The Fordham Ram

Comments (11)

All The Fordham Ram Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • J

    Joseph MoreskySep 7, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    Opinions aside, Ben raises a legitimate critique of the piece. However, the fact remains that the appropriate governing body (New York Federation of College Republicans) acted without justification from the bylaws within the state organization’s constitution. If the Op-Ed section contained a more generous word count restriction, we would have loved to delve into the issue of the action’s murky standing via the Federation’s own constitution (which is silent on matters regarding endorsement restrictions), but for the sake of making our larger point accessible it seemed like too much inside-baseball.

    The voting board responsible acted outside its jurisdiction and with the personal interests of its members in mind, NOT the interests of state chapters or the larger NY general membership. The punishment inflicted on Cornell’s chapter was without proper cause and the severity of which exceeded responses by other state delegations in similar situations.

    Reply
  • B

    Bright Leaf (@BenArisson)Sep 7, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    @MJ You’re proving my point– those are opinions. Don’t get me wrong, if I were on the board of the NYFCR I would not have voted to disband the Cornell chaper, and personally I agree that neither Trump or Johnson are really “Republicans” but both are conservative in their own ways. I will also admit that I don’t know anything about the precedents set in other cases with CR chapters nationwide. However I will stand by my statement that what counts as an acceptable endorsement should be up to the discretion of the governing bodies that regulate such matters. The College Republicans is a private organization and the NYFCR board has the right to restrict membership however they want.

    Reply
  • J

    JMSep 7, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    ^Which is why the Cornell membership deliberated amongst its members and reached a collective conclusion amongst themselves. The NYFCR’s action contained no constitutional precedent, and the manner in which they went about responding to the Johnson endorsement was dubious at best. Additionally, in comparison to similar instances across the nation the NYFCR’s decision to immediately pursue charter revocation was egregiously severe and betrays the conflict of interest embedded within the State delegation.

    Reply
  • B

    Ben G. Arisson (@BenArisson)Sep 7, 2016 at 1:08 pm

    If the rules of the charter stated clearly that each chapter is required to endorse the Republican presidential candidate, then this is good. Chapters should not be able to get away with breaking the rules now any more than they would have before, just because Trump is a big scary “racist.” If endorsing Gary Johnson isn’t actually against the rules of the club then I would agree that they don’t deserve to be disbanded. However, the fact that the author describes the NYFCR’s action as “opting to remove any members who do not mindlessly follow its rules, which were created by fellow college students with no real-world legitimacy or authority.” seems to betray his point. He claims to be arguing in opposition to “political censorship,” but this really seems to be an argument against having to follow the rules of the College Republicans, which is voluntary to join. Despite having no “real-world legitimacy or authority,” the club does have the authority to manage itself as it sees fit, which includes removing members who do not follow the rules. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that clubs should not be allowed to exist at all. If a group of students at Columbia want to endorse Johnson, they can start a College Libertarians club. Nobody is censoring them at all.

    Reply
    • M

      MJSep 7, 2016 at 1:19 pm

      The club lost their charter because they did not agree with the personal opinions of the board. The NYFCR’s vote to remove Cornell violated their own constitution, which does not require chapters to endorse a candidate with an (R), just ones that broadly promote conservatism. The rules cannot be changed like a school kid changing the rules to a game in the middle of the game just because he’s losing.

      Reply
      • B

        Bright Leaf (@BenArisson)Sep 7, 2016 at 1:55 pm

        Does Gary Johnson broadly promote conservatism? That certainly seems like a question of opinion to begin with, and one could cogently make the case that he does not.

        Reply
      • M

        MJSep 7, 2016 at 3:04 pm

        @Ben the word “broad” is itself broad. I believe a two-term Republican governor running with another two-term Republican governor on the platform of small government, fiscal responsibility, and the free market, are in every sense broadly promoting conservatism. An equal (likely stronger) argument can be made that Mr. Trump does not promote conservative values, picking and choosing policies and statements is how you would make the argument against Johnson. End international trade, let people use whichever bathrooms they please, federal punishment of the free market and capitalism? Doesn’t sound Republican to me.

        Reply
      • M

        MJSep 7, 2016 at 3:05 pm

        correction: *if picking…

        Reply
Activate Search
When Political Censorship Occurs, Rams Must Speak Out