OPINION & EDITORIAL
Security fee shows UWPD’s prejudice
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Guest Columnist:
- Stop America's 'green scare' (December 10, 2007)
- Greek sexuality misconceptions unfair (December 6, 2007)
- Security fee shows UWPD's prejudice (December 6, 2007)
- Vote Democrat, vote equal LGBT rights (December 6, 2007)
- Free trade stagnates upward mobility (December 6, 2007)
Related Stories:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Herald wrong to print 'Jihad' ad (January 30, 2007)
- It's not easy being GOP at Wisconsin (September 14, 2006)
- Chavez will likely test UW students' commitment to free speech (October 30, 2003)
- Horowitz raises important issues (October 25, 2007)
by Guest Columnist
Thursday, December 6, 2007
This past Tuesday, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Conservative Union hosted a speaker by the name of Walid Shoebat. Mr. Shoebat is a self-described former PLO terrorist and was speaking out against jihad. It goes without saying that this contentious topic was not well-received by many at UWM. On that same day, Boise State University College Republicans hosted "minuteman" Chris Simcox to talk about the threat of illegal aliens in the United States and the failures of the federal government to do anything about it. Naturally, his divisive commentary stirred quite a bit of debate at BSU. Six weeks ago, on Oct. 22, the UW-Madison College Republicans hosted speaker David Horowitz, and nearly everyone on campus knows the controversy that arose from that event.
So, other than well-recognized, well-respected, conservative speakers, what do the events featuring Walid Shoebat, Chris Simcox and David Horowitz all have in common? All of these events had unreasonable security fees assessed by the local police.
Over Thanksgiving break, more than a month after the Horowitz event, I received a bill from the University of Wisconsin Police Department for their "services" during the event — and I use the term "services" loosely. When the event was interrupted and it actually came down to the UWPD doing something, they sat on their hands to let students handle it themselves. I was told unless anyone was physically violated, they could not do anything. The assumption that they were there to protect the First Amendment rights of our speaker was apparently wrong.
What's more is that the UWPD has been altogether unable to identify any other speakers or events to which they have assessed security fees back to a student organization. That means that when Michael Moore, George Galloway and Howard Zinn came to our campus, no fees were charged to anyone who sponsored those events. Isn't it ironic that the only student organization to be assessed these exorbitant fees is the College Republicans? I really don't think so.
According to Sen. Glen Grothman, R-West Bend, "it is clear the UW is using 'security fees' to try to silence any voices which may be out of step with the hardcore left-wing orthodoxy found in so many liberal arts classrooms. The UW has been unable to name any similar fees charged for left-of-center speakers."
In light of the recent "security fee" atrocities around the state, Mr. Grothman put out a press release calling on the UW Board of Regents to "take immediate action forbidding its campuses from charging security fees for on-campus speakers." He says if the Board of Regents does nothing, he is ready and willing to introduce legislation for this cause.
Such a decision by the Board of Regents would be well-advised if the mission of the UW System really is the "sifting and winnowing of ideas." If student groups are not allowed to host controversial events on campus without shelling out $1,300 to the local police department, how in the world would these necessary conversations get started? With everything we have going on, students often need more than just an op-ed to spark their interest. Regardless of whether or not they agreed with his message, students took notice of Mr. Horowitz's presence on campus, and it got people talking.
Mr. Grothman goes on to say, "[j]ust last month, the UW was bragging how well they did in the budget. Now they can't afford a little bit of police protection to protect freedom of speech against their left-wing campus thugs?"
It has been suggested the College Republicans' bill should be paid by those who afforded us the necessary security — Kevin Barrett, perhaps? I personally think the UW should just own up to its mission statement. It would not only provide a better equal treatment for the conservative students on campus, but also it would force a more intellectual campus environment for everyone.
Sara Mikolajczak (WisconsinCRs@gmail.com) is the chair of the University of Wisconsin College Republicans.
Michael Johnson (December 6, 2007 @ 3:55am):
I usually am asleep at this hour, but since I'm up. Did you ever think Sara, that maybe preaching intolerance and fear-mongering would likely cause some concern for safety? Have you ever noticed that GLAAD and Rainbow/Push rallies have no armed security, while Ku Klu Klan and Minutemen ones have numerous armed participants? Maybe because when you are pushing a ridiculous and dangerous agenda, some people get angry. But can you honestly say that has anything to do with leftists, except on the fridge? I was at the David Horowitz event, and I saw Kevin Barrett, not Paul Heideman or Oliver Kiefer, disrupt the "sifting and winnowing". More importantly, while he stood up and shouted, he didn't run up and pull a revolver on Horowitz, so at no point did I think he was threatened(Also, I think everybody say the big black guy with dreads, next to him, so safe to say, he had a bodyguard).Most likely, security was there to protect those in the audiences from each other and not the speaker from the audience.This is not needed when a brilliant mind on oppression and social change, like a Zinn or a Galloway, is invited to this university. In fact, history shows, that most often leftists assault oppressors, and rightists assault reformers.Just look at Sen. Obama, who needed not only the Secret Service, but additional security after receiving racist death threats from college republic...I mean..."right-wing thugs."Also, Glen Grothman? the guy who brought Ward Connerly here? Talk about running with a bad crowd Sara. I mean he called educated students "left wing thugs" and seemed to imply the UW had some hand in their activity, as if a major university would use it's vast resources to promote violence on it's own campus.Thats like blaming the VT massacre on VT because the shooter also was a student, as if the university has a considerable effect on politics and behavior. If such where true, you and all the other College Republicans would be in the ISO.Finally, If your going to bring politicians into debates on the university, how about getting Grothman to lobby for less tuition or more state support, so the we can all afford to sift and winnow???O wait then you wouldn't have anything to blame of Governor Doyle...
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 8:25am):
The College Dems write about a real and important issue, the College Repubs whine about money. Just for the record, I don't necessarily disagree with anything in your column, this is just not the forum to do it.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 8:41am):
all day every day
baby cause i'm a thug.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 8:54am):
oh my gosh, it's so hard to be a conservative... when i go home to my McMansion in the milwaukee suburbs to visit my rich parents, it's the only time i'm free of all the oppression i've been suffering.
i like to look to dr. king, because he knew what it's like. i mean, i guess us conservatives are a lot like dr. king, except that we hate everything he stood for.
which is why we voted against the civil rights act, every single one of us.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 11:51am):
I agree that these security charges are outrageous. It's too bad that people let their own political biases interfere with fairness and justice.
In regards to Michael Johnson's ridiculous post:
In essence, you're arguing that "brilliant people who I agree with shouldn't be charged any security fees, but other speakers who I disagree with should be charged a high security fee because they deserve it for being wrong." How insightful.
In addition, Michael Johnson seems to argue that violence is inherently more common when a conservative speaks. He uses examples from Madison, a hugely liberal city. It seems pretty obvious that when a person speaks in a community almost entirely dominated by people of the opposing view, that there will be a larger backlash. Should this be reason enough to charge a huge security fee? It's totally unfair to inhibit opposing viewpoints by charging these fees.
Also, Michael Johnson seems to be shooting a hole in his own foot. If the BACKLASH against a speaker is really the problem, then conservatives should be commanded for being far less violent against these liberal speakers. Maybe the real problem is the violence created by the liberals who disagree with these "controversial conservatives".
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 2:27pm):
I'd like to know how much perceived "danger" there was with this speaker compared to others. With all the talk of violent threats to the speaker and the organization, it seems obvious that more security was needed. I'm not arguing for or against... I just would like to see how the threats before this event compared with those of Michael Moore, etc.
Michael Johnson (December 6, 2007 @ 2:36pm):
11:51...refutation is something I'm good at so I'll give you some help...1st point, exactly correct...A Zinn or a Moore do not pose a security risk or a safety concern.A Horowitz or a Coulter exist entirely to inflame passions and cause a ruckus wherever they go(Horowitz calling UW students idiots on their own campus,Coulter saying suffrage should be repealed and John Edwards is a fag).In any other developed nation this ignorance would not be passed off as policy analysis, and they would be ran out of parliament for it...Yes it is a good reason to charge said fee because of the greater potential for safety issues that going along with a radical speaker.The funny thing is people like you protested the president of Iran even being at Columbia, yet whine and beg for any right-wing speaker to be here...As far as non-violence goes, it's hard to assault or protest tolerance or social change, but rather easy to protest abortion clinics.I guess you and other conservatives should get people to follow this grand advice, "It's high time people realized we conservatives aren't all Johnny Hatemongers, Charlie Bible Thumps, or even - God forbid - George Bushes."-Sideshow Bob-Alas, no one has realized THAT yet...
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 5:16pm):
In regards to Michael Johnson's "good refutation" (better find something else to be good at):
"A Zinn or a Moore do not pose a security risk or a safety concern.A Horowitz or a Coulter exist entirely to inflame passions and cause a ruckus wherever they go"
I think almost everyone would agree that Micheal Moore DOES exist entirely to inflame passions and cause a ruckus. That's what he's ALL ABOUT. Also, it's simply an invalid argument tactic to cite two conservatives and two liberals of your choosing to prove a point about the general situation.
It seems clear that you are so blinded by your politics that you see any passionate speaker as either A: A brilliant changemaker if and only iff you agree with him/her or B: A trouble maker who is just trying to cause violent acts iff you disagree with him/her.
You said, "The funny thing is people like you protested the president of Iran even being at Columbia, yet whine and beg for any right-wing speaker to be here."
There are good reasons to not allow a speaker the chance to speak. For instance, if a person is denying the holocaust happened, I think this would be a good reason to deny them a chance to speak because of the psychological harm it causes. This is the case with the President of Iran (who publicly denies that the Holocaust happened). This is also the case with Ann Coulter, who's defamitory language is pschologically damaging (especially to someone like me who is openly gay).
The fact is, I want a variety of speakers to come to Madison. It would be a great shame if a conservative OR liberal was denied the chance to share his/her ideas on this campus.
And don't assume I'm a conservative based on the fact that I desire justice and equality. You're making it appear that you don't desire justice and equality thereby creating a terrible image for liberals everywhere.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 5:38pm):
"A Horowitz or a Coulter exist entirely to inflame passions and cause a ruckus wherever they go"
ONLY because it is accepted that people holding these opinions may be violently attacked BECAUSE the opinions are not "liberal", while those supporting the deliberatly planned explosive murder of children should be praised as "freedom fighters".
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 6:03pm):
Other student organizations have their events canceled. Like, say, Black/Latino fraternities. Count your blessings,
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 9:44pm):
umm... we paid something between 10,000 and 13,000 for security cost for micheal moore - i was there when we approved the budget
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 10:23pm):
Simply put either you believe in freedom of speech or you don't. If you do, then you must allow all to speak, not just those you agree with. As much as I despise things like Holocaust denials, if you truly were a liberal (note, little "l") you would understand that the truth can only be found through completely free and unhindered discussion. Yes this especially includes even ones you consider to be "hate speech" and "hate mongering" and all those other things. Unless you ideas are challenged from all points including those on the extremes you will never find the full truth and that after all is the whole point to universities.
That being said it is up to the universities to provide an even playing field to all people seeking a forum. From those on both extremes and everyone in the middle. Either campus police charge everyone, or no one. It really is that simple because no matter who you are, there is someone who opposes you and could cause security problems.
Michael Johnson (December 6, 2007 @ 10:28pm):
You equate justice with being able to speak??? I went and saw Jim Ott and Ken Melhman both republicians, because they dont say things that are crazy and have good ideas.Denial of the holocaust? fringe concept,sexism and homophopia, somewhat more mainstream.Also all four of those people have been in madison so they are not random.I'm an actvist for the ACLU, so everyday I'm out working to keep speech open for anyone, but not violent skin heads or NAMBLA or any group that openly pose a threat to society, like a racist,sexist or bigot.If you want someone to promote bombing abortion clinics and GLADD rallies be my guest.I'll keep doing the real work.
Bill Richardson (December 7, 2007 @ 3:05pm):
Sara,
Thanks for taking to time to write this important article. After reading the comments, I was struck by how few actually address the issue of charging the CR's but not charging a security fee for all other speakers- which is at the core to speaking "freely" in several senses of the word.
Only "anonymous Dec. 6 10:23pm" gets it and states it in their first sentence. The UW administration and the police officers who attended the Horowitz lecture and did nothing (I was there) when Kevin Barrett attempted to shout down the speaker should be ashamed of themselves.
Anonymous (December 7, 2007 @ 6:39pm):
too bad other organizations DO have to pay.
Anonymous (December 8, 2007 @ 8:36am):
Isn't it a pity the David Horowitz gets stiffed. It's not like Horowitz himself is trying to silence anybody? (I'm being sarcastic of course...)
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
