OPINION & EDITORIAL
Shameful behavior should not be accepted
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- ASM resolution wasteful (November 10, 2004)
- Shout outs harbor hatred (March 26, 2007)
- Wiley's real stance (November 3, 2004)
- Mixed messages (February 15, 2007)
- Drumming in the dark (October 12, 2006)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
ASM hosted what can only be described as a shout-down session of Chancellor Wiley during a supposed discussion on the Patriot Act Thursday. This “forum” turned into nothing more than a political trial in which he was ostracized and booed for failing to issue an outright, official condemnation of the legislation. This pitiful display raises severe concerns as to the state of discourse on this campus. Most urgently, it represents a significant step back from recent victories on campus with regard to free speech and tolerance for dissident political opinions.
Given this campus’ past unfortunate dealings with Ward Connerly, David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes, we had hopes that the student body had taken a significant step forward. But this vicious treatment of Chancellor Wiley, a figure far less controversial, reveals a significant step backward. For our own chancellor to be subjected to such treatment is simply egregious.
One may disagree with the man — as this board has on many occasions — but in frequent discussions with Chancellor Wiley, we have found him nothing if not forthright, discursive and unafraid to logically present and defend his decisions. Few people would describe him in a manner other than judicious and fair.
As a leader who generally makes every attempt to reach conclusions through apolitical deliberation, it was unreasonable for participants to expect him to decry a piece of federal legislation in the same manner as those paid to enact such laws, such as Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin.
Students lacking respect should not expect to be taken seriously when they confront ideas, opinions or political positions that displease them. Granted, only a small number of particularly fervent students were engaged in this “forum,” but if student leaders from ASM and other prominent campus groups cannot properly comport themselves in a heated political discussion, what comment does this make on the student body as a whole? Is this really the image the rest of the student body wants its representatives to project on its behalf?
ASM, which routinely met a friend in Wiley and the administration, just bit the hand that feeds some of its most egregious segregated-fee decisions and pet political causes. With their childish games last week, ASM organizers further cemented in the minds of many students their ineptitude. Indeed, low voting turnouts for ASM elections will continue so long as representatives present themselves as extreme ideologues lacking any interest in serious political discourse.
Patriot Act Action Week proved that the groups sponsoring it — which included a variety of seg-fee and non seg-fee funded student groups — were not interested in the challenge of a deeper political understanding, but rather a massaging of their deeply held political emotions. This one-sided pursuit of outright condemnations lacked academic rigor, did nothing to further the cause of change, impeded intellectual growth and, for what it is worth, represented an improper, politically motivated use of segregated fees. But most of all, it was just plain rude. Students as a polity deserve better representation than the petulant children students now elect to ASM, and our chancellor deserves more respect.
