Subject: UCP: Q&A on Right Wing on Campus
From: [email-masked] (Rich Cowan)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 94 15:46:33 EST

[Excerpted from _Guide to Uncovering the Right on Campus_, edited by
Dalya Massachi and Rich Cowan.  ISBN 0-945210-03-05. This article may
be photocopied or distributed electronically at no charge provided
that the article and this notice are included in their entirety.
Copyright 1994 University Conversion Project.

For the full 52-page guidebook which includes 38 graphics and 8
charts, please send $6 plus $1 postage to University Conversion
Project, Box 748, Cambridge, MA 02142.  Outside the USA the cost is
$10.  For info on memberships ($25/20/10) and a complete publications
list, send e-mail to [email-masked] or call 617-354-9363.]

Common Questions and Answers

1) Do you mean to prohibit expression of ideas which are not
"politically correct"?
	There is nothing wrong with trying to influence opinions.  There
is nothing wrong with trying to establish new standards of decency
different from those of our parents' generation.  As peace activists,
our challenge is to influence people by non-violent methods, by
persuasion rather than coercion.  We also recognize that people who have
historically been ignored in the political process may at first need to
speak louder or more often in order to be heard.  Or they may need to
meet by themselves within a "safe space" in order to find their voices.
	All of these activities are attacked as "censorship" by those who
are accustomed to monopolizing the stage and dominating the decision-
making process.  It is both ridiculous and dangerous to compare these
activities to the historical legacies of colonialism and white male
supremacy.  The danger in the "anti-PC" campaign is that privileged
groups will view challenges to their privilege as "fascism" in order to
justify responding these challenges with violence.
	Conservative groups have repeatedly indicated a goal of
eliminating the left (or liberalism).  Jack Abramoff, former chair of
the College Republicans (CRs), went so far as to say, "we are not just
trying to win the next election.  We're winning the next generation...
It's not our job to seek peaceful co-existence with the Left.  Our job
is to remove them from power permanently." [CR 1983 Annual Report]

2) By talking so much about the Right, aren't you labeling people and
creating an "Us vs. Them" dynamic that only breeds violence?
	Identifying and naming the oppressor is fundamentally different
from using the oppressor's coercive tactics as an instrument of
rebellion.we would favor the former, and oppose the latter.  As long as
power hierarchies exist, it is necessary to name them if we want to
understand and/or change the world.  Those who commit acts of violence
must be held accountable for their actions.
	For example, it is O.K. for women to say that men have the vast
majority of power in our society or for people of color to talk about
the pervasiveness of white supremacy.  It O.K. for people in the Third
World to identify the First World nations that use the majority of the
world's resources.  The discomfort caused by questioning these power
relationships inevitable brings charges of "us-them" thinking or
coercion, but it cannot be compared to the volence involved in enforcing
those relationships.
	Tactically, there are reasons to avoid alienating those who hold
power.  But this alienation can only be avoided if people "within the
system" (or members of "oppressor groups") take some responsibility for
continuing this dialogue.

3) Aren't you lumping together "legitimate" conservative political
activity with hate groups such as Neo-Nazis?
	No; we are not equating the two groups.  Harassment and coercive
political activity are quite different from non-coercive persuasion.
But to limit our focus to extreme groups would assume that these groups
are the sole protectors of inequality:  if they were to dissolve
tomorrow, everything would suddenly get better.  This is not the case.
More mainstream conservative groups - whose audience is much larger -
preach an ideology that assumes the "free market" can rectify social
inequality.  If "it takes money to make money" as capitalists claim, are
we to believe that those groups who tend to have more money deserve it
because "they are more intelligent," "they work harder," or "they were
here first?"  Challenge racist and sexist assumptions.

4) Shouldn't professors be free to be spontaneous in class?
	Of course.  The problem occurs when professors don't realize what
may be offensive assumptions they make about the students in their
classes.  When they do not use inclusive language or are not sensitive
to the new perspectives brought by their students of diverse
backgrounds, they are not opening their classrooms to the rethinking of
"traditional" scholarship and ideas.  Learning and open-mindedness does
not end when you are no longer a student - as the student body changes,
so must professors.

5) To be fair, shouldn't student activity boards refrain from funding
political activities, or from funding "left" activities more than
"right" ones?
	Student fees were established at many schools so that student
activities can be controlled democratically by students alone, and not
be limited to those which support the policies of the university
administration.
	With or without funding from student fees, many student
governments have enacted policies which forbid the use of student funds
for "political activities."  While the university's non-profit status
justifies a ban on supporting partisan (i.e. Democratic or Republican)
political campaigns, a ban on all student funding of political
activities - as approved recently by the California Supreme Court - is
antidemocratic.
	This policy plays into the strategy of the Right by forcing
student groups to rely on funding external to the university.  Such a
policy is hardly "apolitical."  It biases student expression to reflect
the existing order, thus perpetuating the inequities of our society.  In
other words, students whose views coincide with the interests of
corporations, wealthy individuals, or the Defense Establishment find it
easy to obtain funds to express their views.  But students with
alternative viewpoints will be financially limited, even if their views
are popular.
- Rich Cowan & Dalya Massachi