Censorship Endorsements by the Associated Students Organization?

Thank you for your post.  I'm sure there are many other students who are also upset about The Roaming Moanies not performing on campus.  I would like to assure you that the decision was not an easy one, and we took many factors into consideration.

After talking with students who work in both ASP and the ROP, they decided that they would prefer to respond to your post personally, instead of me relaying their message.  I just wanted to let you know that the AS has read your post and appreciates your advocacy and interest in student voice.  Please expect another post from the Women's Center sometime soon.

Happy Halloween.  :)

Your response is much appreciated, Matt. I'd be interested to hear what the reasons behind the decision were and whether or not the dialogue is ongoing; every implication I have from the involved students (Some of which who work FOR the AS) is that it was a cut and dry decision made without compromise or due process of appeal by the two artists who were involved. I find that somewhat alarming, and, as mentioned in the previous post, disconcerting in terms of the precedent it invites for future ASP bookings: that musicians are privy to review and prejudice by what are essentially special-interest entities within both the student body and that these entities are given priority when it comes to administrative action taken on behalf of censorship.

I, for one, do not care to see Western suddenly stripped of its autonomy for bringing controversial music acts and performers to this campus due to the objections of a few students, who may or may not have an inside track into the ear of the AS administration. Objections are fine. Picketing is fine. Angry, enraged flag-waving and empassioned discourse are the principles upon which this University were founded, and principles which we, as Western Students, must vigorously defend in the face of any oppression, whether based on political, religious, racial of ideological views. Censorship in ANY way, shape or form, brokered through ANY operating channel of the AS without clear cause or complete disclosure is a threat to these essential tenets of our campus culture, IMHO.

I'm not sure what the Women's Center has to do with the decision-making process, but I look forward to their comments, particularly in differentiating what I assume to be the "content" they deemed offensive in relation to the other featured acts on the hip-hop event's bill. I fail to comprehend on any level--with admitting my ignorance to the politics and semantics of the AS organization and its functions--how misogyny, profanity, racial epithets or any other "controversial" expressions of speech can be deemed admissable in one case and worthy of condemnation in the other, aside from the previously-mentioned theory that the "Moanies" are being punished because they are members of the Western student body, and therefore soft targets.

I should also add that I don't consider the duo's hyperliterate caterwauling to be particularly endearing, though I have enjoyed numerous classes with Mr. Allis and find him to be a tremendously sensitive and insightful individual. Lest the message of the music be confused with the individuals performing it, I will also note that Mr. Allis was an honoree of the Fairhaven Academic Symposium for two years in the running, and venerated as one of the finest students in his graduating class by the Fairhaven faculty; this has little bearing on the "content" in question, I understand, but it also raises the question of as to why it's alleged that no ongoing dialogue or attempts to reach a compromise in the songs performed by Mr. Allis and his partner were attempted. He's obviously up to the task of vigorously defending his choices without students like me making a broad stab at doing it for him. ;)

Talevia, you make some excellent points.  As a student studying media culture and its impact on society, the prospect of the Associated Students supporting censorship is unsettling to me on several leverls.  However, I ultimately agree with the AS' decision to remove the Roaming Moanies from the bill for several reasons.  

The point I'm struggling with most is the one you raise about double-standards.  It's deeply troubling to see what potentially may be a case of preferential treatment - I too am curious as to the reasoning that the decision-makers in the AS used to determine who could play and who could not.  I can only offer my own views on the case.

I don't believe that this is a black-and-white example of censorship.  After listening to some of the Roaming Moanies' material, I think that's pretty clear.  It's true that the Wu frequently use homophobic, misogynistic, and otherwise blatantly offensive views, but their songs aren't based around them.  The Moanies, in contrast, seem to be a one-trick pony, and a pretty tired one at that.  I've had it suggested to me that their work is intended to be satirical, but even listening to their stuff with that in mind, it seemsl ilke a pretty shallow and facile parody of sexism in our society - boring at best, and honestly offensive at worst.  I don't know the dudes in question (although I have several friends who know John, and vouch for his character, and I have no problem with him- like you said, the distinction between the message and the individual is a key one to make), but I'd honestly like to pick their brains as to what they're intending with this project.  

I feel like I'm not articulating my point very well, so I'll leave it to someone who's a little more well-spoken, hopefully.  I think that this discussion about censorship is a crucial one, and something that's desperately needed within our community, but I also think that it's missing a key point: the Roaming Moanies should've never been booked in the first place.

I realize that music taste is a subjective thing, but I don't think anyone who has listened to the Moanies' work would argue that they're of a caliber good enough to open for one of the most celebrated hip-hop groups of all time.  I also strongly believe that they would never have been booked if Hunter Motto, the coordinator for Pop Music - the office who brought Method and Red in the first place - wasn't their friend and manager as well.

http://www.westernfrontonline.net/200804089817/art-life/where-the-moanie...

This is a pretty clear case of conflict of interest, and a breach of ethics - especially when you look at the fact that Motto added the Moanies to the bill without consulting anyone else, and you consider that student fees are being used to bring these acts to campus.

Again, while I emphatically disagree with the idea that the Moanies are somehow being oppressed - it's hard to see that as anyting but a joke - I think that the issues of potentially offensive material in art and how we reconcile that with our own values - particularly in an educational setting - need to be discussed further, by everyone.  My e-mail's parkers9@cc.wwu.edu; I'd love to grab a beer with you sometime and chat about it.  

Hey Parkers!

I absolutely agree with your points, and share your sentiments nearly across the board. As clearly stated in my previous response, I have had numerous classes with both Mr. Allis and Mr. Oglesby, and while I find myself routinely amused by their no-fi rapping and personas as "The Moanies", I also acquiesce wholeheartedly to the question of quality as it pertains to the specific event in question, here: there is a solid argument to be made as to whether or not a rap duo whose "gimmick" is satirical nonsense with raw production values deserves to be sharing the same boards as Method Man and Redman. From a point of pure objectivity, I would argue against it if I were in the AS' shoes; RM's music is clearly intended for a specific sub-genre of hip-hop fandom, and as such, is, in my opinion (And as I'm reading it, yours) a sour match for a show of this nature.

So there exists a basic conflict in terms of free speech versus quality, which of and by itself is a sovereign issue; if there are specific standards to which an expression--be it writing, filmmaking, acting, or music--is expected to adhere, and it fails to do so, then there is ABSOLUTELY a precedent for its exclusion. The problem here is that there seems to be a pressing question about what constitutes this "concern over content" that premediated the ASP's decision to remove the act from the show in the first place; without a CLEARLY CONVEYED course of action and disclosure as to what the procedures were, the potential ramifications on future AS events can't be fully gauged. If the party line from the AS were simply that "we made a mistake, these guys aren't up to snuff as far as the artists we want to be associated with--no pun intended--and therefore, we opted to cancel their participation", then the issue is, as you so eloquently put it, one of "black-and-white", and any consequent debate is really just sour grapes and conjecture. Such is the AS' prerogative, and their right as an organization; they are the stewards of the material that they deem worthy of their promotion.

However, I think we can agree--and again, do--that this is NOT the case in this particular instance. Even without the implications of Mr. Motto's endorsement of his friends and his role as a manager, there's no excuse for the AS to assume one clear-cut position of support, and then immediately withdraw it on the basis of unspecified reasons which could--and herein lies my MAJOR source of concern--set a dangerous precedent for future expressions from the student body. I sympathize with the viewpoint that the obscenity inherent in rap music ruffles feathers routinely and has been a hotly-debated issue, but see little distance between this blase' application of "censorship" under pressure from unspecified sources and similar remedial censorship measures being made when a future AS film may feature a homosexual relationship or an advocation of evangelical morality.

Once the ASP has declared that they are free to enact censorship based on what I am still assuming was activist pressures without bothering to explain their actions and the extent of these pressures, then the student body ostensibly winds up looking down the barrel of a loaded gun. Remove one rap act because of their "content", and you can censor the Eagles of Death Metal for the same reasons. Censor the Eagles of Death Metal, and you can censor anti-political folk songs at the Underground Coffee House. Censor that, and you can do the same for open-mic and poetry readings in the same venue. Any situation wherein the agenda of someone else's axioms force this kind of action can duplicated repeatedly, until the question of student representation itself becomes compromised; anybody with five to twenty-five friends (or a well-placed member of our campus political structure) can claim offense at "content" in ANYTHING, and point to previous measures taken to censor similar concerns as grounds for having events canceled and free expression summarily stifled.

So to suture up all this pragmatic pseudo-patriotic concern, I'll again thank you for your response and the points it brought up, which take us fluidly to the keystone issue, here: WHO is making these decisions, based on WHAT, and HOW will this potentially affect the freedom of student expression in the future?

Or as it goes, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

PS- Beer's on me. :D

One other question, if you'd be so kind. You mentioned that Hunter Motto acted independently in booking the Moanies on the show's undercard in the first place; I'm unclear on whether or this was actually the case, or a possible assumption. Can you please clarify? No specifics as to your "sources" necessary. :D

I ask because it's a somewhat disturbing notion to think that the various branches of the ASP operate with such autonomy that the managerial higher-ups (Who, I'm pretty sure, represent the officers as voted by the student body during our elections) have absolutely no role in approving the actions and promotions of their employees. It also raises the stakes in terms of procedure and precedent, specifically as to where the buck stops in terms of making decisions which could be interpreted as censoring this esoteric notion of "content".

Thanks!

The AS Board of Directors has been made aware of this situation.  We will be conducting a comprehensive review of the decisions made and those who played a part in it.  Until we have finished this review, we are unable to release a statement.  We plan to review this at our next board meeting in VU 567 at 6:00pm on Wednesday November 5th.  We encourage and invite all of those who are interested to attend.

I'd like to formally apologize to "talevia" and offer my regret in not being able to get back to him sooner.  We really do appreciate your thoughts and opinions, we just want to make sure we know ALL of the facts before we make a statement that could be misleading or innaccurate.

I truly hope you understand.

**If you do have questions or concerns, please feel free to email me at asvp.activities@wwu.edu or stopping by my office hours on Monday at noon in VU 540.**

Matt, no problem at all. I want to make it clear that I'm not attempting to condemn the AS as an organization or undermine the absolutely crucial role that it plays in our student community; I'm simply concerned that mistakes may have been made on a personal level or that lines were crossed, and as a result, hasty remedial actions were taken as a defense measure that may have SERIOUS reprecussions for free expression in AS-mandated events here at Western.

I sincerely appreciate your efforts and dedication to precise due course on the matter, Matt. Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns personally!

To begin with, there is a gap in our definitions of censorship. Our perception is that the Roaming Moanies’ music is filled with misogynistic statements, offensive ideology and hurtful lyrics, all of which are already saturated in our culture. The idea of censoring a dominant voice is a contradiction-- given the overall pervasiveness of misogyny in our society. In no way is the AS or Western trying to censor the distribution of any band’s music. However, as an institution that uses student’s funds, we do not find it appropriate to endorse music that promotes a hurtful culture on our campus. And ultimately, it’s counterintuitive that the privileged voices of these men using misogynistic lyrics can be censored—we simply don’t support them.

The action taken was not to ban a local band from succeeding or expressing themselves, but a general decision by the AS to choose not to support with student Services and Activity fees the band’s messages and attitudes that exclude, and demean at least half of our student population. This decision was not only prompted internally with the AS, but was a response to concerns initially voiced by students. It is the responsibility of AS administration to take the concerns of students seriously and act appropriately.

As per the University mission statement, one of the tenets states that “Western creates opportunities for students to display leadership, civic engagement, social responsibility, and effective citizenship.” All students, especially those in leadership positions are responsible to maintain those standards. Also, Resource and Outreach Programs (ROP) work especially hard to maintain these standards, and it is within their mission statement to “empower all members of Western Washington University’s diverse community.” If members of our community announce their discomfort it is not only of personal concern but their professional duty to take action.

In response to the issue brought up regarding Method man and Redman’s lyrical content it is true that they may promote offensive messages with their music. But to go along with another issue brought up, that of “due process,” the decision to allow Method man and Redman to perform was a result of following AS program standards required to bring the performance to Western, while the Roaming Moanies questionable content was not brought to the boards attention, regardless of the Women’s Center’s stance on the matter. We may not see Method man and Redman as the ideal performances, completely without offensive content, but their situation and image is different than those of the Moanies. The headliners have big enough presence in society and the music scene that anyone and everyone either knows, or can research beforehand the kind of music and messages they can expect to hear at the concert, but this is not the case for the Moanies. Because the headliners are likely to draw attendees from a far broader spectrum than just our campus (the larger Bellingham community and likely even farther: Seattle, Vancouver, etc). Presenting the lesser known voice of the Moanies will not be expected, and could be an offensive surprise to off campus concert goers. We especially do not want to display a culture of misogyny as representative of the entire Bellingham community to visitors.

The nature of marginalized voices inherently makes it difficult to express concerns; picketing and protesting should not be their only option to make their voices heard, and is nowhere near the same as a forum where they can be earnestly received. Marginalized voices should be able to be a part of the system of decision making and determining the culture of our campus—not just relegated to street corners, or a few minutes before a concert.
 

Well-said. However.

As admirable as the candor and quality of this response is much appreciated, I don't feel I can adequately address the key points of a post which endeavors to paint divisive differences in terms of "we", "them", "us", and "marginalized" terms and deems to represent a "collaborative" wherein these implied fissures and authors behind them are anonymous.

It's certainly an understandable and perfectly-acceptable prerogative to offer a statement without indications of affiliation with the AS or any other campus organization, but I'm not quite sure if this is supposed to represent a summarial response to the discussion in this thread, or a manifesto from individuals whose "concern" was somehow involved as a special-interest influence on the pressure which was led to the banning of the artists in the first place. If this is intended to be a representation of these interests, identifying them would be a great help to my understanding as to the procedural happenings regarding the AS and its actions. I get the gist, but not the signature, as-is.

Likewise, I'm more than happy to engage in the sort of open dialogue that has already been so refreshingly present in this thread thus far, but frankly don't have the time or energy to be cast as any sort of diametrically-opposed representative of the implications of agenda I sense from the language in this post. I do not represent the interests and arguments of Mr. Allis or Mr. Oglesby, and I assume the Moanies can defend themselves and their interpretations of censorship, misogyny and artistic intent and how it compares to your "collaboration" in open debate warfare on this forum or at the scheduled hearing alluded to so generously by Mr. Jarrell. My interest lies SOLELY in the hard facts of the AS' actions--administrative processes, culpability of individuals and their supervisors, whether or not there was a legitimate dialogue with the performers, or simply a decision made in a mode of responsive defense--and what they might mean to the unimpeded expression of the student body in the future, as an employee of the University, as a student who has spent his entire college career here, who has been tasked with teaching the next generation of Western's learning community on occasion, and as someone who has enjoyed limitless artistic freedom regardless of its "content" in expressing himself. As it stands, there is still an unsatisfactory lack of proper explanation, aside from the justifications of this nature:

"Presenting the lesser known voice of the Moanies will not be expected, and could be an offensive surprise to off campus concert goers. We especially do not want to display a culture of misogyny as representative of the entire Bellingham community to visitors."

I applaud the sentiment, but question the reality of the situation. The issue of quality control would make this a valid argument, however, the fact that the AS has NOT removed local Bellingham emcees Surge Spittable from the performance renders it extremely dubious. For those unfamiliar with SS, who are remarkably talented gentlemen, I invite you to listen to their track, entitled "Karma" at:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendi...

In one verse, an emcee outlines how he gains revenge on his enemy by slitting the throats of his two young children with a box cutter, and then wraps the bloodied bodies in American flags. How it can be implied that an argument of infanticide, defacing an American flag all in the name of glorifying mafia culture--again, by a LOCAL EMCEE who is one of the most RESPECTED ARTISTS in Bellingham's burgeoning hip-hop scene--is somehow LESS offensive to this ephemeral "visiting contingency" of concertgoers and will reflect any better on our local culture is lost on me. Misogyny must be stopped, but visceral accounts of murdering children and defacing American flags will somehow "play better" in terms of conveying a positive message for Western?

The connection is arbitrary at best, and still does nothing to explain the parameters beneath which the AS is operating in its administrative decisions. "Controversy" and "content", it seems, are in the eye of specific beholders with specific interests, which apply to certain situations and are summarily ignored in others. I again question how this uneven application of censorship can be interpreted as positive, and what's to prevent such arbitrary connections from being made in regards to future AS-hosted events.

So, to once again summarize my role and interest in this, lest it be confused: I am just a grad student who loves his university, and I have made a concerted effort to state my stakes in the matter and my interests without smoke-screening my numbers, affiliations, ideological or political intentions, nor acting as a mouthpiece for the "other" which features so prominently in this response. A similar effort at courtesy and neutrality would be appreciated, if your interest does indeed lie in continuing and contributing to the ongoing discussion and not simply offering a statement of your "group's" intention/belief/etc.

In any case, thank you again for the thoughtful counterpoints. Have a great Halloween.

To me, this isn't about censorship. I don't care about the Roaming Moanies and whatever gimmicks they have as a hip-hop duo.

I care about my student funds being used in such a blatant breach of ethics, and a complete conflict of interest. It's not fair that the decision to book them was made solely by one person, their friend and manager, when there are probably plenty of other groups who could have played. Does the show really need four openers anyway?

If The Roaming Moanies want to play for Western's campus, they should do so, just hopefully through more honest means.

Hey, it’s The Moanies--

We’re concerned with this situation, and would like to say a few things:

1.) The AS told us that we could play this show. So we want to play the show. We still do.

2.) As far as we’ve been told, the reason we can’t play the show is that our stuff apparently portrays us as monstrous, sexual-violence-advocating misogynists. Perhaps we should interpret these aggressive assumptions as an indication that we should elucidate our stuff. Within the next few days we’ll put out a more comprehensive sample of our oeuvre, in an attempt to prove that we are not, as we’ve been portrayed and discussed, malicious, dangerous, amateurish, mic-holding rapists of any kind, but are really, like, artists just doing their thing or whatever.

3.) Hunter Motto is not our manager and has acted with integrity throughout this fiasco. He’s a real dude, a good dude, and he’s done a lot for this university—he’s not a crusading advocate on our behalf; he’s earned hella credibility at WWU through his work with the AS. He deserves your trust; he sets y’all up with sweet shows to go to.

Thanks for the interest, yo. Hopefully this’ll all get cleared up soon.

The Roaming Moanies
 

I agree, Abby. Absolutely. This is a major crux of my concerns, and something I hope the AS will clarify after their review session. The implication is repeated in this thread that Mr. Motto operated outside of the jurisdiction of the ASP organization and made his decision based solely on nepotistic principles in the service of himself and his friends; however, I am to understand that Hunter has also served the AS office with REMARKABLE DISTINCTION over the course of the last year, and is responsible for the caliber and variety of music acts who perform at Western for the student community. I find it hard to believe that he would suddenly lapse into a stupor wherein he would sacrifice objectivity with the sole intention of making a rebel stab at getting his friends a performance gig; moreso, the suggestion that he could do so without ANY liability to the ASP's administrative structure requires a considerable suspension of credulity.

Mistakes do absolutely happen, and we're all human. Maybe this is the case. But it still doesn't absolve the crucial issue of culpability, and I don't care much for the thought that one AS employee with a proven track record of service and obvious dedication to the organization and the University at large is being potentially scapegoated because of it. Even if Hunter Motto did act with crazy-eyed impunity and entirely on his own, it doesn't excuse the fact that the AS has a RESPONSIBILITY to keep its communcation and promotional channels moderated, especially when it is STUDENT DOLLARS at stake. There's absolutely no excuse for things coming to this kind of head and the suppression of expression, and if Mr. Motto is supposed to be regarded as having "failed" in his post, then I would assert that the entire AS organization should be directly indicted in that failure.

As a student who voiced her concern about the Roaming Moanies playing on campus, I would like to explain a few things from where I stand, and the process that took place. Firstly, I would like to address the issue of due process and the lack of discussion that occurred about the presence of the Roaming Moanies at an AS funded event. I do think it unfair that there wasn’t any discussion between the band members and those students who voiced their concerns. It would have been a much better situation if people were made aware that the Moanies were opening more than 3 days before the concert. However, because Hunter didn’t communicate with his co-worker, his director or activity advisor, there was no time for discussion. I understand your point that it is the responsibility of the AS to keep its communication moderated. However, because Hunter has acted in this position for two years prior to taking it again this year, a level of trust had been granted to him. Because of this, we are now in this controversial situation.

The Roaming Moanies content is controversial, and Hunter should have been aware of that. It is protocol in the AS to discuss and bring controversial material to the attention of the higher-ups so an organized discussion can take place with those involved and those that may be concerned. The AS has the responsibility to make sure that the events being put on aren’t destructive and harmful. Those in the AS also have to take the concerns, voiced by people inside and outside the AS, very seriously.

In light of the recent tragic incidents at WSU, it is imperative that the AS doesn’t support any sort of event that might single out a group of people (in this case women) and create a destructive space that feels threatening and uncomfortable. As a student who saw the Moanies play at the Underground last year, I can say that I felt both violated and uncomfortable as a woman. Although some people have argued that their material is edgy and satirical, I see it very differently. Most of their lyrics have a misogynistic theme and portray women solely as sex objects. There isn’t anything in their songs that works on deconstructing or examining the issues with patriarchy and misogyny; the lyrics appear to simply be used to create a stir with the audience.

I understand the argument that Method Man and Redman are also offensive; I personally don’t find their music appealing or particularly entertaining. However, the people attending the concert are aware of the content of these bands, as their music is widely accessible. The Moanies material can be found on MySpace but hasn’t been widely distributed (I only knew of their music because of their performance last year). I feel that it is not the kind of local music people should be unexpectedly surprised by. I am not in support of my student fees paying for music that furthers the idea that misogyny, which is already so prevalent in our society, is tolerable and allowed as a form of entertainment. When I heard they were going to be given the huge opportunity to open for an internationally known band and be paid AS money, I felt shocked that AS productions was in support of this. Because of this I, along with others, addressed my concerns.

I felt that the actual concerns that were voiced needed to be addressed in this forum, as the discussion has mainly been about protocol. I do feel that this entire situation could have gone a lot smoother if more time was given for the AS to hold discussions between both parties. However, because of the lack of communication, which will hopefully be improved from here on out, the AS had to address the concerns quickly. I also believe that the AS made the correct decision, and everyone involved in this situation should walk away learning a lesson; communication within the AS needs improvement and events that may be controversial should be open for discussion and scrutiny before ANY final decision is made.
 

Davisc, thank you very much for taking the time to respond. Your insights are appreciated, particularly from where I’m sitting in relation to the issue, which is essentially attempting to peel the politics off of the processes as they relate to the AS. This is tremendously helpful.

I’m hoping you might be able to answer a question of vital interest for me, in terms of where the initial pressure for the removal of the Moanies from the event originated from? This seems to be a bone of contention throughout the incident; there appears to be a consensus of AS employees whose concern acted as leverage for the actual review and consequent action taken by the administrators, as well as references to special-interest campus organizations who are, seemingly, attempting to take credit for having “banned” the act from the event.

This is where my concern remains. I’m willing to entertain the notion of Mr. Motto’s culpability in the possible miscommunications and I absolutely empathize with your firsthand accounts of having seen the Moanies perform—as noted, I’m not exactly a fan of their music or a defender/debater for the merits of its content as satire—as being a valuable perspective within the review process as it was taken by the AS, but there needs to be a substantial disclosure as to what bearing any personal opinions and potential outside interests had on the decision made by administration. Having been married to a wonderful woman for ten years whose career is based on counseling battered and mentally disabled women for the city of Seattle, as well as the son of one of the first women to levy a sexual harassment suit against her employers in Los Angeles County in the 1970’s, I understand the importance of vigilance against inflammatory materials and general ignorance; however, above all else, I also understand the absolutely INDELIBLE importance of objectivity in these matters, and the thin line by which censorship and opinion are often separated.

Even the best-laid courses of action, made for the most morally sound reasons, can establish a precedent that results in a domino effect that can ostensibly compromise the long-term integrity of free speech and artistic expression. I’m not advocating a supplication to the relevance of Mr. Allis’ and Mr. Oglesby’s music, advocating any remedial bookings of measures by the AS to placate any perceived wrongs, or even brandishing the banner of First Amendment rights, but I am—and I’m really starting to make myself out to be a parrot, here—deeply concerned by the notion that the AS did not act in accordance with set protocols and standards of review or content, but instead kowtowed to the personal opinions or interior influences of unidentified individuals, and did so without concern for consequence or disclosure.

If THAT is the case—and to clarify once more, I’m sincerely hoping that it is NOT, despite the braggadocio and rather classless expressions of joy that have been circulating in e-mails from parties claiming themselves to have “won” in this situation—then it must be considered inexcusable and thoroughly investigated. If there’s anything I’ve learned in my academic career and getting old and boring, it’s that there is a certain fashion of ignorance that comes with passionate expression of one’s ideals, and it is a prerequisite to fighting the good fight, but it too often overlooks the possibility that the gains made can be put to use by ANYBODY seeking to influence society based on their own agendas; the AS must recognize that it is NOT immune to this phenomenon, and must exercise a policy of TOTAL NEUTRALITY when enacting its internal administrative duties. Opinions must absolutely play a critical role in the discourse which shapes these duties; however, these are NOT synonymous with personal politics. As students, we count on a charter by the AS which is worthy of Western’s fine standing as a campus which embraces tolerance and freedom of expression; as instructors, we are DOUBLY reliant on the AS for providing leadership and directly encouraging outlets for these qualities.

If the issue is left on a dubious note which suggests one form of expression is more free than another, and that the standards OF these expressions may be determined by those with the loudest voices and unquestioningly carried out by our elected student body officials, then we all lose. And I reiterate that as loudly as my fingers can allow: ALL. OF. US.

To boot:

I once wrote a short story for a campus publication that portrayed a graphic scene of homosexual intercourse and the degeneration of a same-sex relationship. It was accepted for the issue, but then contested on grounds of content; it was inferred that, as a straight male author, I should not be given the right to portray the voice of the “other”, and questioned the damage that could be done by straight males potentially reading the story and taking it as a reflection of either my opinions, or as a representation of gay lifestyles.

My mentor, one of the finest professors and women that I have ever had the pleasure of knowing, fielded these complaints in stride and argued thusly; regardless of the passion politics involved, the expression itself was SOVEREIGN, and the truest course of action was to print it and allow the debate to shape itself thusly. Let the people who read it determine whether it is offensive and encourage them to discuss WHY it occurs to them as being offensive in an open forum, an open dialogue. Censorship or exclusion of the story simply never occurred to her as an option on any level, regardless of how loudly these special-interest groups were rattling their sabers.

I would later read the story to a large audience during an AS-mandated event, to a resounding round of applause. So in attempting to close things on a succinct note, I must ask myself--with due respect and in consideration of the situation as it has been presented to this point--how my experience may have played out differently had the critics of my own “controversial content” been placed within the AS administration, or whether there had been a prior decision of implied censorship such as the Moanies issue in the books; what would the odds of my expression’s survival be then?

The issue as it appears to me, is that the AS is turning an issue of quality into an issue of content. If the AS felt that Mr. Motto's choice of band did not meet their quality standards, than they should have made this proper objection. But considering how the Moanies music is obviously satirical, to ban them on the grounds of content seems like a poor ruse. Anyone who knows Mr. Oglesby or Mr. Allis knows they are by no means misogynistic, homophobic, etc. etc. In fact, they are pointedly making fun of the very people who are. To imply that Mr. Motto broke any ethical standard assumes that he felt somehow knew the Moanies were construed as the women-beating and homosexual-hating folks the following discussion has painted them to be. Mr. Motto, knowing them very well (as it seems), probably knew from the start the irony implicit in their music, and, I can only speculate, desperately needed an act to fill the spot of another that had just dropped.

Anyone who has ever watched the Colbert Report and not felt uncomfortable at his "misogyny" should know what I am talking about.

Hey, y’all. It’s the Moanies.

In an effort to, as we said in our previous post, “elucidate our stuff,” we’ve put up a website: www.theroamingmoanies.com

You’ll find a variety of "content," present undertakings and projects from previous eras, that don’t happen to portray us as unfavorably as the rap joint apparently has.

It’s not, at this time, an extensive survey, nor does it occupy a particularly dazzling corner of webspace—we wanted to expedite the process with a mind to showing y’all that it’s not merely about verbosity-in-the-key-of-Misogyny. The Moanies, actually, have many ways of keeping it real. Check them.

We’ll be adding content over the course of the next several days—and indefinitely—which, we’re hoping, will allow y’all forum-users some deeper insight into what Moanies get up to. Maybe it’ll galvanize the discussion?

Please, enjoy the stuff. We look forward to talking to and hearing from y’all proactive and concerned people.

The Moanies
 

Thank you for being so responsive and polite, it makes this discussion much more constructive. As for where the initial concerns came from, I believe when people got the message (via Facebook mainly) that the Moanies were playing, there was a sudden network of concerned students who approached the appropriate people. I believe an AS office acted because it is part of their job to bring students concerns to the attention of the AS administration. I don't think, as you put it, it was specific members of the AS rallying to ban the Moanies. I believe that a spokesperson acted correctly in their position and brought the concerns that were voiced to higher ups. I think it is slightly assumptive to state that only members of the AS were bringing concerns. Even if they were the ones to voice it; it is necessary to consider that the campus community views them as student leaders, and comes to them for advice and to voice concerns. Although the people who went to the directors and advisors with the concerns may have been AS employees, it is important to remember that it wasn't solely AS employees who felt concern over the Moanies playing.

Also, I should make it clear, that as part of the concerned party who has been informed of the whole process, the Moanies aren't "banned". No one stated that they were never going to play on campus again. Basically, the decision was reached because of the lack of communication and the lack of time and it was decided, because of the amount of concerns voiced, that AS money (funded by student's fees) shouldn't be supporting the Moanies at this time. It is not as if the AS is stating the the Moanies shouldn't ever be allowed to play on campus, they just were responding the the numerous amounts of concerns that were brought to their attention.

I understand, from an outside perspective, how this decision can look very rushed and unfair. However, I think that it is imperative to remember how much time the AS had to think, decide and act on this issue- approximately two days. When it comes down to it, it is all a matter of timing; there just wasn't enough time to seriously open this debate up for discussion and make sure the voices of the concerned were listened to and reasoned with in the decision making process. Because of this lack of consideration of those who may be offended when Hunter booked them, the AS decided to pull the plug. Not because there is any secret vendetta against the Moanies; simply becuase the whole process went on behind their backs and there was an obvious need to address the myriad of concerns that kept coming to them. As I said earlier, the bottom line is the lack of communication and time led to this decision. Not a need to censor or ban anybody's work. As for certain offices saying they "won", I believe that this has been blown into a huge ordeal, and people may simply be getting heated and excited. Because of the lack of communication, there are now two angry sides of the issue and people aren't talking to eachother (except on this forum), which is where the trouble begins. Hopefully, everyone involved will attend the board meeting this Wednesday to hash all of this out.

I appreciate your anecdote, and from your posts I can tell you are very eloquent writer. I may also be assumptive when I say that I am sure your story had substance and meaning; perhaps challenging the gender roles our society has placed on men and women. If that is the case, good job, I am a fan of Butler and Spivak, and the issue of gender and sexuality in our society is interesting and needs to be discussed. The difference is the Moanies, although their lyrics may be sarcastic, don't seem to be attempting to challenge any of the ideas of misogyny. They simply seem to be stating crude and demeaning things, which is something that has already been done FAR too many times. I view a majority of their songs to simply be fueling the fire and giving these very serious issues a light hearted and sarcastic tone.

People, who appear to know these men personally, have argued that it's apparent they are being sarcastic... It's not. Unless you know these men personally, I don't think that is clear that what they are saying is supposed to be challenging and poking fun at the ideas of misogyny. If it were apparent that they were challening the ideas, I would be all for it. However, not knowing them intimately, I came away from their performance disgusted and offended, not laughing at their hilarious jokes which just portrayed women as sex objects. Calling their music a satire seems wrong, as they are the ones in the position of power stating things about the other as if they have experience living with the every day challenges that women face in our patriarchal society.

Either way, I am glad that this lengthy discussion is taking place, and I appreciate all of your feedback.

davisc35, volleyed gratitude for taking time to respond to my points. I feel kinda like I’m playing the oververbose version of Whack-a-Mole with the majority of these posts; going on and on in an attempt to provoke an ongoing exchange of points as I try to get a sense of who’s saying what and from where, only to have the authors vanish before I can offer more clarity and discourse. So there’s that.

I’ll actually try to be brief, this time. Suffice to say that I find reassurance in your experiences as per the review and actions taken by the ASP as an administrative organization; it sounds like we’re right on the same page in identifying the existence of miscommunications and their consequences on the issue, as well as the need to differentiate them from the implication that the matter was, indeed, a remedial measure of censorship. Additionally, your clarification that the Moanies aren’t necessarily “banned” as per the AS judgment on this specific event is something I was still unsure about, and I’m grateful to see put into print. This seems as though it embodies the sort of dialogue that could have helped circumvent the concerns of both sides before it all got tetchy and boiled over, and I thank you for being so even-handed across the boards.

On a quick, line-to-line series of clarifications that I’d like to offer:

“I don't think, as you put it, it was specific members of the AS rallying to ban the Moanies. I believe that a spokesperson acted correctly in their position and brought the concerns that were voiced to higher ups. I think it is slightly assumptive to state that only members of the AS were bringing concerns.”

Absolutely. I’d like to state that it was not my intention to suggest a conspiracy afoot, but rather the unanswered issue of who authored the “Concerned Students, etc.” post in this thread; the implication from the language seemed to be that this was a statement prepared by a contingency of persons within the AS, and bordered on the blatantly political in its content and overall tone. Being that the persons never bothered to consequently clarify their positions, numbers or affiliations as to who the “collaboration” was, I made the somewhat reflexive leap into assuming that it was either the statement Mr. Jarrell alluded to from the Women’s Center (Which--given its clearly-stated ideological investment in the situation--should make efforts to clarify itself from representing the opinions or judgments of the AS organization as a whole) or a joint statement from several of the individual students alluded to in Mr. Jarrell’s post.

I should also clear up some of the shadier allusions in my posts by saying that there is some very specific evidence that has been presented to WWU President Shepard, AS President Erik Lowe and ACLU Board Member and former Dean of Fairhaven College Daniel Larner that at least one AS officer—not Hunter Motto—acted with an alarming amount of impunity in the situation, both during and after the review. I’m not at liberty to expose any of the particulars, but suffice to say, it was this bit of oddity that got me involved in the situation in the first place; the notion that someone capable of the content of the evidence in question would not only behave in such an absurdly unprofessional capacity, but that their intention was also clearly to make Mr. Allis and Mr. Oglesby feel as though they had been “run out of town on a rail” by the author and their AS constituency. I certainly don’t take this one incident and individual to represent the AS and its administration in any capacity—the maturity, honesty and concern demonstrated by yourself and others has debunked that approach indelibly in this thread—but it does leave a very lingering and disturbing sense of concern about whether or not this individual’s position had any benefit to their clearly-stated agenda of having the Moanies taken off of the bill.

I believe this particular issue will be addressed at the review, and being that I only have a firsthand account of the evidence and a secondhand account of the circumstances in which it was originally submitted, I’ll refrain from further comment. I hope that helps explain the inferences, though.

“Because of this lack of consideration of those who may be offended when Hunter booked them, the AS decided to pull the plug. Not because there is any secret vendetta against the Moanies; simply becuase the whole process went on behind their backs and there was an obvious need to address the myriad of concerns that kept coming to them. As I said earlier, the bottom line is the lack of communication and time led to this decision. Not a need to censor or ban anybody's work.”

Again, thank you for this. I would encourage the AS to take the poster’s comments to heart and release an official statement of clarification in the AS Review in the same vein; this is really all that’s needed to stabilize a large part of the fallout that’s happening would be to admit administrative lapses and commit to a future dialogue with the artists. Face is saved, miscommunications can be remedied, and the important divisions and definitions of the AS’ editorial duties and what is perceived as a censorship measure can be made in an official capacity. Everybody, as they say, is a winner.

And I can stop clogging up the board with posts like this. Thank you again for your engaging honesty and insights, d.

Just thought I would commend everyone on their thoughtful and respectful responses.  Really, this is a great example of students discussing something they may or may not agree on in a truly professional manner.  I'm just impressed with the level of maturity students have at this university.

Update and Reminder:
The Board of Directors will be speaking about this situation on Wednesday at 6:00pm in VU 567.  We invite all students who are interested in attending come voice their opinions at that time.  Just wanted to let you guys know that we haven't forgotten about you over the weekend.

Hope everyone had a great Halloween!

I hope to interject for a moment here.  This isn't a direct response to either Aleksandr or any other blogger yet far but I had a close friend who attended the Redman/Method Man event on campus this last Sunday over the weekend and was "delighted" to see the clear interest, in representing our universities student's, the the AS took by booking these musical artists.

Above in the blog, somebody mentioned a problem with bringing the Roaming Moanies (whom I've never heard of before this blog so I cannot vouch for their musical merit) to campus because it might relfect poorly on our university and the decisions it's elected officials make.  I could very well be wrong so I will leave my interpretation at that.  However, my friend mentioned that when a few of the artists came on stage that night, that they brought a bong (I'm assuming it was loaded) and lit it on stage.

I get that the concert-goers themselves will bring whatever they can sneak in and they're judgement is in no way reflecting the AS's feelings and principles.  However, if the AS should be concerned about the image that would be created by off-campus concert-goers seeing the Roaming Moanies (and they're "allegedley" mysoginistic lyrics), then what image would they're ACTUAL PICKS directly give these aforementioned participants?

I can't stress enough that I see how ticket-purchasers go to events knowing full-well that weird stuff can and will happen, but what's the deal with dogging this band called the Roaming Moanies when you've got artists that kids might see as role models up on stage smoking grass? Unbelievable.

Chris,

Thanks for bringing up this particular observation; I'm sure it didn't exactly shock or titillate any of the concert attendees, being that the very public image of both artists is highly charged with their "appreciation" for weed (Case in point; http://www.method-man.com/) but the fact that they were either engaging in a felony on Western's campus during their show or at least giving the impression that they were is yet another curious issue of where one mode of expression is allegedly more free than another. I'd be interested to hear if this was other concertgoers' experiences as well, or what the AS has to say in terms of advocating drug usage by proxy and promotional affiliation.

Likewise, I'm hoping that either Mr. Jarrell or AS President Lowe may be kind enough to clarify what, exactly, the purpose and goals of the review hearing is tomorrow. After another day of reading various political manifestos, angry e-mails and rallying cries for folks to show up and support whichever side of the issue that they happen to declare loyalties to, I'm becoming increasingly wary that the AS will find itself jammed into the middle of an unintentional kangaroo court. It's wonderful to see so many students moved to action and expression in such a profound way, but unless the AS is either planning to move the hearing to the designated Free Speech areas in Red Square or deem this event as being a forum for open political warfare between which "side" can get the most people to show up on behalf of their agenda, then I hardly see the point in presenting it as a remedial measure towards identifying the shortcomings made by the organization's administration.

Really, if the two factions are determined to battle it out over contradictory ideologies on their own dime and at a place designated by intermediaries representing both interests where they can scream at the top of their lungs until miraculous advances are made in acceptance of each other's rights to expression, I'd wholeheartedly support it. However, if the prerogative of these individuals and groups are to hijacking what is--at least to this point--being presented by the AS' elected officials as a sanctioned event for discussing their procedural points and clarifying their actions and turning it into a witch hunt, exercise in character assassination, political apple box or First Amendment gang war, then the whole endeavor is going to be nothing more than a very entertaining, high-octane waste of time.

The prospect of which amuses me in a shamefully Roman sense, but does absolutely nothing in satisfying the oft-repeated questions of culpability and censorship that I've voiced in these threads.

As a quick update and expression of gratitude, I wanted to post on the topic of the hearing that happened last night. I felt that the overall opportunity for the involved students to have a chance to meet and speak was a good one, and save for a few incidences of partisan theatrics and at least one attempt to make a "case for the prosecution" against one of the present individuals, the cordial tone and candor were tremendous.

The AS did a tremendous job in maintaining the dignity of the proceedings, and the statements made by Vice Presidents Ishmael and Jarrell demonstrated not only a great sense of concern, but also a much-needed sense of brevity to the role of their administration in the conflict. The fact that they also acknowledged that the act of scheduling the hearing was likely NOT enough to declare the situation as being neatly concluded was something that needed to be addressed,

I went in expecting a Chatauqua tent, and instead witnessed an assembly of generally well-articulated perspectives that didn't require hysterics and hijinks in order to drive their points home. I still have the sense that there are several very key issues that have yet to be addressed in preserving the AS' position and sovereignity on the situation, but also feel that a much-needed note of empathy was struck by the involved parties having the opportunity to present their feelings in an open dialogue.

Sup, y’all. It’s the Moanies.

The AS just put out their official statement (concerning this censorship-no-it’s-not-censorship misadventure.) Read it at:

http://www.as.wwu.edu/media/as-board-meeting-documents/roaming_moanies2.pdf.

In turn, here’s a link to ours:

www.theroamingmoanies.com

Thanks much,
John and Nathan.

As someone who is not very familiar with the Roaming Moanies or the AS I found this whole issue very unsettling and most certainly an issue of censorship. It wasn't fair what happened to this local band and I feel like they were targeted unfairly especially considering the content of Method Man and Redman songs. As a musician it upsets me to see less established artists being forced to uphold to higher standards than more established ones.

The first duty of every AS officer is to the truth - whether it be historical truth, or scientific truth, or personal truth.  It is the guiding principle on which the AS is based.  If you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth, you don't deserve to be an AS officer.

</Star Trek>

As long as one side considers "smokin' weed" what the other side considers "committing a felony", you aren't going to get much farther.  This is a LARGE issue our society has, that being how much lawbreaking do we tolerate by whom?  It's pretty plain to any reasonable observer that we are a nation of criminals as much as we are a nation of law-abiding citizens - it's just that everybody has a different notion of which laws are stupid and wrong, and which ones ought to be compulsory.  And, of course, no one agrees as to who is an appropriate mouthpiece for whatever view is supposed to represent the "mainstream".

If we upheld the AS's standard uniformly, there would be, for all practical purposes, no hip-hop.  Not a whole lot of reggae, either.  If you applied the same standard to depicting violence, sex with minors, and general illegal misbehavior, there goes rock, and blues, and much metal.  And then there's all that folk music depicting ugly behavior of all kinds.  You can sing Tom Dooley, because they shame him all through the song, but no Ballad of Hollis Brown - that's a murder-suicide, and we can't be encouraging THAT.

But historically, if you look at the AS, they don't, in a fundamental way, represent students so much as they teach students how representative governmnent works in the USA.  That is, there is an entire parliamentary system, but the important issues are framed and presented by an unelected elite, and the elections, and the entire system of governance, are restricted to this frame.  In addition, the organization is historically more conservative - and in particular more corporate and legalistic, rather than socially conservative - than the student body by a fair degree.  And I would suspect that many of the AS's permanent employees would regard this as the AS's legitimate role - to guide student government into the channels that government workers in the real world will be expected to operate in.  The only thing missing is lobbyists with large amounts of cash to disperse, and I can only hope that the AS is working on that one wholeheartedly.

I’d come to the conclusion about a week ago that I was going to let the rest of this entire issue slide into the hands of those who had originally set it in motion, but your post got me thinking. It splintered right in there, to the degree that I had to let it roll over and over through my thoughts, until I came to this conclusion:

You’re absolutely right. As I sit here and I consider the dozens of hours taken from my graduate school and job duties to write letters, make phone calls, rally support and raise awareness for the sake of this debate at its outset. I prepared statements, responded to posts, all for the sake of preserving what I had idealized as being the dignity of the Associated Students organization, which employs a number of my friends and who I sincerely believed—or wanted badly to believe--was a noble institution which endeavored to do the right thing for the student body of Western.

But you’re right. A month later, as the entire situation sloughs off into a state of general malaise, and as the AS releases toothless, confusing statements while maintaining their blasé’ hope that they’ll never hear another word about it following the break, it’s genuinely liberating to say this: you’re more right than anybody, regardless of their investment in the situation, would care to admit.

Because ultimately, you’ve hit it on the head, squarely: the AS has proven that their interest is political, above all other concerns. Not the politics of compromise, or the politics of discourse, or the politics of individual choice, but the same brand of self-aggrandizing, myopic, survivalist ignorance which is commonplace in Washington. This is a politics of the people and the people who happen to know the people; not of the People, in any remotely identifiable form. Insular and rotten and unrealistic, which is everything a successful administration—be it Congressional, Senatorial, or Presidential—generally is.

When this whole thing commenced, I kept up on the correspondences as they were levied to the Provost’s office, as well as the University President’s. I marveled at the fact that every member of Western’s administration who claimed affiliation as an advisor to the AS summarily backed off, refusing to become involved with that dirtiest of all C-words: the one the AS still claims, with bleeding tonsils, that they never invoked.

No, not “content”. Or “controversy”. They did use those, and liberally.

“Censorship.”

I read this as being a feint on the part of faculty who didn’t want to be affiliated with a potentially sticky issue which could polarize the campus body and be blown out of proportion.

But no. In all honesty, they recognized this debacle for exactly what it was, and exactly what you so magnificently identify here: amateur dinner-theater government which only has the power to protect and ordain its own. The AS has as much bearing on the pulse and interests of the Western campus as a Student UN in Ketchakee can speak for the population of Zaire; the faculty advisors who refused to become remotely involved in the checks, balances and procedures of the organization which they claim to have a vested interest with are truly about as involved as parents watching their kids sling watery lemonade and mud pies out on the front lawn. They encourage the illusion of commerce and progress: they have no desire to get their hands dirty.

Which is really a shame--as this becomes less and less about my vehement agreement with your brilliant points and more and more about the statement which I believe I am entitled to after all I did in my backwards defense of the AS--as the steadying hand of even one legitimate adult may have been able to change the course of what has since degenerated into a sloppy debacle, simply by preaching temperance and accountability.

We could have avoided the latest embarrassment broadcast by President Erik Lowe to a shopping-list of faculty and students, wherein—after sitting in numb, glassy-eyed silence for four weeks while relegating his cast of supporting officers to the role of damage control specialists, a task which the majority have proven to be woefully unequipped for—he sees fit to levy the term “unprofessional” at former Fairhaven College Dean Daniel Larner, following a statement issued by Larner regarding the AS’ general lack of competency in suturing up the issue to any sort of conclusion. That a 22-year-old whose office is generally defined by a nameplate and access to a gavel felt he could administer condemnations to a man who received a Lifetime Humanitarian Award for his career in civil rights, and who has enjoyed a chair in the ACLU’s Pacific Northwest Chapter for decades hedges past the side of bad taste and lacking common sense, and becomes bad comedy. It also demands credulity that no one once took Lowe aside to point out what a truly BAD idea it would be to try and mudsling against any member of Western’s faculty, let alone a lifetime pillar of the campus community and member of the board of trustees.

A crucial facet of the politics of self-service: ducking and covering in the face of crisis until it’s too late, and then making rashdecisions as a form of reparations. Check.

We could have avoided the curiously unaddressed issue of Helen Jones, the appointed AS Co-Coordinator of the Civil Controversies office, who saw fit to respond to an issue in which the key components were usage of “hate speech” and “misogynist content” by writing a letter to Mr. Allis and Mr. Oglesby from her MySpace account, wherein she called them both “bitches” and likened the AS’ decision to take them off of the Method Man/Redman show to an act of victorious sodomy. Watching Ms. Jones deliver her bizarre, giggling condemnation of the Roaming Moanies’ lyrics at the AS hearing while knowing that half of the attendees and at least as many members of Bruce Shepard and the Western Provost’s Offices were aware of her absurdly hypocritical outburst via a memo issued days prior was one of the most excruciatingly sad chapters of this entire debacle; knowing that neither Erik Lowe nor any member of the AS’ faculty advisors could muster up enough courage or interest to reprimand the message or its issuer is to simply accept where the organization’s loyalties and dedication to the integrity of its image truly lie.

Another crucial facet of the politics of self-service: protect your own, and ignore outright whatever is impossible to denounce. Check.

In a similar vein, we could have been spared the ignoble and ridiculous wholesale crucifixion of Hunter Motto as part of the AS’ smear campaign against his alleged role in the booking. However, doing so would have denied the proceedings what may be the only moment of genuine, honest brevity: Hunter’s point-blank interrogation of Erik Lowe in regards to Lowe’s completely unconscionable reactions to the harassments, insults and accusations that Motto had suffered at the hands of his fellow AS officers. In a room brimming with self-righteous comedy, cheap theatrics and hysterics and the parliamentary procedure of a judicial event sponsored by the Teatro Zinzanni, Motto left his critics and supposed superiors looking even more embarrassed than they’d already managed by simply willing to be honest about how badly he’d been hurt by the circumstances. If nothing else, the AS should count its blessings in this regard; I’ve known Hunter Motto for a few months in passing and as a classmate, and the fact that he’s too gentle an individual to ever entertain taking the appropriate action against his organization for their workplace harassment is a virtue. Had anybody with a less objective temperament been wearing even one of his shoes and forced to sit silent while enduring the baseless slurs and offensive slanders levied against him by his supposed “AS fellows” at the outset of this debacle, the safe money says that they would have been on the phone with a lawyer and well into the process of a harassment lawsuit against Western at this point. Hunter demonstrates a different brand of levity and class among the classless and pointless, and is one of the few individuals who can claim to have emerged from this pig-pen of misguided brio and posturing with his character and dignity intact.

Another crucial facet of the politics of self-service: mistake kindness for weakness, and attempt to exploit it, even if you risk the destruction of loyal individuals in the process.

And we certainly could have spared the dignity of the few AS officers whose concern regarding the potential damage that the mutterings of censorship—founded or not—was indeed genuine, and who now find themselves in that most unenviable of positions: realizing that the greater good is, more often than not, simply ignored in favor of keeping the machinery of daily office life puttering along. We could have saved the valuable time of individuals such as myself and Katherine Garvey, who never had a personal stake in the semantics aside from the blind, faithless hope that some matter of brevity and closure would be maintained; even now, as I sit here taking a break from the grueling chore of studying for the LSATS and investigating the commerce practices of Geoffrey Chaucer, my heart is more soaked in irritation at feeling compelled to offer this denouement than in any specific dedication to the outcome… or lack thereof.

Because you’re right. Nobody cares. This is just a message board. The students are just students. The Moanies are anything the moment calls for--a joke, a satire, the root of all evil, martyrs to the cause of free speech, banner-wavers for “rape culture”, or whatever else an individual needs them to be to further their own agenda. In the end, wise politics dictate that even the most appalling actions by the most ignorant individuals will eventually be forgotten: if we can pardon Nixon and impeach Clinton, and forgive all trespasses when hindsight is a virtue, then the digressions and selfish indignities of a few individuals means absolutely nothing to the greater scheme of life, liberty or the pursuit of a degree at Western Washington University. It’s a bullet-point on a resume for half these folks, and that they even had to engage in something as tenuous as the definition of censorship is an anomaly when compared to the usual order of business, such as negotiating a parliamentary vote to denounce hate crimes at WSU… as opposed to the effort it might take for these concerned parties to actually engage in any worthwhile action, such as holding a bake sale to raise funds for the victim’s medical bills or an ambassadorial trip to the campus from Western to hand-deliver our statement of support, say.

But again. That would take effort beyond hot air and ceremonial positions, and you’re right. It doesn’t suit the general concerns of the government, nor our expectations of the government, as citizens. We expect procedures brimming with hot air and ideologies levied out on paper, not action that requires excellence or sacrifice. And as their actions and integrity bear out, the AS embodies this philosophy of underachievement to a remarkable degree.

For myself, I believe I’ll end on this note, which is—surprisingly—a positive one. I’ve speculated frequently on what a career in law means, and whether or not I have the grit and presence of mind to fulfill my legal goals in civil rights and liberties cases as of late; it sometimes seems like too daunting a task for any individual, especially one who suffers from a malignant case of base optimism, to undertake. But as I sit here and write this, all things in contemplation, I am filled with a kind of lightness: it’s the knowledge and righteous fear that someone with the limited, self-serving foresight and lack of propriety of a Helen Jones may someday aspire to abuse the privileges of an office of actual political consequence, or that an Erik Lowe may snooze along peacefully at the switch while a moral crisis churns along on his watch--in a setting with stakes that may actually mean something to an employee, citizen or their families--that compels me to believe that my aspirations have merit, and should be pursued to their fullest. It throws into a sharp and cool reflection the concept of voice, and privilege, and the need to maintain vigilance against those whose version of public service is relegated to the safe, the narrow, the divisive and the selfish.

Because you’re right. These folks are our future, and they will leave their stations and this entire situation believing that this is the operating system for the real world: that accountability is never as crucial an aspect as cronyism, and that jabbering rhetoric is a sure-fire substitution to any calls for legitimate responsibility.

And hey, it just might be. For fear of generalizing.

Though that also may be the finest and most crucial facet of the politics of self-service: stirring the passions of the opposition through inactivity, missed opportunities, and abuses of power, and ensuring that those willing to stand up against the notion of “authority”—whether at the bush-league level of our own student administration or the highest seats of power on the global map—are never left entirely unchecked.

And with that, I excuse myself from the proceedings. Have a fine break, everyone, and thank you for taking the time to read.

EDIT: As several of you reading this have done, I can be reached through my Facebook account or at my Western e-mail for further discussions on the subject, all of which are wholeheartedly encouraged. I'll be relegating my speech-writing practices to that venue in the future, and leaving this thread to those who would prefer to maintain the debate in a public vein.

Again, my thanks.

To all who are interested or invested in this issue:

There’s to be a panel discussion between some AS Board members and officers, Professor Daniel Larner, and us, the Moanies, this Wednesday the 10th at 5:30 in VU552. All are welcome. With any luck, this will serve as a long-overdue opportunity for all parties to express themselves directly, and for the matter to be brought to a conclusion in time with the end of the quarter here.

Thanks,
The Moanies.