This article is written by Michael Billotti, Bridget Brennan, Joseph O’Brien, Emily Tanner, Thomas Palumbo and Chloe Potsklan.
We are sorry to inform the Fordham community that the College Republicans have once again displayed an enormous amount of irresponsibility by inviting James O’Keefe to speak on campus. O’Keefe is a criminal, a provocateur and nothing more.
He has shown this time and time again through his actions at ACORN offices, his entering the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D–La.) under false pretenses and his use of racially-charged language used to entrap employees of Planned Parenthood.
James O’Keefe is scheduled to speak at an event sponsored by the College Republicans, despite claims about his allegedly unethical journalistic practices. (Photo Courtesy of Wikimedia)
Our campus political clubs were created decades ago with the goal of fostering open dialogue between adherents of two different ideologies and involving the student body in current affairs. We believe that the College Republicans have delegitimized that important dialogue by inviting a speaker who relies on dishonest, predatory, criminal and racially-charged tactics. We stand strongly with the principles of free speech; however, we find this invitation unconscionable and completely contrary to the ethics and values we hold dear at the university.
Last year, the Executive Board of the College Republicans decided to invite pundit Ann Coulter to speak on campus.
Upon hearing of her invitation, the College Democrats voted not to petition or protest Coulter’s appearance in the name of free speech and academic discussion. The College Democrats stood shoulder to shoulder with the College Republicans last year because we believed that Coulter, however wrong she may be, would foster vigorous political debate on campus. However, we cannot stand by this year while the College Republicans display a remarkable lack of financial responsibility and moral integrity in choosing James O’Keefe to speak at our campus.
O’Keefe is best known for unveiling supposedly illegal activities at ACORN through a series of undercover videos in 2009. O’Keefe’s actions led to a federal vote that suspended all funding for ACORN, effectively killing the organization.
However, various government entities, including the Government Accountability Office, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office and the Office of the California Attorney General have cleared ACORN of all claims leveled against it by O’Keefe. A report by the California attorney general stated, “The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O’Keefe and Giles.”
We can condemn the activities of low-level employees within ACORN; however, the means through which O’Keefe gathered such information is deplorable, unethical by journalistic standards and illegal in certain states.
In 2010, O’Keefe pled guilty and received three years of probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine for entering Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office under false pretenses. O’Keefe stated that his goal in entering the building dressed as a telephone repairman was to wiretap the phone lines. When George Stephanopoulos asked about the incident in an interview, O’Keefe acknowledged that his actions were illegal and claimed he would not do it again. He was legally barred from leaving the state of New Jersey for three years under the terms of his plea bargain, and the College Republicans have decided that one of the first stops on his climb back to right-wing-extremist glory should be Fordham University.
In 2007, O’Keefe offered a Planned Parenthood clinic in Ohio a donation on the condition that it would be earmarked to pay for aborting African-American fetuses.“ Because there’s definitely way too many black people in Ohio,” he later said.
This situation shows that O’Keefe’s journalism tactics are unethical by any stretch of the imagination. O’Keefe treats the answers to outlandish situations in a few particular cases by base-level employees as indicative of the national organization at large.
Our goal is not to disenfranchise students from going to the speaking engagement; however, we believe the student body has a right to know the facts about ethically questionable individuals invited to campus.
As Rev. Joseph M. McShane, S.J. president of the university, eloquently stated, “the answer to bad speech is more speech.”
We hope to uphold the original purpose of our political clubs and revive the academic dialogue that is so vital to this campus.
Our clubs are privileged to receive funding in order to invite speakers who promote the values of truth and justice that we hold dear at Fordham University.
Despite what we believe to be a decision made with a lack of good judgment by the College Republicans, we hope that through this unfortunate situation the political dialogue on campus will not be delegitimized.
All writers are members of the College Democrats.
Categories: Opinion
A Blue Ending for the Bloomberg Era 
Blockbuster Checks Out, Memories Return 
Ditching Facebook’s Facade for Reality 
Why the Minimum Wage Must Be Raised 
From the Desk of Rory Masterson, Editorial Director 
“Financial responsibility” is in question? This comes from the club that has exactly $0 of funds for their club. If the College Democrats are so concerned with who the College Republicans bring to campus, then perhaps they should get some money of their own and bring a speaker. In addition, as an academic as we all are at Fordham, I believe that the more controversial of a speaker the better. Controversy sparks some of the greatest innovation man has had. And remember, there is a Q&A portion to every speaking event, so utilize it well.
Due to a filing error, the College Democrats were given a budget of $30. A week after the discovery of the error (late April), a subsequent budget request was made for the proper amount. The budget committee went into Fall ’13 with roughly $8,000 to distribute and many clubs were in the same situation as the College Dems. So rather than taking a large majority of that funding, the College Dems withdrew their proposal for more funds so other clubs receive a larger amount of the leftover pool. I’d be happy to discuss the specifics so long as the facts are correct.
-Mike Billotti
I understand that it is uncomfortable to entertain the opinions of people who do not share your values, but that is what free speech means. If you consider O’Keefe’s opinions as hate speech, you owe your readers an explanation as to why. Otherwise, invoke your stated respect for free speech.
“We stand strongly with the principles of free speech”
“Our goal is not to disenfranchise students from going to the speaking engagement”
Rebecca, this piece did not classify O’Keefe’s opinions as ‘hate speech’ – you are the only one who has used that term. And I think they pretty effectively explained why they think he’s a bad choice. Exactly what do you think needs to be explained further? And I would say they strongly supported free speech in this piece. You should go back and read it again.