Spring Break
Michael Moore renounces canceled invitation
Editorial
Issue date: 10/11/04 Section: Commentary
Last week, the intervention of state legislators caused the cancellation of arrangements at George Mason University in Virginia for film director Michael Moore to speak on campus five days prior to the November presidential election.
Conservative voters in both the county and state governments urged university President Alan G. Merten to reconsider the plans, calling the $35,000 to be paid to Moore a "lavish payment...being spent poorly, and for partisan purposes."
A university spokesman said Moore was never notified of the cancellation prior to the announcement being made public. The matters were never discussed with Moore, nor were student groups given notice in order to provide the money. Furthermore, the option of allowing Moore to speak, even if he waived the fee, was never made a point for discussion.
Moore told The Washington Post "I'm going to show up in support of free speech and free expression," despite the loss of his payment and the university's wishes.
The apparent lack of communication between individuals and departments not only indicates a conspiracy against Moore, but in a greater sense represents attempts to quell free speech, which Moore spitefully opposes, even in the face of his loss of $35,000.
But for a myriad of reasons, the issue should never have become one to draw controversy. Although the reasons are clear why Republican state legislators oppose Moore's left-wing philosophy to reach the school days before the election, the school could have also invited a conservative voice to the school, thus opening a debate for the students to hear. When the funding for such an event falls short, student organizations should be called upon as outlets for assistance.
But on a more technical level, the issue should have been again averted. George Mason University, despite its nature as a public school, should have control over its funds without the corruption of outside influences, which even include the state. Once funding has been allocated for the school's use, the school should use that money as best it sees fit.
For example, when a university grants funding to a student organization, the organization then possesses the right to do what it pleases with the money, assuming the group abides by regulations, to invite, say, Moore to speak.
Therefore, Merten has abused his own university's sovereignty from the state of Virginia, allowing George Mason to become a pawn of the legislators' political views. Luckily, Moore has the courage to remain firm against the corrupted system and will exercise his right to free speech under the First Amendment, regardless.
Conservative voters in both the county and state governments urged university President Alan G. Merten to reconsider the plans, calling the $35,000 to be paid to Moore a "lavish payment...being spent poorly, and for partisan purposes."
A university spokesman said Moore was never notified of the cancellation prior to the announcement being made public. The matters were never discussed with Moore, nor were student groups given notice in order to provide the money. Furthermore, the option of allowing Moore to speak, even if he waived the fee, was never made a point for discussion.
Moore told The Washington Post "I'm going to show up in support of free speech and free expression," despite the loss of his payment and the university's wishes.
The apparent lack of communication between individuals and departments not only indicates a conspiracy against Moore, but in a greater sense represents attempts to quell free speech, which Moore spitefully opposes, even in the face of his loss of $35,000.
But for a myriad of reasons, the issue should never have become one to draw controversy. Although the reasons are clear why Republican state legislators oppose Moore's left-wing philosophy to reach the school days before the election, the school could have also invited a conservative voice to the school, thus opening a debate for the students to hear. When the funding for such an event falls short, student organizations should be called upon as outlets for assistance.
But on a more technical level, the issue should have been again averted. George Mason University, despite its nature as a public school, should have control over its funds without the corruption of outside influences, which even include the state. Once funding has been allocated for the school's use, the school should use that money as best it sees fit.
For example, when a university grants funding to a student organization, the organization then possesses the right to do what it pleases with the money, assuming the group abides by regulations, to invite, say, Moore to speak.
Therefore, Merten has abused his own university's sovereignty from the state of Virginia, allowing George Mason to become a pawn of the legislators' political views. Luckily, Moore has the courage to remain firm against the corrupted system and will exercise his right to free speech under the First Amendment, regardless.