 |
| Andrew Groff for US Senate (Green Party & Endorsed by Libertarian Party) |
Does anyone else in the UD community object to the lack of fair academic and
democratic principles underlying the exclusion of minority parties and
independent candidates from the October 17 and 18 UD-sponsored congressional
and gubernatorial debates? Others are weighing in.
It is one thing for corporate media to be complicit in the
deals cooked up by the major parties to exclude minority parties from debates; it
is another for a university seeking “prominence” to truncate the discourse. Demonstrating
a commitment to principles lacking at UD, the League of Women Voters withdrew
their support for the Presidential debates after the two big parties took them
over in 1988.
According to the press release published in UDaly, organizers
of the debate, Director of UD’s “nonpartisan”
Center for Political Communication Ralph Begleiter and Delaware First Media President
Micheline B. Boudreau, justify their exclusionary policy based on “nationally
recognized debate inclusion criteria established by the Debate Advisory
Standards Project.” Recognized by whom? by a political class that has discredited
itself to many Americans?
 |
| Alex Pires for US Senate (Independent) |
They also rely on precedent, because they got away with this
before in 2008 (and 2010), except that they had to suffer the embarrassment of
Green Candidate Michael Berg hopping onto the stage with a campaign sticker
over his mouth. The video went viral on YouTube.
Among the criteria for inclusion: “3 campaign contributions
per 1,000 residents . . . of $50 or more. “ Alternatively, candidates could
poll 10 percent or more or have previously held political office. 50 bucks is a
lot of money for folks unemployed or living on poverty wages. They may be
disenchanted by the political class but know nothing about the alternatives, thanks
to UD, and will be unlikely to cite minority candidates when polled.
 |
| Bernard August for US House (Green Party) |
Without irony, Micheline Boudreaus boasts that “[p]roviding
avenues for civil discourse is a core component of our mission at DFM and WDDE.
These debates also offer a premier learning experience to our student interns
who assist in the production of the event.” Narrowing the discourse is hardly a
“premier learning experience,” unless you are trying to indoctrinate students
in received wisdom. For UD to take part in this pseudo-debate is a violation of
its educational mission.
 |
| Scott Gesty for US House Libertarian Party |
So, how do the faculty, who are supposed to be guiding
lights of the university curriculum, feel about this? Does their fear of left
or right spoilers trump their obligations to an open discourse? I say the UD
should insist that candidates who want to use their facilities must abide by
the spirit of free inquiry and take on all comers. They include Andrew Groff
(Green Party and endorsed by Libertarians) and Alex Pires (independent) for US
Senate and Scott Gesty (Libertarian) and Bernie August (Green) for US House.
Your thoughts?
