Why I will never work with the Leadership Institute

Important note: As mad as I am with the Leadership Institute and the individuals who work there, I am not willing to expose identities, hence you will notice ambiguous gender pronouns and the use of "he/she" throughout.

It was fall quarter of 2013 when I was first contacted by someone via the Western Libertarians Facebook page from the Leadership Institute. I was told that if our club worked with them, that they would give us resources in order to help us. While this was tempting, I had to know:

1) Whether or not we should associate with a conservative organization.

2) If the Western Libertarians would still have agency and maintain our independence if we worked with them.

My first year at Western Washington University, the Western Libertarians had joint meetings with the College Republicans. When I became president spring quarter of that year, I decided to still have the joint meetings for the remainder of that school year, but separate the next. The reason for this is that I found that people did not seem to know the difference between conservatism and libertarianism, and I did not want to help contribute to that line of thinking. Not to mention, by focusing more on libertarianism, the club would be able to explore more topics that Republicans generally do not like or touch upon. However, for the sake of networking and access to resources , I decided that it would not be bad to become associated with the Leadership Institute. For the record, if a liberal/progressive organization comparable to them had contacted us, I would have probably gone through a similar mental process.

The Western Libertarians was founded as an independent club - not a chapter of any national/international organization. We take pride in our uniqueness. While we are currently working with international/national organizations and would not mind working with more in the future, we make sure that we are not jumping too quickly into something we would regret. There are, of course, agreements stated by these organizations, which we abide by, such as taking photos of when we use their materials. That, we do not mind because it is entirely understandable and not invasive. The Leadership Institute assured us that we would be able to maintain our independence. Nevertheless, because of what the organization stands for, I would always be wary of them.

The person told me that he/she would be heading around our area soon, and if we would like help tabling, which I agreed to. He/she brought posters to make signs with, went around Red Square to help gather signatures, and gave tips. I was told to call someone within Leadership Institute to learn more about it, and to give the necessary information so we could become a "chapter." (The reason I contacted this person was because the other who referred me would be leaving soon.)

Not too long after that day, I learned there would be a "boot camp" in another state - I forget which one. I would have gone (and dragged some club members with me), but there was a Students for Liberty Regional Conference in Seattle that same weekend. Time, travel costs, and the fact that SFL is actually geared more towards libertarians all contributed to our attending this instead. Afterwards, I became too busy to follow up on whether or not the Western Libertarians became officially-affiliated with the Leadership Institute, but it was always on the back of my mind (and somewhere on my "to-do" list).

Fall turns to winter, winter turns to spring. On April 15, 2014 Campus Reform published an article about President Bruce Shepard and his blog, fueling a notion that WWU was somehow racist against white people. 'Twas then I noticed that an obscene amount of shit turbulently collided with the brisk and unforgiving fan.

Do all of us a favor and actually read what Bruce Shepard wrote.

I noticed this because my WWU Facebook friends were posting the link to this article, saying that the "reporter" did not know what she was talking about. I was curious, clicked it, read it, read the comments (why did I think that was a good idea??)...and wanted to die right then and there.

Soon enough, Daily Caller published an article on how WWU wants to weed out white people.

Hopefully, you know that what Bruce Shepard was really talking about was demographics - if more people of color are coming in to the US and WA, WWU is going to have to have an accurate portrayal of attendees consistent with those numbers. That's all. Simple.

This has nothing to do with affirmative action. If it did, I would have been less inclined to defend my school and our president.

My friend wrote up this excellent piece on the matter.

In response to the national recognition we gained, students rallied behind Bruce Shepard. (As if we did not already have enough attention from the "riot.") One project entitled "I, Too, Am WWU - We Are Diversity" launched on Facebook and Tumblr, documenting views on themselves and diversity, which The Western Front covered.

The Western Front also published this, this, this, this, and this...and I would not be surprised if I was missing any.

One day, these people appeared.

This timing of this was quite coincidental for me. A few days before all of this, I read an article that said that in a few decades, the majority of Americans will be multiracial, which made me happy because I am multiracial and it would show that more people are willing to set aside skin color differences and make families with each other. A friend reposted it, and one of his friends was mad and said something along the lines of it being white genocide.

First off, the correct term would ethnocide - the eradication of a group of people's culture.

While the comment did infuriate me, it did me get me thinking about unintentional ethnocide - is it really ethnocide? Is conforming to a country's standards and practices a form of ethnocide, whether or not it is required by law?

The White Genocide Project is quite scary. It is fairly obvious that these people are masking their racism. Even if they were somehow not racist, their "logic" and "intellectual reasoning" make no sense to me.

On April 28th, a "Diversity Rally" was held - march and the actual rally with speakers, covered by The Western Front.

This is where I personally noticed when some normal, rational WWU students thought the school was taking this too far. "Circlejerk" was a term applied to the "We Are Diversity" response, and I will not deny I was feeling this way too. It was a bit overkill for me. Then again, I guess it could be a personal issue because of the isolation I feel with quite some people at the school not accepting that I am multiracial and bisexual because I look "white" and "straight." (It makes me wonder, how is it that someone can tell someone's sexual orientation or even ethnicity for that matter by just looking at them?)

"I just know this girl is white and straight, okay? DON'T QUESTION ME!!"

Now you may be wondering...what does all of this have to do with the Leadership Institute?

For those of you who do not know, Campus Reform is a subdivision of the Leadership Institute.

When I first found this out, I was embarrassed and infuriated. A friend of a Facebook friend was commenting on something I posted, did his research, and relayed his findings. From there, I took things personally, and felt it was my duty to talk with Campus Reform/Leadership Institute.

From the amount of times and the way I talk about the Western Libertarians, I would think you, as a first-time reader of my blog or as a regular, know how much I dearly love the club and will do anything to make it even better every year. By even thinking of former association with the Leadership Institute, I cannot fully express my embarrassment, both personally and for the club.

Another person from the Leadership Institute/Campus Reform came to campus to film what students had to say about Bruce Shepard's diversity comment. I saw this person a couple of times, but I did not know what he/she was doing because if I had...oh boy.

I received a Facebook message from him/her telling me that he/she was on campus and had a list of students who would be willing to become involved with the Western Libertarians. I told him/her that I was not interested in that list, and wanted to talk with someone higher up in the organization. The reason I would not accept the list is because there was no telling how this person got people interested in the club, especially with what he/she was doing while on campus. For all I know, they could be a bunch of racists.

I tried calling this person quite a few times. First time, they were closed because it was Good Friday - I could not help but roll my eyes at how conservative they were. (While I did grow up Catholic and am highly-respective of the religion, it was the absurdity of how stereotypically-conservative it was of them that amused me.) Finally, I got a voicemail from the person I was trying to reach. Due to the combination of being incredibly furious and my phone being somewhat broken, I never got back to him/her.

Throughout this, it made me mad to this that this organization with potential greatness (for the conservative community) had to resort to immature and unprofessional means of getting attention. We, the Western Libertarians, and I would hope all libertarians in general, understand the importance of integrity and seeking knowledge from a variety of sources. We encourage our members to attend political learning opportunities of all kinds because how can one understand libertarianism and shape your own views without knowing others? To get people interested in our philosophy, we do not have, or feel the need, to resort to desperate measures. If an organization like the Leadership Institute has not and/or cannot accept that line of thinking, what was the point of trying to have a mature conversation with them?

A couple of months later, a friend told me that he saw a cameraperson filming someone (possibly the same one from Campus Reform?) badmouthing Bruce Shepard. Then the person said something along the lines of, "They probably want someone who looks more like her," and pointed to one of the candidate's poster from the AS Elections. Such class. Wow.

What are my opinions on what Bruce Shepard had to say? I agree that the school should reflect the demographics of the state, without  having to resort to controversial measures to do so. Even talking with those who agree with this, they have criticized him for his choice of words. I am pretty indifferent to that. Out of context, yes, that sounds terrible, and can (and has) been easily taken advantage of. However, I also get the point that it was worded that way spark up discussion and debate. I, and a lot of others, found it funny that Campus Reform wrote the article months after the blog post (and years after his first mentioning of it).

It really is a shame that the Leadership Institute feels a need to do what they did. From what I see, they provide great activism training and online resources to groups and individuals who are in need of it. They have the potential to be respected by a number of people from different backgrounds, but only if they could play nicely.

The only way the Western Libertarians and I would work with the Leadership Institute and speak nicely of them is if:

1) They apologized for the demeaning and misleading media published on their site about WWU and Bruce Shepard.

2) They vowed to be honest and did not resort to disingenuous tactics in order promote their organization and to further their own cause, and stayed true to their words.

But what are the chances of that happening?

I really feel like I need to apologize for what they did to WWU. Somehow, I feel like if I kept better track of what they were up to, I could have prevented it from happening.

To wrap this all up, another friend of mine pointed out that if the Leadership Institute wanted to publish something about WWU that was candid and questionable, they would have been better-off publicizing the controversial WWU party bus.

Despite popular belief, you didn't hear that whole "party bus thing" from me.

My 2 cents on the the Miley Cyrus outrage

I tried to ignore the whole "Miley Cyrus twerking" thing. I really did. Then I discovered brief analyses describing the impact of that performance on feminism and racism. Because I belief racial and gender discrimination and societal portrayals make up a huge part of politics, I'll talk about it some.

It would have been nicer if people focused on Syria. A lot of people I talked to didn't even know what was going on. When seeing my Facebook libertarian friends complaining how people are more focused on Miley than on Syria, it seemed like they were exaggerating. When I actually went onto non-libertarian forums...it was all about her.

Anyways, back on track...(ironically)

The biggest complaint is that her performance was lewd and offensive to females.

When I finally got around to watching her performance, I had no problem with most of it. However, when she slapped that woman's butt, grabbed her own crotch, etc., that was too much for me. I seriously had no problem with her outfit and most of her dancing. Nevertheless, it was overall a bit tasteless and excessive.

Here, a sexologist writes an interesting take on it, and I have to agree. Both parties (and MTV and whoever else was involved with this) are at fault.

In this article, a woman complains about the racial implications of Miley's performance - treating black women as objects, "black" singing, twerking, etc. I think this is a bit of an overreaction, but since I am not a black woman, I can't feel much personal offense and therefore can't speak for any who were offended. I did not feel like, while watching, that Miley treated the black women as "objects," but I did notice that she was a white girl in a crowd of black people. When she spanked that woman, I didn't think "oh, she smacked a black person's ass," I thought, "wow, was spanking that woman's butt really necessary...?" You see, I tend to notice gender first (or so I think, my subconscious may differ), not race. The whole thing about Miley wanting "a black sound" for her new album is just a very ignorant thing to say.

Advertisement

Feminism and 'Race' Feminism and Race brings together a wide range of writings on 'race', racism, and feminism that have been published in the past two decades. It aims to provide readers with an overview of the history of these debates as well as to suggest future directions for feminist scholarship and practice in this field.

I am not disagreeing with the author of the article when she says that the performance was racist, but I feel that it was more oblivious to the perpetuating of negative stereotypes of black culture and female identity than it was to the outright objectifying of (female) blacks.

What I am even more worried about is that Miley Cyrus has made twerking and other overblown interpretations of what is associated with black culture seem unacceptable. Even where twerking might be tolerable and commonplace, what she has done may have entirely ruined people's perceptions of it. Only time will tell.

Finally, not really related to race or gender in any way, but to clear up a mistake. The picture of the Smith family reacting to Miley's performance isn't really them reacting to her performance, it's actually to Lady Gaga's. I had been suspicious of that screenshot ever since it surfaced, since things can easily be taken out of context. Blame it on my untrusting nature of the media.

In the meantime, use this to capture people's attention in order to get them to see what important stuff is actually going on in the world.

Whether you like Miley Cyrus or not, I know you like me.

Become a Patron!

Advertisement

Feminism and Science (Series copy) The new Oxford Readings in Feminism series maps the dramatic influence of feminist theory on every branch of academic knowledge. Offering feminist perspectives on disciplines from history to science, each book assembles the most important articles written on its field in the last ten to fifteen years. Old stereotypes are challenged and traditional attitudes upset in these lively-- and sometimes controversial--volumes, all of which are edited by feminists prominent in their particular field. Comprehensive, accessible, and intellectually daring, the Oxford Readings in Feminism series is vital reading for anyone interested in the effects of feminist ideas within the academy. Can science be gender-neutral? In recent years, feminist critics have raised troubling questions about the practice and goals of traditional science, demonstrating the existence of a pervasive bias in the ways in which scientists conduct and discuss their work. This exciting volume gathers seventeen essays--by sociologists, scientists, historians, and philosophers--of seminal significance in the emerging field of feminist science studies. Analyzing topics from the stereotype of the "Man of Reason" to the "romantic" language of reproductive biology, these fascinating essays challenge readers to take a fresh look at the limitations--and possibilities--of scientific knowledge.