May 8, 2007
UDC Commencement Speaker Against Voting Rights
In a story perfectly designed to be a confluence of topics of interest perhaps only to the DCist staff, WTOP reported yesterday evening that HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, who we told you on Friday has been selected to be the commencement speaker at the University of the District of Columbia this weekend, has reportedly come out against the D.C. Voting Rights Act. Jackson is well known for speaking out about his Republican Party's failure to reach African American voters -- but he is still a loyal Bush appointee, so perhaps this stance on D.C. Voting Rights isn't so surprising.
As you might imagine, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Mayor Adrian Fenty, two of the Voting Rights campaign's biggest supporters, are upset about the idea of Jackson taking the podium at UDC. Norton has already spoken with University President Dr. William Pollard by phone, and Fenty says he plans on speaking with him as well, according to WTOP. President Pollard is really getting it from all sides today.
UDC gets about $50 million in local subsidies from us D.C. taxpayers to pay for the education of D.C. residents. It is somewhat unpalatable to have someone who is publicly against granting the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives serve as commencement speaker, though we also have a hard time with the idea that we should silence any and all detractors -- Secretary Jackson may well have some valuable wisdom to impart to graduates this issue not withstanding, for all we know. But if his speech goes on this weekend as planned, we'd certainly encourage any UDC students in attendance to make their feelings about his stance on voting rights known. With say, a bull horn.
|
i'm sure mister jackson won't bring up voting rights in his speech (if he isn't canned beforehand), but yeah, i hope the students call him out on it, and tell him to blow it out his rear.
I say sack the loser. I'm sure we can find someone that actually supports the democratic rights of the students. As for useful commencement advice, does anyone actually listen to these speeches? If so, I'm betting we can find someone else just as qualified.
I do not know anything about the President of UDC, and I do not know anything about Alphonso Jackson, but in this case it does not matter.
It is completely irresponsible of Holmes and Fenty to put pressure on UDC to schedule a speaker whom they agree with, regardless of whatever funding our taxes provide. Commencement speakers are an academic and intellectual entity that should be decided upon by UDC, not government officials. If you disagree with what Jackson believes, go listen to his speech and engage in the debate, don't pull the curtain on the man.
Down with ideological purity tests! We can't expect everyone we encounter to agree with us on every conceivable issue, and we shouldn't expect 100% ideological "purity" from the people we vote for, hire, contract as speakers, etc. Litmus tests are clumsy, ineffectual tools, and they're offensive wherever in the political spectrum they come from.
Nate,
This isn't about a litmus test. It's about the District's flagship public university hosting a speaker that's against a basic democratic right for the city's residents. If D.C. can't spend money to lobby for voting rights (thanks U.S. Congress!), then UDC surely shouldn't serve as a platform for someone who opposes them.
Nate: No one is asking for a speaker that agrees on every issue. They're just asking for someone who supports the fundamental right of representation.
Yeah...what does a commencement speech have to do with DC voting rights? Who cares?
Note that Jackson has *not* come out against D.C. voting rights, he's come out against what is a bad (and almost certainly unconstitutional) bill.
It's possible to be in favor of the concept of better voting rights for D.C. residents, but be against this particular piece of legislation. DCist should stop conflating the two things.
Of course Secretary Jackson must speak. What a great opportunity for a student protest! It's coming up soon, kids - May 12 at Verizon Center -- so get those caps and gowns rigged up with DC Vote and Taxation Without Representation buttons and stickers now.
Just in case the Secretary bad-mouths the DC Vote, practice standing and turning your back - it's harder than it looks.
Regardless of his views on voting rights, why would UDC want this loser as a commencement speaker anyway? This is the guy that in a speech claimed to have cancelled someone's HUD contract after they criticized the President- but then, when it was pointed out to him that if he had actually done that, he would have been in violation of Federal law- admitted to making the story up.
Shouting down a commencement speaker with bullhorns would be an intimidation tactic, not a representation of free speech. I wouldn't blame UDC students for wanting to protest but would hope for a less offensive tactic.
It's totally fine if he doesn't support DC Voting Rights, it's his opinion after all. But he should have the presence of mind to not bring that up in a speech to graduates in this city, that's just in poor taste.
I'm conflicted on Norton and Fenty calling the president of the university. I really don't have a problem with it, but it also seems a little juvenile to me.
Maybe someone could pass Jackson a note... Dude, not cool.
Before we rip this guy to shreds, has anyone seen a quote where he says he is "against voting rights for DC?" The WTOP story only says that, "Jackson has reportedly come out against a bill that would give the District a vote in the House of Representatives," but doesn't attribute the source of the report. And as we've been over many times, being against this particular bill is much different than being against voting rights for DC. Besides, as the HUD Secretary, what difference does his opinion on the bill make?
Finally, it really is amusing for the DCist crowd to claim to be in favor of democracy, but then call for the replacement or shouting down of an individual who does not share their exact view on a particular issue. Disagreement and debate is the essence of democracy, and from time to time this means you may hear a view you don't agree with. Its too bad you'd all rather just live in Happy Land where everyone drinks your Kool-Aid.
Wait, so it's not a litmus test because the issue is an important one? Yeah, that cleared things up completely.
Also, bonus points for referring to UDC as the District's "flagship" public university. If an institution constantly on the brink of being downgraded to community college status is the flagship I'd hate to see the rest of the fleet . . .
UDC has far bigger problems then a speaker who is against voting rights for DC. How about getting the school up to the level of other "state" universities? How about making it an attractive school for people from outside of DC? How about making it an attractive school for people INSIDE DC?
The deciding factor here is that UDC is supported by DC resident tax dollars.
But the time to figure this out was before this guy was invited. Now it's a bit unseemly to uninvite him. But why was he invited in the first place? I don't see any connection between him and UDC. There's quite a bit of suspicion that he gave out contracts and such based on whether or not you belonged to the favored political party. And he was stupid enough to brag about it.
"The deciding factor here is that UDC is supported by DC resident tax dollars."
Hillman, I don't see why this is relevant. Are you saying that commencement speakers should not have different opinions than people in the city (or, at least your estimation of the views of people in DC)? What about professors, should their views be approved by the voters of DC? UDC lesson plans? Students' personal opinions? Cafeteria menus?
These are the problems that crop up when people get so blinded by the righteousness of their beliefs that they try to restrict the free speech of others.
Nate said:
"Down with ideological purity tests! We can't expect everyone we encounter to agree with us on every conceivable issue, and we shouldn't expect 100% ideological "purity" from the people we vote for, hire, contract as speakers, etc. Litmus tests are clumsy, ineffectual tools, and they're offensive wherever in the political spectrum they come from."
I agree with you, too bad the person in question, Alphonso Jackson, doesn't- he's the one who claimed that he didn't give a government contract to someone because they "had a problem with Bush" and, when called out on it, claimed he "made up" the story ("there was no Hatch act violation, I lied about the whole thing! Much better, no?").
://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2006/05/08/story1.html
Uninviting or not inviting someone to speak at a graduation is not at all a free speech restriction. The First Amendment does not force you to listen to anyone.
However I would agree that if he has been invited, this issue should not result in rescinding that invitation.
"Uninviting or not inviting someone to speak at a graduation is not at all a free speech restriction. The First Amendment does not force you to listen to anyone."
Politburo, you're mixing up free speech and the first amendment. I would argue that free speech as a concept is larger than what the first amendment protects. If I shout someone down for saying something I disagree with, I am not violating the first amendment, but I am diminishing free speech.
Okay, I see the distinction you're making.. not necessarily sure if I agree. However, my comment was made in the context of not providing a platform, not the context of shouting down. Do you believe that not providing a platform (in this case, uninviting the Secretary) would also diminish free speech? If so, wouldn't it follow that the only way to not diminish free speech is to allow all viewpoints to be equally represented at all times?
That's a good point, and obviously respecting free speech as a concept does not mean offering a platform to every single viewpoint at all times. However, I would say that uninviting someone does have somewhat of a chilling effect on free speech. Is it against the law? No, but neither is it advancing the cause of the free flow of ideas.
DGB:
If we're paying $50 million a year to UDC then it may be speech but it sure ain't free.
It seems that the complaint is that Jackson is not a strong enough supporter of DC, as defined subjectively by some (perhaps even most) people. The conclusion being drawn is that because of this lack of enthusiasm for the District, he should not be able to speak at a District funded institution.
How about a little thought experiment. State U gets federal education money. State U's commencement speaker is critical of the Federal government, or its policies, or proposed legislation or some such thing. The speaker is generally seen to be insufficiently supportive of the nation, and perhaps even undemocratic and is thus uninvited from campus. How many of you would feel okay that the speach was canceled at the last minute because people thought the speaker wasn't patriotic enough?
Silencing someone for being unsupportive of America as a whole would be decried as rank McCarthyism. But somehow it's okay to silence someone for being unsupportive of a particular city?