College Republicans lobbying against open club membership

Comments (23)
  1. flashsteve says:

    I understand Mr. Honeycutt’s concern, but I’m afraid he is on a losing mission. I am a conservative Republican, but I would not want to limit my party to just those who agree with me on every issue. I doubt if many liberals could tolerate hours of Republican discourse, so, even if they do join the club, they will eventually run away screaming. Welcome everyone; hey, you might even convert a few of them.

    1. Jdban says:

      His point is valid, as proven by the fact that it happened before. If you get 50 people who decide “lol lets fuck up this club” they can start attending meetings and vote out the president, put their own in, and basically shut down the purpose of the club.

      1. SanFrann says:


        1. SLORider says:

          Wrong. People have a Constitutional right of freedom of association. Democracy does not trump and infiltrate here.

          By the way… do you consider the unilateral Executive Order “democracy”?

          1. SanFrann says:

            You missed my point cowboy. I was sending up the tenets of democracy, not stating that it was happening here….

      2. PapaGUnit says:

        You can basically do that with any organization…even via other means.

      3. Ed says:

        There’s no rule on the CSU books that says officers have to be voted in. This whole issue could be avoided if the officers were appointed instead.

  2. Okay says:

    LOL. Is this club’s next step to only allow people of the Aryan race?

    1. SLORider says:

      That is really an ignorant statement, and quite bigoted.

      1. Okay says:


        1. SLORider says:

          Many people are ignorant and bigoted. Rising above requires some effort and logical thinking.

  3. SanFrann says:

    If you want to be affiliated with Cal Poly, you must adhere to their (and the CSU system’s) rules. If you prefer your club to have a closed membership, you can – just have it outside the umbrella of the university. Simple parliamentary procedure – as Republican club, you may want to study up on that.

    1. Dev Adv says:

      Yes, as the law currently stands. They can also pettition CSU to change or strike down the current law. This is also democratic procedure.

  4. Birdman says:

    Just because rules exist does not mean that they are right or appropriate (flashback 1919 and earlier: sorry women the “rules” say you can’t vote. Tough. ). The CSU system existed up to Dec. 2011without open membership requirements, why now the need for the policy? … Democracy has nothing to do with the issue. Rotary Clubs, Kiwanis, the Local Democrat and Republican Party Organizations, Lions Clubs, Elks Clubs (and the list could go on) have the right to restrict their membership, and they do: it’s called the Freedom of Association (See First Amendment). Individuals have the right to determine who to associate with and who NOT to associate with. This right should not be checked at the door of a university. … I think the fact that the Republican Club is spearheading this issue it turning on the blinders for many people. This policy effects many groups. Should advocates for coal and fossil fuels be allowed in the Green Energy club? What about honor societies (mentioned briefly at the end of the article)? Would defenders of this policy argue that in the spirit of “inclusiveness” and “open membership” that C average students be admitted into Honor Societies? No. (But under the current policy this is possible!) What about other majors? Should an English Major who has never taken an Engineering class in their life be allowed in the Engineering Honor Society? No. If you don’t like a club, join another. If another doesn’t exist start your own. It isn’t that hard. Further, exist outside of a university? Why should a group have to exist as a second-class club just to protect their values and the
    mission they are trying to achieve? That seems quite backwards. I did a quick search of the Internet and found some great info on this topic here: . As put by FIRE, through this policy the CSU is enforcing a manufactured form of diversity within groups instead of protecting diversity among groups.

  5. Bro Beans says:

    I think the reason democrats in this thread are having such a hard time understanding this issue is because they are too disorganized and too busy praising Obama and the leftist agenda to have a club of their own so of course they won’t understand the reality of this issue

    1. Guest says:

      Holy cow, is there anything you people can say that has not been spoon-fed to you by Fox News. You sound like a broken record on reverse.

  6. asdf says:

    Is this actually a problem… for any club?

  7. Gina says:

    Do the officers of the club not realize that you can have a policy written into your bylaws that allows you to remove club members? I am the President of the Argentine Tango Club on campus, and we have a clause in our bylaws that allows the officers to vote to remove/ban someone from club activities if they are acting inappropriately. If the College Republicans club is so worried about “liberal infiltrators,” why not just vote out any club members that present a problem? Officers can even choose to appoint new officers rather than have them voted in, which nullifies the issue of any kind of malevolent takeover. The purpose of the Executive Order is to ensure that no club can discriminate against any group of people, and that is an incredibly important protection to have in place. In my opinion, assuaging one club’s misguided fear of some sort of liberal coup is not worth removing that protection.

    1. SLORider says:

      The Executive Order (read: unilateral undemocratic) is discriminatory itself.

  8. N8 says:

    It is exciting to see all the discussion generated around this topic! On Monday a lawyer, Joe Cohn, from FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) is coming to speak on the importance of Free Speech. He will also be specifically addressing the Open Membership Policy. Mr. Cohn’s talk is on 11/4/13 @ 7:30 PM in building 180 room 101. This will be a great opportunity to have a dialogue and learn about these topics from an “outside individual” that has dealt with these matters across that nation from a legal angle, especially as the campus moves forward in discussing/resolving this issue. I hope you can attend!

  9. SLORider says:

    The Republicans are correct. CSU is violating the Constitution.

    The rights to free speech and political association are “protected against federal encroachment by the First Amendment [and] are entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment to the same protection from infringement by the States. [Citation.]” (Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn. (1967) 389 U.S. 217, 222, fn. 4 [19 L.Ed.2d 426, 88 S.Ct. 353]; see also Hudgens v. NLRB (1976) 424 U.S. 507, 513 [47 L.Ed.2d 196, 96 S.Ct. 1029] [“It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state.”].)

    Because CSU is a state government entity, CSU cannot abridge the Republicans’ right of association.

    1. progress4all says:

      lol…”violating the Constitution.” Such nonsense can only be expected from those affiliated with the GOP. Sounds a lot like the demands for Obama’s Birth Certificate or the denial of Climate Change. Pure irrationality.

  10. post says:

    I’m pretty sure no Cal Poly democrats are politically active enough/actually care enough to try and take over the Republican club

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *