An Exclusive Interview With New College Republicans President
Luke Zaro, president of the Fordham College Republicans (Photo by Elizabeth Zanghi/The Ram)
By CONNOR RYAN
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Luke Zaro, FCRH ’16 and the new president of Fordham’s College Republicans, discussed the upcoming on-campus appearance of citizen journalist James O’Keefe — the stinger known for secretly recording video and bringing down employees at National Public Radio and Planned Parenthood, among others, by sitting at the intersect of journalism and advocacy.
Zaro fields questions about the O’Keefe event (scheduled for Thursday in Flom Auditorium at 7 p.m.), last year’s Ann Coulter controversy and the club’s internal restructuring that soon followed in an exclusive interview.
Q: As a freshman, what was going through your mind as the Ann Coulter controversy exploded last year?
A: I don’t want to comment on my personal opinion of Ann Coulter or the event itself. It was certainly a divisive issue among club members. I respect people’s right to protest. I respect club’s rights to bring speakers and to partake in a dialogue on campus. I think both sides would agree that not everything was done ideally. I’d prefer not to comment much further. It happened. I think there’s a lot to be learned from it.
Q: What specifically did you learn from what happened?
A: Even from a technical standpoint, the Ann Coulter contract hadn’t been signed before the event was announced. There’s a reason stuff goes in order. It just makes everybody’s lives easier — the club, the administration — when things are done in order.
Q: Explain how the leadership transition within the College Republicans transpired.
A: Our current e-board is entirely sophomores — myself as president, Noelle Brennan as vice president, Jennifer Minerva as secretary and Benjamin Shull as treasurer. It’s completely from last year. There’s no denying that the club faced some difficulty last year — the Anne Coulter event and the cancellation. This is who the members of the club elected and I think that we recognize that we want to have a good, strong year, put together several successful events, re-brand the club and I think we’ve been successful in doing that so far.
Q: What was the moment when you decided you wanted to be president of College Republicans?
A: I don’t know if there was one defining moment. It was a process and I’d say it certainly started with the Coulter event. It just kind of developed and it simply came down to: Could I help the club? Did other people think I could help the club? Everybody who ran in that race pretty much asked themselves similar questions.
Q: Looking back, how would you respond to the Coulter controversy?
A: I think the best way that we can respond is to simply reestablish ourselves — start hosting events, start having successful dialogues with other groups. I think if we go back to doing what we’re good at, which is what the College Republicans have been doing for years, there’s no reason to believe that we can’t restore our reputation to what it once was.
Q: And what was that reputation?
A: The College Republicans had a name on campus for being an active club that brought big-name speakers that drew a lot of students beyond its own members, and for overall just being respected as a club in general. It didn’t have to be that you necessarily agreed with us, but we were always respected.
Q: Talk about where you saw the club last year and where you’d like to see the club go this year under your watch.
A: I think the club was very divided after the Ann Coulter controversy. There were just people who had different opinions on how it was held and obviously when you have that much controversy surrounding a club, it’s naturally going to draw some people away. As far as how I’d like to see the club grow under my leadership, I’d love to see in increase in turnout at our meetings, an increase in turnout at our events. I’d like to increase our presence on campus, but particularly a positive presence on campus. I think College Republicans is a necessary part of student life. People should, generally speaking, have a positive impression of us, even if they disagree with us politically. They should respect us for being a courteous, professional club. There are a lot of people who had various opinions after the Coulter controversy. We want to reestablish ourselves as a club on campus that promotes political dialogue that’s here to benefit the community and not just a particular group.
Q: Do you feel like you’re still picking up the pieces from the Coulter event?
A: I think whenever you have an event that draws away membership and hurts the club in any way, it takes time to repair whatever happened. I think we are still in the process. It’s not [a recovery] that’s going to happen overnight. We’ve made a tremendous amount of gains. I think there are a lot of signs that suggest the College Republicans are back on their feet.
Q: What have your relations been like so far this year with the College Democrats?
A: We had a debate at the beginning of the year in September. We thought it was a successful event. The two clubs worked together well. We have not spoken to them too much. Obviously we have differing opinions right now about whether it was appropriate to invite Mr. O’Keefe or not.
Q: Why did you invite James O’Keefe?
A: We wanted to go for a speaker who was younger in age and who could appeal to a broad audience not just the conservative community. We discussed a number of speakers and each speaker embodied different parts of the conservative movement.
Q: What were some of the other names that were thrown around?
A: One of the biggest ones was Scott Brown – the former Senator from Massachusetts. He was originally slated to come at the end of last semester. But by the start of the year we were told Scott Brown was off the table, so we started discussing new speakers. James O’Keefe’s name was brought up quite a bit. I had seen him speak over the summer and I was very impressed with his presentation. I was in a crowd with other college students, and everybody found him very entertaining. He was someone I thought could come to campus and replicate the same thing with a lot of students, not just staunch Republicans.
Q: Why not get a politician?
A: We extended invitations to a few members of Congress. It is more difficult than people think to get a congressman to come. We’re not a swing state in New York. It’s not that we didn’t want a politician to come.
Q: How many meetings did it take to settle on O’Keefe?
A: We spent a fair amount of time – at least three or four executive board meetings we spent talking about it. We had at least two general meetings about it. Once we settled that we wanted a younger speaker, someone who could appeal to that broad community, James O’Keefe seemed to be a natural fit. So, we began the vetting process. We included members of the club who were not on the e-board to help us too. We brought it up to members of the club. We got a lot of supportive feedback; we brought it up with alumni. We began the vetting process to see what kind of criticisms may arise from Mr. O’Keefe — whether they were valid and whether they were serious enough to not offer an invitation. Eventually we took a vote as an executive board to bring Mr. O’Keefe and we extended an invitation to him.
Q: Was the vote unanimous?
A: I don’t want to comment on matters of the executive board.
Q: What goes into the vetting process?
A: Basically we looked into his past, his history. We looked at the criticisms that seemed to be appearing the most often online. Then we delved deeper into why they were arising, whether they were valid or not.
Q: Was it the same vetting process that was used for Ann Coulter?
A: I’m not aware of what the vetting process was [for Coulter]. I did not sit on the board, so I can’t comment.
Q: Do you consider O’Keefe to be a controversial figure?
A: Generally speaking, I do not believe he is that controversial. The reason I say that is a lot of the criticisms about him are unfounded. I think the real controversy that should arise with Mr. O’Keefe coming to campus is the corruption he exposes, and not so much Mr. O’Keefe himself. We were expecting a reaction, but we were hoping more that the reaction would be on his work. The goal is not to create controversy on campus or to have a reenactment of the Coulter event. That was not our intent. You’re always going to have some amount of protest or controversy. I don’t think [Coulter and O’Keefe] are really comparable.
Q: O’Keefe has been arrested and widely criticized. There are plenty of people you could have selected who are far less controversial. After Coulter, why not play it safe with this speaker selection?
A: Our intent’s not to play it safe. There are controversial aspects to Mr. O’Keefe, but when you look at the work he’s done and the corruption he’s exposed, it’s really on a different level. The fact that you can set up a brothel through a tax-payer organization is unheard of. The president and Congress acted immediately — both parties. The fact that you can bring 13 El Salvadorian girls and list them as independents on your tax file — most people would be disgusted with that. The fact that you can provide a donation to Planned Parenthood, have it earmarked for African American women and their babies and make it clear that you’re doing it because you want there to be less black kids around so your kid can do better with the Affirmative Action process — that’s more shocking than Mr. O’Keefe’s misdemeanor.
Q: He calls himself a journalist, but he seems to be working according to an agenda.
A: In his book he says all the beltway is left, right and center. He has done work against conservative institutions as well. I’m willing to grant that the majority of his work is against left-leaning [organizations], but I wouldn’t identify him solely as a conservative or a liberal. His mantra is to expose and expose corruption especially on the establishment. I think that’s a concept both sides can support. He’s an antiestablishment figure. I think he takes great pride in that.
Q: How do you respond to the president of the College Democrats saying: “James O’Keefe’s actions are contradictory to our morals and values as a university and delegitimizes the platform for academically stimulating speakers here on campus.”
A: I disagree with the statement. This is not a response directly to him, but a lot of the criticism we have seen are that he’s a convicted felon and a racist. They’re both reasonable concerns if they were true. He’s never been convicted of a felony. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor for entering federal property under a false pretense. He is an undercover journalist — they walk a fine line. We’re not trying to defend him, but to label him as an immoral character I don’t think is accurate. In regards to racist, that’s a very severe criticism to label somebody as. We think it’s important to be responsible for throwing that term about because it is a serious label. It is an actuality in life; there are racists out there and it does hurt people. We would like to see people be responsible with that term. We don’t believe Mr. O’Keefe is. One of the reasons he’s allegedly a racist is because he was at this conference [Salon.com] defined as a white nationalist conference. One of the groups at the conference was Project 21 — a national black conservative group. How can you label someone as a white nationalist for attending a conference in which members of the African American community are represented at and allowed to speak at? It doesn’t make sense. It’s misguided to label him as a racist.
Q: Do you feel like you have the support of USG on this event?
A: I think following my presentation [the week prior], I think we do. I can’t speak for USG, so I can’t confirm this, but we do feel supported. Ahnd we feel supported by the deans and the administration.
Some answers have been condensed due to printing restrictions.
