October 6, 2009 8:00 am
Candidate Brings Unique Perspective to Campus
By Dave Chase
To respond to Mr. Aaron French’s opinion on Sept. 22, 2009, Mr. Bacchus is not only presidential material, he is the best man for the job.
It seems that the opposition to Mr. Bacchus comes solely from his involvement with the WTO. I certainly understand why, the WTO has far too many unjust policies and, without question, favors “large nations” over “little nations”. However, to judge Mr. Bacchus based on that is not only unfair but not accurate.
Mr. Bacchus was not involved with the policy making branch of the WTO. In fact, he was one of the founding judges of the WTO appeals system, ensuring that “little nations” can seek justice. Not only did Mr. Bacchus found the appeals process of the WTO, he was elected by 130 countries twice to run it. Surely that speaks to his fair mindedness and ability to put his personal beliefs aside.
As for his personal beliefs, the man is a Democrat. He might not be as far left as many on this campus (including myself) but the objection that he is not radical enough is naïve and foolish. Moderation should be the first thing we look for in a leader.
Let’s look at Mr. Bacchus’ qualifications. He is an outstanding fundraiser. He has a large political network that could serve this college well in both Washington and Annapolis. With State and Federal budget cuts projected for next year, our next President must have the political wit to fight for our funding, Mr. Bacchus has that.
Most importantly, Mr. Bacchus is not your typical college presidential candidate. Where other candidates have spent their life’s teaching and speaking about the need for global engagement and leadership, Mr. Bacchus has taken action.
Perhaps most telling about Mr. Bacchus is what he said in response to Mr. French’s arguments, “I will defend to death your right to disagree with me.” That’s exactly the kind of gravitas and statesmanship that I look for in a leader.
Mr. Bacchus is by far the best candidate and I urge the committee to select him. Finally, should the committee select him, I hope the campus will welcome him, not with hostility as Mr. French suggests, but with a willingness to listen and work with Mr. Bacchus to ensure St. Mary’s ideals are reflected in his policies.
Well said! I agree that Bacchus is the best person for the job, and I attended forums for all 4 candidates. Bruno was good but not all that impressive, Turner wasn’t at ALL impressive, and Baenninger sounded like just another Maggie, which is NOT what this campus needs again. Bacchus surpassed all the other candidates by far, and will definitely bring much-needed change if he’s selected!
“I will defend to death your right to disagree with me.”
this is just rhetoric and he can never prove that statement. why didn’t he say, “I’ll have a forum or a meeting to talk with you about our disagreements” or “I’ll sponsor and support activities on campus that encourage disagreements and open talk.”
People who seek power are the ones who shouldn’t have it. Just because he’s a Democrat doesn’t mean he is liberal at all.
Just today, I watched a well attended movie on campus that disparaged privatization and world institutions like the WTO. Its purely a matter of principle. Someone who seeks involvement and engagement with corrupt institutions will not work at St. Mary’s. Activists and Leaders do not join institutions that they don’t believe in.
@another student, you don’t seem to be espousing the ideals of St. Mary’s that you seem to hold so sacred. By declaring anyone who seeks involvement in anything you deem to be inappropriate as unfit to work at St. Mary’s, you are saying that you are unwilling to accept the possibility that maybe their point of view might have some validity.
What frustrates me about the anti-Bacchus group is that your disapproval comes solely from his past involvement with the WTO, not his qualifications or vision for the school (let alone what he actually did at the WTO). That’s not a very progressive stance coming from a group of so called liberals. What’s more is you’re not even in favor of another candidate….
@the anti-Bacchus folks – first let’s clarify the issue of the WTO, the WTO exist to provide a mechanism through which nations can resolve trade disputes without violence. All WTO agreements are signed by representatives of member governments and must be ratified by their parliaments or legislatures. Within the WTO every nation, regardless of size or power, has one vote. It is the epitome of democracy. Reduction of trade barriers benefits small nations, and thanks to people like Jim Bacchus there is now an appeals process within the WTO so that nations can seek redress of grievances. I for one am sick and tired of folks who walk around with laptops and ipods purchased at cheap prices due unfair labor practices claim any moral superiority on this issue. I’m tired of folks who think that paying an extra $0.50 for “fair trade” makes them the final arbiter of social justice. I’m tired of listening to folks tear down a man who dedicated much of his life to public service. But what truly offends me and should offend any true liberal, is the ideological litmus test that is being demanded here. The modern day McCarthys who insist that only the ideologically pure can come to St. Mary’s need to explain to the rest of us – what is your criteria for purity? How far should we take this? How is Bacchus’ stance on NAFTA relevant? Why has no one asked Dr. Baennnger her stance on NAFTA or the WTO? Why aren’t we demanding a list of the causes that she supports? A quick check of public records shows that she gave $2,000 to Hilary Clinton, but nothing to Obama – can we allow that? Why the double standard? Those trying to derail the Bacchus candidacy are nothing more than the moral equivalent of the health care town hall protesters. Instead of death panel they yell “autocrat” or “corporate” to describe a man whose career was anything but. The real question is what’s next? Will we now demand loyalty oaths and purity tests for our faculty? Is it time to demand that only those who oppose the WTO be hired for any position? The purpose of a liberal arts education is to broaden one’s experience and exposure to ideas – what we are seeing in the case of the Bacchus matter is a small group of faculty and students attempting to impose on everyone else their narrow-minded world view. In short, the Bacchus opponents are being “autocratic” and “corporate.”
I’m not convinced that the opposition to Bacchus is based solely on his involvement with the WTO- which certainly shouldn’t be enough to disqualify someone on it’s own- but rather with the general discord between his experience to-date and the position he’s applying for. What does a judge in an appellate world trade court want with a tiny college in Southern Maryland? I haven’t heard that he has ANY experience with higher education, nor have I seen that he has ANY ties to the region or state. Will he cherish and support liberal arts and the St Mary’s experience? Maybe, or maybe he’ll use his connections to raise money, push for expansion, and turn SMC into Towson in 5 years.
All of this is speculation of course, but you have to admit that it seems like an odd fit. Could it be that he is just looking for an easy retirement gig? I hope not.