To the editor:
There is exactly one sentence in the Columbia University College Republicans’ recent op-ed that merits further thought, and it’s this: “Admittedly, CUCR’s official position has not been presented with consistent clarity to the public.”
Allow me to call your attention to a 2012 op-ed by John Kenney. At the time of its publication, Kenney was the director of public relations for CUCR. His byline includes the following qualification: “This op-ed is written on behalf of CUCR.”
The final sentence of the op-ed reads as follows: “Because he is the candidate best able to secure this country’s future liberty and prosperity, we endorse Mitt Romney.”
But CUCR’s most recent op-ed claims, “The CUCR board will neither be endorsing nor denouncing a candidate this fall; our constitution explicitly prohibits us from doing so.”
So yes, it is certainly true that “CUCR’s official position has not been presented with consistent clarity to the public.”
According to CUCR’s website, the CUCR constitution was updated in 2010. Article 1, Section 1 states that “the organization may not officially endorse any off-campus candidate or group in the process of providing logistical support as per Student Governing Board regulations.”
I’m curious as to what “the process of providing logistical support” entails, but the fact remains that in 2012, CUCR chose to eschew this part of their constitution and endorse Mitt Romney.
As members of the Republican party, denouncing the Republican nominee requires courage. There’s nothing more cowardly than hiding behind bureaucracy and opacity.
The author is a Barnard College senior majoring in English literature and a columnist for Spectator. She tweets @dgreenbaum.