Misc. Ramblings

Dan,

Just saw this posting about the UH event. I attended and would like to comment. The Democratic Party had had an "oral agreement" with the University about the use of the Campus Center Ballroom for several months in advance of the event. A couple of days before the event, I believe it was on Thursday, the Party HQ received a call from the UH saying that the event would not be allowed, as it was a "partisan activity."

I had been involved in scheduling campus events many times while I was a student at UH and a few times since then. In the past, the policy had ALWAYS been that campus facilities are not to be used for partisan FUNDRASING events. And, there was a clear understanding that government resources are not to be used to the unfair advantage of one party or candidate over another. Any party, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or Green should have an equal opportunity to use campus facilities and on equal terms. While the UH cannot promote any particular party, it is appropriate to encourage citizen particpation in the political organization of their choice.

I would also like to point out that the Campus Center facility is frequently used by Hope Chapel and other conservative Christian groups. AS IT SHOULD BE! So long as the UH allows use of the facilities on an equal basis to all religious (and irreligious) groups.

Contrary to the implication in your comment about the faculty's support for Lingle, the decision to ban the Democrats came from the top. In fact, President McClain was personally involved in making the decision, according to Sam Callejo. This is VERY disturbing and, I think, deserved much more public exposure and discussion than it received.

Like you, I am a "classic liberal" on matters of free speech. I will and have supported the right to speak of folks with whom I strongly disagree. That the President of the University could hold such an "illiberal" view of free speech is shocking to me. To me, the universities are an oasis of free speech. A laboratory of competing ideas-- some flakey, others novel and transformative. Others staid and dying. In most of the rest of society, we are overly constrained from speaking freely-- for fear of losing our jobs or customers or friends.

The university is like a nature preserve. Like the Lyon Arboretum preserves endangered and exotic plants that have difficulty surviving in the ordinary pattern of "modern" "civilization".

Oh, and this is very important to understand, the event went on anyways. Because JN Musto, the head of UHPA, the faculty union that endorsed Lingle, is ALSO a "classic liberal" on these matters. When he heard about the administration's denial, he quickly said that UHPA would reserve the room in the union's name, and if the administration wanted to fight them on it, he would welcome the fight. JN gave the same reasoning that you and I have stated: all political parties should be welcomed and encouraged to use the university.

And I expect that UHPA will still endorse Lingle. For while JN's action benefited the Democrats, it was really on behalf of free speech, rather than any partisan sentiments on his part.

A final note: This part is conjecture, but based on a pretty good sense of the current UH climate. Kitty Lagareta is perhaps the most heavyhanded UH regent in many, many years. Well, maybe Wally Fujiyama might have tried to be heavy-handed, but he was constrained by other regents. Kitty is largely unconstrained. And vindictive.

I think the way in which Dobelle was fired created a climate of fear in which McClain is operating. I am NOT saying that Lagareta played any role in banning the Democrats from using the UH. But I do believe that McClain is sufficiently intimidated by Lagareta that he overcompensated in an effort to distance the UH from the Democrats. There are some good things about McClain. But no one would accuse him of being very brave.