To those of us who have pointed out the College Republicans' leftward drift in the past year, their cancellation of Michelle Malkin's lecture comes as a certain, however joyless, vindication. Malkin, a syndicated columnist and best-selling author, has come out with a book defending the internment of thousands of Japanese, Germans and Italians in the United States during World War II. When the CRs discovered that Malkin would offer this argument as her lecture topic, they reneged. How their leadership explains itself depends on who's inquiring.
From what CR President Mike Inganamort told The Eagle, one gathers that the club withdrew its sponsorship of Malkin's visit of its own volition. Almost a year ago, Malkin expressed interest in speaking at AU for free, albeit (ostensibly) on illegal immigration, not internment, as her first book, "Invasion," dealt with the ways in which lax immigration enforcement exacerbates the terrorist threat. By the time the CRs got around to scheduling her, she had written another book on another matter and wished to speak on it. Internment, the organization averred, was not an issue of interest, but thanks anyway.
"The AU CRs have no role in hosting an event on Japanese internment. ... It's irrelevant to our goal of re-electing President Bush," Inganamort informed the Eagle. This is patent spin. If the CRs subjugated all other interests to the goal of Bush's re-election, they would no sooner host a lecture urging tougher immigration enforcement than they would a lecture praising WWII internment. Bush is to immigration control what FDR was to tax reduction.
Moreover, since Malkin volunteered to speak for free, no financial resources the CRs might have used campaigning for Bush or sponsoring loyalist GOP speakers would have been exhausted bringing Malkin to campus. The assertion that her speaking on internment would divert the CRs from their focus is a pretense.
So why, then, did the CR leadership back away? As The Eagle reports, "According to Inganamort, Malkin tried to make the situation seem like the AU administration pressured the College Republicans into cancelling the speech." The suggestion, Inganamort insists, is "outrageous." "No one bullied us into anything...," he said. "It was entirely the AUCR executive board's decision."
But it was the CR leaders who initially "tried to make the situation seem" as if they had acted under duress. Corresponding with Malkin's husband, who assists her with her scheduling, Inganamort wrote that "we have... received discouragement from a number of the campaigns we hope to work with in the Metro area" and that "staff members for the Bush campaign itself have frowned on us."
Inganamort goes on to assert that the CRs "won't back down when faced with [controversy]." Shortly thereafter, he notes that "the University of Maryland is apparently sending a group of students who disagree vehemently with Michelle. As I've stated before, public safety officers will be at the event, so safety will NOT be an issue. The possibility of tough questions is, however." Tough questions? Yikes!
And regarding that "outrageous" suggestion that the AU administration exercised its sway: "[O]ur club is taking a lot of flack from the administration here at American University. In so many words or less, our future funding is in serious jeopardy."
Whether Bush campaign staffers provided the CRs any input on this situation is an open question. (The Eagle has suggested that the negative feedback in question came from an intern.) That the group feared pressure from AU administrators, however, cannot be doubted. It was not "entirely the AUCR executive board's decision."
Finally, the CRs' failure to realize that the oration would deal with internment also raises some questions. For one thing, Malkin's husband claims not to have stipulated that the discussion would address immigration. For another, Inganamort and Co. insist that they "received no such notice about Ms. Malkin's book release." If so, where have they been? The book was released months ago. It's received national media coverage. Who didn't know about this book before the CRs did?
It is, altogether, a sad episode. Many right-leaning campus groups have chosen to stand and fight in the face of hostility. (Shortly before the AU speech ought to have taken place, the College Republicans at UC Berkelely hosted Malkin with alacrity, as she notes on her blog.) If a group's funding is threatened based on its politics, it has legal recourse; groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) have long been handling such problems for campus conservatives. Had the AUCRs braved whatever challenge the administrators would have posed, what a proud moment for the club it would have been.
So much for that. Such lamentation visits often upon the hearts of conservative AU students. It ought not to be provoked by a club that claims to speak for them.
Brad Vasoli graduated from the School of Public Affairs in 2004.
