O Where, O Where Have My Protestors Gone?

Campus Life, CRDaily

On Thursday, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson hosted the School of Media and Journalism’s annual Roy H. Park Distinguished Lecture speaker. The Triad Foundation has invited a distinguished media professional to deliver a free speech for UNC students since 1999. The event’s announcement on Twitter in February prompted an immediate backlash and numerous articles in The Daily Tarheel. Many online slander conservatives like Carlson as fascists or neo-Nazis. The ubiquity of responses like these prepared me for the speech to be protested. I expected to write a piece about the ridiculousness of the protestors. When they didn’t show, I sort of missed them.

There was no disruption of the speech in the theater or outside of it. This absence might be due to North Carolina’s recent free speech bill which prevents student protests which “materially and substantially disrupt the functioning of the constituent institution.” The master of ceremonies informed the audience ahead of time that, in accordance with NC law, anyone who disrupts the presentation would be subject to disciplinary action by the school and possibly arrested. As a result, those in attendance really fell into two categories: older community members and younger conservative students. The atmosphere was convivial, and Tucker worked the crowd expertly. Topics included journalistic skepticism, Trump, sexual harassment, and immigration.  The overall experience, though, felt self-affirming. It makes me nervous when a big group of people get together to agree with each other. As a skeptic and an individualist, the lack of vocal opposition was unsettling. Perhaps it indicates a new willingness to consider conservative opinions. More likely is the possibility that the recent crackdown on student protest discouraged attendance among left-leaning students. It is vital that we listen to people we disagree with, so I would have actually been comforted by the presence of dissenters in the crowd.

Tucker touched on this divide when speaking about the last election. He asked why anyone would vote for Trump in the first place. He referenced the president as a “giant orange middle finger” and asked toward whom the finger was directed and why we should care. Neglect of the middle class, diversity ideology, and poor leadership all helped form the country that elected Trump in November. But raising those points are now unfortunately outside what is in policy circles called the “window of discourse.” Thus, some students find it necessary to materially impede speech they deem inappropriate for civil dialogue. If support for and identification with the Trump movement weren’t so abnormal, perhaps they wouldn’t need to protest. Furthermore, maybe we wouldn’t need the measures recently enacted by the Board of Governors.

The “window of discourse” is a concept first theorized by policy expert Joseph C. Overton. It describes the range of socially acceptable ideas on any given public issue. A politician who endorses a view outside of the window would be branded as radical. Overton’s theory applies to everyone from celebrities to college students. No one could argue that there hasn’t been a reactionary movement in response to political developments enacted by Trump. Political polarization on college campuses has significantly shifted the level of discourse to exclude those with more traditionally conservative opinions. Before 2008, no Democratic candidate endorsed gay marriage, free college, or single payer healthcare. Today, those policies are considered mainstream. Likewise, opposing gay marriage, for example, is an opinion deemed unthinkable to many college students. The recent adoption of left-wing fringe policies into the mainstream has inevitably cleaved traditional conservative ideas into the category of the absurd.

Conservative commentators like Carlson now face the dilemma of falling outside the window of discourse. Traditionally conservative opinions are dubbed fascist or white supremacist.

This phenomenon is extremely dangerous for the future of the country. College students who are ostracized for opposing gay marriage or open borders are now put into the same category as genuine neo-Nazis and white supremacists.  These people who are voted off the island of ordinary conversation are left with two options; they either must become a powerless minority, or find common cause with actual radicals. Many who have been identified with the “Alt-right” since 2017 have chosen the latter. It is evident that this upsurge is only a preview of the future to come if we wish to censor those who hold beliefs deemed beyond the pale in a given moment, despite the reasoned and philosophical lineage of those ideas.

Life in a world constituted by conflict entails two means of dealing with others: negotiation or violence. Negotiation is dialogue meant to generate consonance between different desires or abstract models of the world around us. If two people want a banana, they can either fight over it or negotiate cutting it in half. If I’m for gay marriage and you’re against it, we can either fight over it or arrange some sort of compromise.

We don’t even have to fundamentally agree on the issue to reach a peaceful settlement. Catholics and Protestants don’t agree about the question of transubstantiation, but they aren’t (any longer) killing each other over it. There isn’t any sort of resolution on this issue, but competing parties have negotiated a settlement agreeable to both.

Branding those outside the window of discourse Nazis or white supremacists disincentivizes them from negotiating a settlement. If we can’t settle our differences, then the only way to act out our separate models of the world is through violence. This is not a functional model for society.

So, whether you’re a die-hard socialist, a center-left Obama/Clinton voter, intersectional feminist scholar, or all of the above, I implore you to attend the next conservative speech on campus. By all means, question what you hear. But come and hear it even if you don’t agree.


Never Forget:”We Will Not Waver, We Will Not Falter, and We Will Not Fail”

Campus Life, CRDaily, Politics, Students, UNC


By: Staff Writer Will Rierson

“Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our tallest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundations of America. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter, and we will not fail. Peace and Freedom will prevail,” – President George W. Bush

Members of the UNC College Republicans rose early Sunday morning to plant 2,977 American flags in the Bell Tower lawn, honoring the victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

The students put out the miniature flags on the fifteenth anniversary of the attacks, during the exact time that two hijacked planes were flown into the Twin Towers in New York City that fateful day.

Hayden Vick, chairman of the College Republicans chapter, reflected on the morning.
“This is one the most important things we do every year,” Vick said. “It means a lot more than rallying behind a politician or bringing in a speaker. As we get further along in generations who don’t remember where they were or what happened that day, it becomes more and more important that we do it.”

The flag display was one of many across the country made possible by the 9/11 Never Forget Project, a program of the Young America’s Foundation that sends flags and promotional materials to Young Americans for Freedom and College Republicans chapters.
Chancellor Carol Folt, who had attended a ceremony at the school’s 9/11 UNC alumni memorial garden nearby, stopped at the Bell Tower to speak with the students and thank them for their work.

Six UNC alumni died on 9/11: Karleton Douglas Beye Fyfe ‘92, Mary Lou Hague ‘96, Andrew Marshall King ‘83, Ryan Ashley Kohart ‘98, Dora Menchaca ‘78, and Christopher Quackenbush ‘79.

The flags will be displayed on the Bell Tower lawn until Monday evening. They are visible to students walking to class along sidewalks near the corner of South Road and Stadium Drive, representative of the tragedies this country has faced, but also a reminder that peace and freedom prevails in the USA.

The Sexual Campus Hypocrisy – Sex Workshops and the Rape Culture

Campus Life, CRDaily, Students, UNC

The University of Minnesota puts on a “Golden Condom Scavenger Hunt;” Vanderbilt offers sex-ed classes designed to make you a more dynamic lover; Harvard hosts sex-week and anal sex workshops; The University of New Mexico boasts threesome workshops with extensive how-to’s; we’ve also seen the appearance of porn-funded scholarships, and now even the University of Utah is distributing free birth control pills and vasectomies. It is indisputable that America’s universities have become overtly sexualized environments. Some people would take issue with the programs and events mentioned above, but then again, many people would not. Especially on campus, many would consider them completely normal, harmless, even fascinating and exhilarating.  Perhaps some would even point to them as manifestations of the irrepressible force of “progress.”

Regardless of what one thinks of the sexualization of the university campus however, it is impossible to deny that this movement has a powerful effect on the campus culture – overt sexuality becomes normalized. More importantly, however, it affects how men view women. When men are constantly receiving messages about how trivial, commonplace, and acceptable unrestrained sexual activity is, when sex is depicted as nothing more than carnal pleasure to be maximized through bondage, anal sex, and threesomes, it has a real, tangible influence on men’s mentalities.  This discourse completely severs the intangibles from the physical sexual act – selfless love, affection, and emotional intimacy are no longer part of the equation. Sex becomes purely about the physical, carnal act of pleasure. These messages inadvertently train men to believe that female bodies are merely the source of this sublime carnal pleasure. In essence, women are depicted as objects of sexual pleasure for men. What this also serves to do is to blur the lines between “sex” and “love” to such a degree that people begin to view the two as synonymous. What immediately comes to mind, of course, is the release of Fifty Shades of Grey on Valentine’s Day. This is tragic because of how it confuses young people and conflates love with sex. Like the campus sex workshops, this sends a terribly destructive and misleading message.

At the same time, the notion of a “campus rape culture” has never been more prominent, spurring a host of anti-sexual assault campus movements and official policies that seek to publicly condemn and combat it. All across the country – nowhere more recent or prominent than the President himself in a public address during the Grammys – people are launching campaigns that malign men for objectifying women’s bodies; the “it’s on us” movement has gained a number of prominent spokesmen. But isn’t that precisely what these sex workshops are all about? Promoting sexual adventurism and completely dismissing the idea that sex belongs in a loving, committed relationship, isn’t objectifying bodies in an overtly and exclusively sexual manner exactly what they do?

This begs the question – how do these sex-events relate to sexual violence? How does encouraging men to view women as mere bodies that have the potential to provide them with sexual pleasure influence men’s willingness or likelihood to commit sexual assault? I would argue that just as it is psychologically easier to kill another human being who has been dehumanized (figuratively robbed of his human qualities – think of any example of genocide in history and its accompanying propaganda campaign), it is much easier to commit sexual assault against a woman whose primary attribute has become, in the eyes of her attacker, her sexual potential. One recent study claims that male college students have a “distorted understanding of rape;” in the survey, a frighteningly substantial minority believed that  “forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse” and ”raping a woman” were two different things. With the mixed messages these young, endlessly impressionable, and still developing brains are simultaneously receiving from these sexualization and anti-sexual assault campaigns, should that come as a surprise?

What is most ironic – and hypocritical – about this all is that those people who are advocating these sex workshops and pretending like sex is a trivial matter – generally sexually liberal progressives – are often the same people who are most vocal about maligning men and the oft-cited culture of rape on university campuses. Do people not recognize the fundamental conflict in what they are doing here? When we trivialize the seriousness of sex by hosting anal, threesome, and sexual creativity events in a glamorizing fashion, we are sending the message that sex is impersonal and that we can freely detach the human elements from the bodies from which we are gaining our sexual pleasure. It is precisely this sort of mentality that contributes to men’s perception of women as mere sexual objects, which in turn is fundamental to the “rape culture” and, ultimately, the crime of sexual assault. If we are genuinely committed to combating sexual assault and the perception of women as sexual objects, we should consider the inadvertent yet powerful and subtle effect these events have on people’s mentalities, psychologies, and perceptions of other human beings.

Why Liberals Should Validate Conservatives

Campus Life, Conservative, CRDaily, Politics, Student Government, Students, UNC

Recent events at this campus have demonstrated what ought to be a particularly disturbing reality to many liberals here.

Conservative groups, including the Carolina Review and College Republicans among others, alleged that a meeting with Chancellor Folt and other university leaders to discuss diversity excluded them from the conversation. Campus liberals denied that this exclusion was predicated on the basis of these groups’ conservatism. Last week, liberal students organized a website critiquing some of the Student Body President candidates on the basis of their prior voting records. Conservatives responded by pointing out such actions as evidence of widespread liberal oppression of conservatives on our campus.

Now, pretend for a moment that all these allegations made by conservative groups are false. Nevertheless, the reactions of conservative groups to these actions on the part of campus liberals ought to remain problematic for campus liberals. The undeniable fact is that conservative students on this campus feel systematically oppressed. Conservatives do not feel comfortable voicing their political beliefs in classrooms. Conservatives feel that our university’s administration does not equally value their voice. Conservatives feel that many campus liberal groups aggressively criticize and critique conservative values, even on matters such as private voting records.

Of course, the feelings of conservatives may not reflect reality. But, I ask you, if any other minority group – and conservatives, undeniably, are a minority on this campus – felt oppressed, would campus liberals deride that feeling? The clear answer is that they would not. Any derision of conservatives therefore stems from ideological antagonism. If liberals see any part of the Carolina community as feeling oppressed by a larger, institutionalized majority, I hope that they would react with outrage. Otherwise they risk running counter to their own principles.

It seems, however, that even such laudable actions as Chancellor Folt meeting with conservative student leaders is a step too far for some liberal members of our community, simply because it validates the allegations of conservative students.

When should it ever be acceptable to invalidate the experiences and emotions of campus conservatives? The correct answer, indeed, the liberal answer, is never.


David Ortiz

The Hypocrisy of People on this Campus

Campus Life, Conservative, CRDaily, Elections, North Carolina Politics, Politics, Student Government, Students, UNC

Honestly, what is it about some people that make them so bent on destroying another person’s moral fabric simply because of the person they voted for. In an absolutely appalling article titled “The Hypocrisy of Summers and Walker” Ishmael Bishop completely demonizes Kathryn Walker and Houston Summers because they voted for Thom Tillis in the last election.

Here’s the link, by the way: http://sbpmatters.com/2015/02/03/the-hypocrisy-of-summers-and-walker-2/

How, can YOU call yourself a Tar Heel for blatantly questioning the ideals of someone you do not know? Do you know who they are? Do you know what they’ve been through? Do you know anything about them other than the vote they cast? I don’t know about you or anyone else at this school, but I think that is a HUGE rush to judgment and an unfair and hypocritical one at that. Do you know WHY they chose to vote for Tillis? MAYBE it had nothing to do with his social views, but of course that wasn’t taken into consideration in the least bit.

As the Editor of the Carolina Review Daily, I will once again speak to the fact that I am MINORITY, FEMALE in a position of authority for a conservative/libertarian magazine. A minority, CONSERVATIVE female who voted for Tillis, BUT believes in women’s rights and FIGHTS for those rights everyday, by breaking through stereotypes like you, my friend, have. A minority, CONSERVATIVE female who is pro-choice, and surprisingly doesn’t have religious beliefs. You could make me out to be a monstrosity; you can poke fun at me or the many other people who identify as I do. OR, you could do the intelligent thing, the thing that ALL of us came to Carolina to do and that is to get to know one another; to step back from the stereotypes and the name-calling; to LEARN and understand and have an INTELLECTUAL debate with people who have different views from us.

Maybe, just maybe, before you cast your judgmental, ill-informed, horrific, appalling, opinions on the rest of the student population YOU should learn what it is to be a TAR HEEL and that is to ACCEPT everyone, regardless of their color, gender identity, ethnicity, AND their beliefs!

I’m not saying this because the paper I write for is endorsing Kathryn Walker, before someone starts to say that because: you have no idea who I’m actually going to vote for. I’m writing this because this is a pure injustice to have someone talking about another person in this way. We are ALL Tar Heels people! ACT LIKE ONE before you tarnish the name of this wonderful University for good!

Lea Palmer

Interview with Tyler Jacon, Candidate for Student Body President

Campus Life, Student Government, Students

It is that time of the year again. Students with clipboards line the Pit, chants to vote fill the brisk Chapel Hill air and Facebook profile photos are changing at a ridiculous high rate. This can only mean one thing: it is election season here at UNC-Chapel Hill, and no race has more excitement surrounding it than the race for Student Body President!

This year, four students have thrown their hat into the ring to see who will become the next voice for the student body! As tradition, we have reached out to all of the candidates for an one-on-one interview to discuss their platform and plans upon being elected.

Our first interview is with Tyler Jacon, a junior Peace, War and Defense (PWAD)/Political Science double major from Weaverville, N.C. Before running, Jacon served as the chairman of the Student Safety and Security Committee, a position he resigned from upon deciding to run for Student Body President.

Alex Thomas: What is your motivation for running for Student Body President?

Tyler Jacon: The past couple of years, UNC has gone through a weird transitional period. I think we are kind of at a crossroads in determining our legacy as a public institution, and I think that there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

AT: What do you think is the biggest issue facing UNC-Chapel Hill currently?

TJ: The biggest issue facing UNC currently is the same issue college campus across the country are facing, and that’s the issue of sexual assault. It has not been managed properly at any institution.

You see cases like UVA which was a situation where the response did way more harm than good. Despite the rare cases where somebody does make up a false accusation, situations like this makes it harder for people who have actually been assaulted to come forward. The current rules and laws regarding sexual assault are some of the most poorly written, confusing and contradicting laws regarding human behavior.

AT: How do you plan on getting students more involved in student affairs?

TJ: We’re going to rely on focus groups and on polling. Polling is beneficial to giving us a gauge on how people feel, but focus groups are really valuable in determining the merits of policies as well as meeting the needs for specific groups of students. We’re going to rely on focus groups for a lot of things.

AT: Will a lot of that be done online or face-to-face?

TJ: Face-to-face. Online is great for e-mail and quick stuff, but politics happens face-to-face.

AT: What distinguishes you from your fellow candidates?

TJ: I believe that I have policies that are a lot more appealing and targeted to every UNC student which are inclusive. I don’t have any, in my opinion, exclusive policies. We are all gaining, even under those that may appear aimed towards a specific group over another. Everyone will receive benefits from the policies I support.

Although all of the candidates are somewhat similar, I think my policies accommodate a greater amount of people on greater viewpoints. For example, with affirmative action, I don’t look at it as a race issue, but rather a socioeconomic issue. I am the only candidate who even has the words affirmative action in my platform.

AT: What other activities have you done on campus?

TJ: I have been very involved with Student Government, yet I do take my academics very seriously. I’m a PWAD/Political Science double major with a history minor. I take my education very seriously, and I put a lot of time into that.

AT: Previously, you served as chairman of the Student Safety and Security Committee. What did you learn while in that position that can help you better serve the Carolina community?

TJ: I learned that it’s very hard to make big impact projects happen in Student Government. There are a lot of roadblocks, a lot of institutional weaknesses that don’t allow us to take on big things and none of the problems we are facing are small problems. If we are going to do anything about these big problems, we got to fix institutions in Student Government so we can tackle these problems.

AT: Do you feel Chancellor Folt understands the issues facing the student body and the university currently?

TJ:  I think Chancellor Folt does. I also think Chancellor Folt, as chancellor of this university and as a person appointed by the Board of Trustees, her interests match up with the Board of Trustees more often than they do with those of the student body. Therefore, it’s important to increase other influences on campus. Namely, increasing faculty involvement in the decision-making process, increasing student involvement and increasing the involvement of staff and non-tenured faculty.

These people all have different interests. It’s all about balancing the equation out and balancing different interests. Right now, I think some people have more sway than others. We need to provide more of a voice to these groups, especially faculty, so they can have a lot of say in determining the course of our academic legacy.

Going back to faculty, I think our faculty has been weakened, and as a result we have lost a great amount of professors.

AT: In a hypothetical situation in which you lose this election, what do you plan on doing to serve Carolina?

TJ: I don’t know. I think I have reached the crux of my time in Student Government. If I am not Student Body President, I would definitely like to remain involved in something. I would like to serve in an advisory role and help whoever is elected by offering my thoughts.

I am also considering graduating early in the fall to get a jump on some career opportunities, but regardless of if I graduate or not, I do not plan on taking a large leadership role. I think whoever wins needs to do whatever they need to do without having the distractions of feeling the people who didn’t win need to be involved.

AT: Who is your favorite American president and why?

TJ: Well, it’s a tie between John F. Kennedy and Teddy Roosevelt. JFK is just the man. He did what he believed in. “Profiles in Courage” is my favorite book ever written, and I think, as president, he understood what political courage was more than any 20th century American president.

On Teddy Roosevelt, I like someone who is willing to stand-up for their own interests and against their own party to do what’s right. That statement alone describes Roosevelt’s legacy as president pretty well.