On CSBT: Point left
By: Jonathan Cote
Issue date: 1/29/10 Section: Opinions
In the words of The Game, "hate it or love it, the underdog's on top."
Furman's collective anger towards Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow acknowledges what that group has failed to realize - they are now on top.
And you either hate them or love them for it. Let's face it, CSBT is no longer on the margin, but is the best student-run organization on Furman's campus. They host more events, have a more active membership and contribute more to campus life than most organizations could dream of doing (When was the last time your organization had 15 CLPs with over 100 attendees in a year?). CSBT has managed to get Furman's campus to occasionally have lively political discussions. They have yanked hold of Furman's ear with tactics like a professor blacklist, protests, petitions and controversial speakers, of whom Mrs. Phyllis "Spousal Rape Isn't Grounds For Divorce" Schlafly is just the latest example.
Tactics like these are designed to marginalize. They grab attention, incite anger and stir the pot. But they do not aid CSBT's stated goal of "contributing to a vibrant discussion of ideas." Now I will grant that CSBT was in no position to achieve this goal during my freshman year, when my FRAD, Christopher Mills, and my friend Barrett Bowdre were beginning CSBT. They were considered a small band of radical, unreasonable rabble-rousers. They could not get their voice heard. Then they led a successful campaign against the Environmental Action Group's wind-credit proposal and garnered huge alumni support through a petition against the Kinsey Sicks. Membership, CLP attendance, media hype and even alumni donations soared higher than even that terrifying eagle that adorns their banners and ads. Suddenly, CSBT was the conversation.
Mr. Bowdre will acknowledge that CSBT does not agree with the views of many of their speakers, such as Mrs. Schlafly. He sees these controversial figures essentially as necessary evils to keep CSBT and conservative ideas flowing through campus. That thinking is trapped in the days when CSBT was still a "nobody" organization. CSBT is now in the driver's seat, and campus political conversation will go whichever way they direct. The name CSBT alone is now enough to draw a crowd, so why waste that crowd on wackos?
Furman's collective anger towards Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow acknowledges what that group has failed to realize - they are now on top.
And you either hate them or love them for it. Let's face it, CSBT is no longer on the margin, but is the best student-run organization on Furman's campus. They host more events, have a more active membership and contribute more to campus life than most organizations could dream of doing (When was the last time your organization had 15 CLPs with over 100 attendees in a year?). CSBT has managed to get Furman's campus to occasionally have lively political discussions. They have yanked hold of Furman's ear with tactics like a professor blacklist, protests, petitions and controversial speakers, of whom Mrs. Phyllis "Spousal Rape Isn't Grounds For Divorce" Schlafly is just the latest example.
Tactics like these are designed to marginalize. They grab attention, incite anger and stir the pot. But they do not aid CSBT's stated goal of "contributing to a vibrant discussion of ideas." Now I will grant that CSBT was in no position to achieve this goal during my freshman year, when my FRAD, Christopher Mills, and my friend Barrett Bowdre were beginning CSBT. They were considered a small band of radical, unreasonable rabble-rousers. They could not get their voice heard. Then they led a successful campaign against the Environmental Action Group's wind-credit proposal and garnered huge alumni support through a petition against the Kinsey Sicks. Membership, CLP attendance, media hype and even alumni donations soared higher than even that terrifying eagle that adorns their banners and ads. Suddenly, CSBT was the conversation.
Mr. Bowdre will acknowledge that CSBT does not agree with the views of many of their speakers, such as Mrs. Schlafly. He sees these controversial figures essentially as necessary evils to keep CSBT and conservative ideas flowing through campus. That thinking is trapped in the days when CSBT was still a "nobody" organization. CSBT is now in the driver's seat, and campus political conversation will go whichever way they direct. The name CSBT alone is now enough to draw a crowd, so why waste that crowd on wackos?