Sukhmani and the UT Issues Committee
A new scandal has erupted at UT, which involves my fellow columnist, Sukhmani Singh Khalsa, and the UT Issues Committee. We all know it was ignited when Sukhmani wrote a column two weeks ago calling for some major changes with the Issues Committee, which he alleged to have a liberal bias. Some Issues Committee Members responded in a very poor nature.
As I see it, there are two issues at work in this scandal. The first is Committee member Justin Rubenstein's characterization of Sukhmani as a "raghead," and his expressed desire to shoot him. Clearly there is no excuse for such bigoted and hateful language. He should be held accountable for his words, as should the Issues Committee's faculty advisor, Edee Vaughan.
At this point, I wish to make one thing clear: I am not advocating speech codes, which have led to the suppression of free speech on many campuses. This is not an issue of free speech. Of course Rubenstein has the right to make ignorant remarks. However, he used UT system e-mail to make the statement, which is property of the university. Free speech doesn't have to be financially subsidized by us. And e-mails sent using UT accounts can be made public record. Just ask J. Wade Gilley.
Last year, as I'm sure most of us recall, some idiots attended a fraternity party in blackface. How did the administration respond? The entire fraternity was suspended. According to Provost Loren Crabtree, "There are standards of behavior that apply collectively toward organizations, and, in this case, the action of a few do color the entirety." The two incidents may not be equal, but it will still be interesting to see if this same standard is applied to the Issues Committee.
The second issue is the one Sukhmani addressed in his initial column, that is the bias of the Issues Committee. Though Rubenstein's quote made the most news, there is another quote that is perhaps even more telling. According to Issues Committee member Warren Denning, "We understand what goes on in the committee and we understand why it is liberal leaning. We have nothing to apologize for…"
Mr. Denning's words are very straightforward. They basically prove everything Sukhmani said in his column is correct. So if they essentially agree with Sukhmani's words, why were they so outraged by his column? If they acknowledge that the committee is indeed liberal, why don't they openly say so, and defend their position?
The answer to that question is obvious. Knoxville is a Republican stronghold. Bush won the UT precinct handily in 2000. Thus students and community members might not take kindly to a committee that uses our money ($90,000) to bring in far left speakers such as Howard Zinn and Scott Ritter. Thus the Issues Committee had to at least try to be covertly liberal. Of course this didn't work. All intellectually honest observers have to admit the committee has a liberal bias.
The Issues Committee is designed in a way so as to perpetuate this bias. When someone applies to join, the members vote on whether or not to let them in. Who is on the committee? Liberals, of course. So who do you think they vote in, conservatives, or other liberals? Sure, there are a few conservatives who make it in, but overwhelmingly it remains liberal.
The question here becomes, why didn't the faculty and administration step in to make the committee more balanced? Again, the answer is obvious. They themselves are also mostly liberal. There are some who are concerned about the problems of the committee, but they are in the minority. Most see nothing wrong with only inviting liberals to speak.
What can be done about this problem? First, we should all demand some reforms in the Issues Committee. Perhaps it could be split into two subcommittees, one liberal and one conservative. Each committee would receive half of the total budget. Then each branch could invite whomever they wished. In any event, the membership policy must be changed.
If, however, they are only going to continue to take our money and use it to present only one side, they should be disbanded. According to their own website (http://web.utk.edu/~homepage/departments/activities/issues.htm), "The committee is dedicated to providing 'extracurricular education' that examines the most pertinent issues in a creative and balanced manner." They have failed miserably in this mission, and must be held accountable.
Dr. Walter E. Williams, a professor at George Mason University, recently wrote a column suggesting alumni close their pocketbooks until universities embrace intellectual diversity. Perhaps that's what should be done in this case, if these issues are not addressed. All students should inform their parents about what is going on. Sometimes the only way to get people to listen is to hit them in the wallet.
John Brown is a senior in political science at the University of Tennessee @ Knoxville. Contact him at johnnyb325@aol.com, or visit www.johnnorrisbrown.com. This column originally appeared in the November 25, 2003 edition of The Daily Beacon, entitled "Columnist examines recent events permeating campus," and is available here.