The Met Online

Let’s get this straight. After Woodson spoke on Sept. 30 at a press conference in opposition to the views of Republican pundit David Horowitz, the Auraria College Republicans have demanded that Woodson resign her office. That much is clear. What’s murky is why they’re doing it and why anyone is listening to them.

Much of the College Republicans’ slightly hysterical claims seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the role of elected officials. In a recent article in this paper, George Culpepper, a member of the College Republicans and the foremost student calling for Woodson’s resignation, was quoted as saying that Woodson violated her office through “misconduct, abuse of title, and not representing the opinion of the entire student body.”
As for the first, I’m not sure what misconduct Culpepper is talking about. Is he saying Woodson was wrong to speak on an issue directly affecting students?

Perhaps he’s referring to her now-infamous question, “Why are we even allowing this message to be sent out on our campus?” (Or something to that effect.)

Reflecting on it now, I suspect that Woodson meant this as a rhetorical question. The answer: Horowitz is speaking on campus because we support a diversity of opinion here at Metro. Even if she meant it in a negative sense, expressing an objectionable opinion still would not constitute misconduct.

There are, of course, limits on how objectionable one’s opinions can be. Hateful or deceptive speech is usually considered unacceptable; but neither is the case here.

Culpepper’s second complaint, then, is abuse of title, a slightly more slippery fish. Woodson was referred to in press releases and in flyers for the event as student body president. She was also introduced as president at the press conference.

Culpepper and the College Republicans claim that this constitutes abuse of title, especially since the Student Government Assembly specifically voted not to take a stand on the issue of Horowitz and his Academic Bill of Rights.

Woodson has responded by pointing out that she did say during her speech that she was not speaking as president but as a concerned student.

I think Woodson is making a real error here in her response. By defending herself in this way, she is conceding that speaking as president at the press conference would be an abuse of title. She ought to instead be defending her right as president to act and speak as an advocate on behalf of her constituency — we the students.

Since when does an elected official have to censor herself when a legislative body says so? The SGA can vote to the end of time, but it will never (or at least, should never) possess the power to limit the speech of one of its officers. It cannot tell the student body president when and when not to express her opinion.

This ties into Culpepper’s third complaint, that Woodson did not represent the opinion of the entire student body. This is particularly ridiculous. As the student body’s elected representative, the president, by definition, represents their opinions. Obviously this doesn’t mean that every single student at Metro has to agree with her every word.

George Bush does not take a poll every time he opens his mouth. Nor does he take a vote in Congress. Even if Congress voted of its own accord to tell him be quiet, the Supreme Court would uphold his right to express his views as the president.

Culpepper has vowed to take his crusade to the student courts as the next step in removing Woodson from office. We now look to that court to uphold her right to free speech.

Still, even if the student court makes the right judgment and dismisses these frivolous accusations, there is something bothersome about the whole debacle.

Even if it amounts to nothing, the College Republicans will have made a lot of trouble for Woodson on the basis of some flimsy accusations. What then is to prevent them — or any other group — from repeating this sort of mean-spirited attack?

And it is mean-spirited. It is not about a single issue, as Culpepper made clear in comments to the UCD Advocate that he “has further complaints with respect to missed office hours and incompetence.” He goes on to say, “We will put together a comprehensive package.”

Or in other words, “We will try to dig up a bunch of dirt on Felicia Woodson and see if it amounts to enough to kick her out of office.” And this is not a partisan attack?

What the College Republicans are counting on is that there will be no consequences for their actions. They’re probably right, but if the student court has some good sense, it will issue a warning to them not to repeat this kind of scheming; and a formal censure would not be going too far.

As a last thought, it’s perhaps not coincidental that what began as an attempt to limit speech on campus — David Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights — has already given rise to attacks in the same vein.

Return to Index

The Met Online is a student-produced online version of the weekly student-produced The Metropolitan newspaper, both operating under the direction of the Metropolitan State College of Denver Office of Student Publications.