After reading the Spectrum article entitled "College democrats seek open-minded discussion rather than debate," I was delighted to have the opportunity to engage in respectful and civil discussion with my fellow peers on Planned Parenthood's services. President Quinne Sember was quoted to have said "pro-choice/pro-life debates have gotten old" and her club's focus on "joint discussions rather than debates" sounded like the perfect medium through which I could express my opinion. Here was a club that championed the power of an open mind; that appreciated the diversity of opinion; that encouraged respectful and informed political conversations; whose own flyers advertised "all opinions welcome!" - what could go wrong?
At the meeting's start, Quinne Sember, president of UB Democrats, emphatically stated that the police inside the room would enforce a series of "rules." These "rules" included that no one but the presenters and herself would be allowed to speak; no one could take any pictures or record this public meeting unless they were on the executive board of UB Democrats; no one could freely distribute any kind of literature; and if that were not enough, Sember also stated that all questions would be pre-censored or unasked based on her subjective criteria. UB Democrats made it clear that there would be no open discussion after this presentation. I had expressed my discontent with Sember's policies through email, and I received a response stating: "I don't actually care if I'm being inconsistent or unfair with this event. That's just the way it has to be. Again, I apologize for this, but that's the way it's going to be done."
Questions for discussion needed to be emailed to Sember or written on a piece of paper before the presentation began, and a multitude of questions were written down due the lack of the statistical substance in Planned Parenthood's presentation. A friend of mine asked how many mammograms Planned Parenthood provided per year; another friend wanted to know how many adoption referrals take place compared to the number of abortions; I wanted to know how abortion could make up only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood's services while earning them over $150 million in revenue (according to their own publicized statistics). These questions were relevant to Planned Parenthood's services, based on honest curiosity, and rooted in objective observation.
But were they answered, or even asked? Unfortunately, most never made it past the page. Sember's method of choosing questions was nothing if not completely outrageously subjective and shameful. Instead of focusing on questions relating directly to Planned Parenthood's services, Sember flipped through the inquiries of students and dismissed each and every one with the exception of perhaps two that that were entirely elementary and required only the most basic of answers. She then decided to ask her own questions, which were also entirely irrelevant to Planned Parenthood's services and not the least bit educationally concerned. Here's an example: "So, like, where is the nearest Planned Parenthood from here?"
Besides being a violation of the attending students' civil liberties, these offenses were shockingly undemocratic and against everything the club had claimed they championed. Where was the open-minded discussion that was so cheerfully advertised in The Spectrum? Where was the respectful and informed conversation? Where was the celebration and welcoming of diverse opinions?
Alas, it seems that Sember did not find these ideals worthy enough to be upheld for this particular event. What a disappointment.
This event was shamelessly censored and absurd. The forbidding and censorship of honest questions is the prerogative of dictatorship, not democracy. I am ashamed on behalf of the UB Democrats, and I certainly hope they improve their act sooner rather than later.
Anne Mulrooney is a junior English major.
