has NEVER shied away from debate, when the debate was actually debate. Standing across the street and screaming insults isn’t debate. Getting up in people’s faces to provoke them isn’t debate. Waving signs that say “Hippies smell” and “Those people are traitors” isn’t debate.

    CCVM has done almost nothing but vilify Karen for months now. If you didn’t have anything to do with trying to keep her out of this event, then mea culpa, but even you have to admit it wasn’t a bad guess. And I’m still not convinced that at least some of your membership wasn’t involved with this–maybe not in an organized way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: