Voice in the Wilderness

The Messenger Emerges

Voice in the Wilderness has uncovered a curious pattern of behavior by the UT administration that may portend an institutional, anti-conservative bias. See part one of this story here.

The following passage is from the Austin American Statesman story on the March 2 event:

"University students have the right to be able to express their opinions on campus, but 'the prospect (of an illegal immigrant hunt) creates a hostile environment,' said Teresa Brett, associate vice president for student affairs and dean of students, who watched Wednesday's demonstration. 'It makes our campus less inclusive for students of color here.' "

How do liberal academics live with themselves mouthing this Orwellian, politically correct doublespeak? University students have the right to express their opinions unless the UT administrative mandarins arbitrarily declare otherwise? A "prospect" (AK the anonymous email hoax that started the whole YCT dust up) of unpopular speech creates a "hostile environment" that must be quenched?

I hoped the UT sinecures would have learned their lesson from the 2001 Justice for All debacle, where UT officials were allegedly caught violating their own free speech policies and giving preferential treatment to pro-abortion protesters. UT was sued by the Alliance Defense Fund and, last I heard, the case was being argued in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice for All's legal actions seemed to have paid off, as they successfully staged their innovative, pro-life display at Gregory Gym last week with opposition only from the usual leftist groups this time around.

I hope that legal action is not necessary to get fair treatment for all groups. Yet, judging from the UT administration's actions, they are making campus less inclusive for other conservative students, in opposition to the letter and spirit of the Student Organization Manual (available here, go to page 24).

I am concerned that the inaction shown on March 2 may have been part of this pattern of passive connivance to deprive a student group of its right to voice its views. To help clear the air on this issue, the following questions should be answered (in addition to the questions about PRA noted in the previous post).

• When was the YCT event scheduled to start and end? What were the actual start and end times?
• In spite of the crowd's general unruliness, the UT Police Department did not intervene. According to a phone interview with UTPD's Records Division, there is no incident report on file for the West Mall on March 2. Why did UTPD not intervene in the near-melee to protect YCT's right to freedom of speech?
• Who from the Dean of Students office was assigned to West Mall rally duty that day and what were their actions when the counter-protesting hoard began to get out of hand?

Hopefully, answers will be coming soon. Stay tuned.

Is the Eye of Texas upon conservatives?

“The university shall not discriminate on the basis of the political, religious, philosophical, ideological, or academic viewpoint expressed by any person.” The University of Texas at Austin Student Organization Manual, page 24, available here.

This obscure story in the Daily Texan portends a troubling state of affairs at UT-Austin. According to the story, Ms. Pam Chamberlain gave a presentation on a curious report being circulated around various UT administrative offices titled Deliberate Differences: Progressive and Conservative Campus Activism in the United States, published by the benignly named Political Research Associates. But there is nothing benign about this group's mission.

According to its ominously titled website, http://www.publiceye.org/, PRA:

“… serves as the premier national organization addressing the full spectrum of the US political Right - from the right-wing in the electoral arena to paramilitary organizations. PRA works to facilitate public understanding of the threat posed to democratic values and principles by the Right in the United States. Through our research and publications and as a national resource and support center for activists, journalists and others, PRA helps to build the movement for progressive social change.”

Hmmmm, sounds a little discriminatory to me (There is not one organization on the Left that threatens democratic values?). Facilitating public understanding of this unclear peril includes providing speakers as necessary. Again according to the PublicEye:

“PRA provides speakers for conferences, in-service trainings, community organizations and other institutions. Our researchers often appear on panels and lead discussions that address a range of issues involving the Right.”

So this group sends out speakers to pontificate on alleged threats posed by the Right. Enter Ms. Pam Chamberlain and her presentation on the report.

Ms. Chamberlain is a consultant with PRA. The report is a fairly pedestrian tome which postulates that conservatives, though outnumbered 4 to 1, are much better organized and on message than liberal groups on campus. Says the report:

“National conservative organizations working directly with college students play an active role in designing frames for conservative students.”

The same could be said for PRA. The report also cites a need for political mentors, the general disinterest in political causes by the majority of university students, the popularity of non-political community service projects on campus and the utility of using service projects as recruiting grounds for political organizations.

Or, put another way, PRA can provide the mentorship, message framing, and resources liberal campus groups need to put on stealth recruiting events masked as “service projects”. This interpretation can be reasonably inferred from the report given its front cover introduction, which includes this generous dollop of leftist agitprop:

"Political Research Associates is an independent, nonprofit research center that exposes and challenges the Right and larger oppressive movements, institutions, and forces. PRA provides accurate applied research and useful analytic tools to inform and support progressive activism that promotes equality and justice.”

“…the Right and larger oppressive movements”? Why, whatever could they mean by that? Well, according to the Daily Texan story,

“….the right demonizes and scapegoats their opposition by utilizing mass media to initiate discussions with an overall effort to develop national conservative leaders for the future, Chamberlain said.”

Now that is hilarious. The recent YCT/Texas Independence Day dust up at the UT - Austin campus clearly showed who does and does not demonize and scapegoat, featuring various “progressive” groups shouting down and intimidating a handful of YCTers and local bloggers egging on the mob.

It is a bit discomfiting that the taxpayer-funded University of Texas is playing footsie with a radical advocacy group with apparently no countervailing voice in the offing (The UT Multicultural Information Center online calendar did not list any scheduled talks by known conservative groups as of today). What was the purpose of hosting Ms. Chamberlain, besides giving PRA a chance to hawk its activist wares and create demand for its consulting services? Exactly how does hosting Ms. Chamberlain or her colleagues from PRA serve the university’s mission? Was Ms. Chamberlain or PRA paid for her appearance? If so, how much and where did the money come from? Will there be presentations on the same topic by conservative organizations, such as those cited in the report like the Young American’s Foundation, Morton Blackwell’s Leadership Institute, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, or the Students for Academic Freedom?

But what is more troubling than the potential misuse of public resources and abuse of public trust is that authorities in the UT administration may be creating an environment of hostility against conservatives on campus.

The radically biased presentation by Ms. Chamberlain was sponsored by the UT Multicultural Information Center. Furthermore, Voice in the Wilderness has learned that other UT departments, including the Dean of Student’s office, publicized the event and encouraged attendance. The Dean of Students office is also responsible for overseeing student organization events, like the Texas Independence Day display put on by the Young Conservatives of Texas on March 2, 2005.

Is it possible the UT Dean of Students office let anti-conservative bias influence its actions, or non-actions, on that day, when an unruly mob shouted down the YCT Texas Independence Day event, a de facto infringement of free speech?

We will explore this question more in the next day or so, when I post the second half of “Something Stirs in the 40 Acres”.

In the meantime, check out Grits For Breakfast’s recent post about HB 487, a bill to help protect freedom of speech on campus.

3/26/05 update: Part II is now posted here.

I've criticized the Austin American Statesman frequently in the past. So, I thought it fair to point out when they do get something right.

In today's edtion, a blog by Fred Zipp and Rich Oppel further exposed the silliness of the proposed $750K pay off from the City of Austin to the owners of the Midtown Club. Zipp and Oppel unearth some interesting reasearch that sheds new light on the decline of the black community in Austin: apparently many blacks are moving to Pflugerville and Cedar Park.

Local Bloggers on Iraq Invasion Anniversary

A Texan Abroad, a US Serviceman’s wife stationed in England, plys some smashing MilSpouseBlogging on Euro-Appeaser protests for the 2^nd anniversary of the Iraq invasion. It seems some of Europe’s peaceniks have not been tracking with the news to closely.

Closer to home, KeathMilligan.net chronicles the peaceful tolerance of Austin’s homegrown “peace” activists. The linked story reports that Mayor Pro-Tem Jackie Goodman was in the line-up of speakers denouncing President Bush and the War on Terror in Iraq. I propose that Ms. Goodman spend less time flogging the anti-war stalking-horse and pay a little closer attention to who’s got their hands in the local taxpayer cookie jar.

[Insert your own mocking subtitle here]

The Austin City Council wants to pony up $750K of city taxpayer money to the Midtown Club in the form of a 20-year, no-interest, forgivable “loan”.

This is only because of the recent kerfuffle about APD officers pecking out mildly inappropriate messages on their cruisers’ computers like “burn baby burn” in response to the recent fire at the Midtown Club, site of over 100 police calls in the last year.

It looks like someone didn’t get the Disco Inferno joke.

The ensuing media conflagration featured the sordid, racial identity gaming long favored by the legacy media as a way to gin up ratings and readers. This is annoying and condescending, of course, but generally harmless.

The bigger problem is the weak-kneed response by various officials of Austin's city government.

According to a recent Statesman story, "the City Council is expected to vote next week on the proposal, which would allow city administrators to negotiate terms of the agreement with the club owners, City Manager Toby Futrell said Wednesday."

Gushed Mayor Will Wynn, "A common message was that Austin's black scene is really lacking any critical mass to grow and maintain a vibrant community. If we value diversity and live music, then we should help figure out how to not only rebuild but also improve."

Council Member Jackie Goodman called the idea "an investment in our local community."

Whatever.

Politically correct groveling like "valuing diversity" and "maintain a vibrant community" should be a clue that the predominantly white and liberal city council is in deep fear of a lawsuit unless they “negotiate terms” to "make a substantial "investment in our local community".

This is an inappropriate use of city tax money, as the city had no culpability in the fire at the club. The property owner should have insurance to cover this unfortunate incident. Furthermore, city taxpayers should be concerned about the spinelessness of our public stewards. Without more steadfast gatekeepers, any aggrieved advocacy group can easily get their hands in the public cookie jar by making a ruckus over questionable circumstances. This incident makes me wonder what other payoffs have been made that we do not know about.

I emailed the Mayor and City Council Members my concerns. Only Brewster McCracken has responded so far. Said Mr. McCracken:

"Asking taxpayers to pay for a nightclub is an unbelievably bad idea. I really appreciate your email and your support of rational fiscally responsible government. I am voting NO on this proposal."

At least there is a beachhead of sanity on the Council with Mr. McCracken, assuming he is not voting “no” because he thinks the rest of the members will remain prostrate under the NAACP hammer.

Share your thoughts with the city leaders by finding their contact information here.