Opinion: College Republican’s Chairman Stillwell: I’m Proud to Serve
By Joseph Stillwell
Last April, I was honored to be elected by my classmates to serve as chairman of the CUA College Republicans for this academic year. Since my election, I have worked tirelessly to build an inclusive club that promotes the values of the Republican Party while building community amongst the undergraduate students at Catholic University.
This past week, a group of “Former Members of the CUA College Republicans” published an anonymous, mean-spirited hit piece on me filled with lies. The article contained so many lies and half-truths that The Tower’s editors decided to make major corrections to it this past Saturday, including changing the title and revoking a libelous, fabricated quotation intended to defame me as a sexist. I am not perfect, but I did not deserve what these anonymous authors wrote. I want to take this moment to set the record straight about the falsehoods contained in that article, my tenure as College Republicans chairman, and the truth about what happened last week at our Constitution Day event.
I must start by addressing how the hit piece attempts to frame me as a sexist by attributing a quotation to me that I never said. At a Young America’s Foundation event earlier this scholastic year specifically about women in the military, I said that I opposed young women being required to register for selective service like young men are. Women have the ability to bear children and accordingly they should not be required to risk their lives in battle if such an unfortunate conflict were to arise. Forcing women to register for the draft was rejected in a bipartisan fashion during this year’s National Defense Authorization Act proceedings. The words I used that night are reflective of a mainstream policy position, but the authors of the hit piece distorted what I said and then put quotation marks around it. Let me be clear: as a proud Son of the American Legion, I believe that if a young woman decides to voluntarily answer the call to serve her country, then she should be celebrated for that self-sacrificing decision. I would like to thank the staff of The Tower for removing that calumnious fabricated quotation that the anonymous authors attributed to me.
The article also accuses me of making an “unconstitutional” and “unilateral” appointment of a treasurer “without consent of the Executive Board.” This accusation is patently false. Here’s what really happened: the elected treasurer of College Republicans resigned early last month because she wanted to focus on work obligations. Based on tradition, Robert’s Rules, and constitutional prerogative, I then appointed a qualified classmate to serve as interim treasurer. At the next Executive Board meeting, like past precedent, a majority of the Executive Board voted to confirm this person to serve as interim treasurer for the remainder of the academic year. This is the exact same way that individuals have been appointed to the Executive Board in the past
when elected officers resigned. To say that what I did was improper or “unconstitutional” is simply dishonest.
Other accusations in the article focus on what transpired at our Constitution Day event last week. I think it’s important for me to provide some context for what happened.
The current College Republicans constitution is outdated and poorly written; it has not been amended since 2009. Last summer, I began a discussion with the entire Executive Board about making changes to the constitution to streamline procedures and remedy the document’s confusing language and structure.
To turn this aspiration into reality, I spent months working with and meeting with members of my Executive Board to create proposals for changes to the current constitution. This was no haphazard process. In September, for example, the former Public Relations Chair and I met to discuss proposed changes. By the end of our meeting, we had come to an agreement on changes that were nearly identical to the ones I proposed at the Constitution Day event last week. Two days before the event took place, I asked members of my Executive Board whether they had any objections to the finalized proposals. No one did, so I assumed we were all on the same page. All club members were given access to the proposed changes about 24 hours before the event began. This was a transparent process through and through.
The article suggests that the changes I proposed amounted to a power grab, but this isn’t true either. These amendments and revisions were well-intentioned and supported by my Executive Board prior to the event. If anything, these changes would have further limited my power. For example, one such revision would have mandated that the club’s academic advisor oversee Executive Board elections rather than the current chairman (as the constitution now permits). The proposals would have also streamlined the amendment process, clarified the rules for membership status, and defined different types of club business meetings. If these changes approximate a power grab, then the hit piece’s authors have a strange notion of power.
Shortly after I began the formal amendment process at our Constitution Day event, it became very clear that some disgruntled former members of the Executive Board and their friends had shown up to wreak havoc on the process, cause disruption, and obfuscate. Instead of making serious proposals or asking genuine questions, these individuals tried to undermine the process; some of them began screaming at me during the debate. They showed disrespect to rules of decorum and to their fellow club members. Their antics culminated when one of them (who wasn’t a club member at the time) threw a tantrum at the end of the meeting and then lobbed a t-shirt in my direction. Rather than engaging in sincere debate about specific proposals, these individuals made a mockery of the whole process. While presiding over all this, I got flustered at times, and for that I’m sorry, but I never anticipated facing such bitter and mean-spirited opposition for proposing innocuous changes to the constitution.
The “anonymous” writers of the hit piece disagree with some components of my leadership style and decisions. That’s okay: College Republicans is a big-tent organization. I don’t besmirch those that disagree. At the same time, disagreement and dialogue should always be done in a respectful manner. Any of these individuals were (and still are) more than welcome to discuss their ideas with me, in a fashion that respects our club’s hierarchy, traditions, and rules. At our weekly Executive Board meetings, I always hold a period of open discussion, where anyone on the board can raise questions, concerns, or objections. I have and am always willing to meet with club members who are not on the board. All of this is ordered to my goals of transparency, accountability, and group decision-making.
My only wish is that these individuals who wrote the anonymous article had come to me at any point during these open discussion periods, or at a separate one-on-one meeting to share their concerns. Their decisions, instead, to be disrespectful and wreak havoc on the amendment process in front of the whole club at Constitution Day and to attack me in such personal, vindictive, and dishonest terms in the pages of The Tower is deeply disappointing. It appears that the decisions of some to resign from the board and then grandstand were intended not to help the club but to aid their prospects in a future Executive Board election.
Overall, the College Republicans have had a successful year. Last semester, we hosted Congressman Andy Harris. We collaborated with the College Democrats in an advocacy event for the passage of “Daniel’s Law,” named in honor of our deceased classmate Dan Anderl, we worked with our campus’ chapter of Young America’s Foundation to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of 9/11, we hosted former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean to speak about his role co-chairing the 9/11 Commission, and we also successfully campaigned in Virginia for Governor Glen Youngkin. This semester, we plan to continue this important work by hosting events that promote the vision of the Republican Party while attempting to provoke dialogue on our campus about the role of government and the importance of civil society.
I am not a perfect man, but I am proud of my leadership of College Republicans. What happened at Constitution Day was a disgrace, but I won’t sink to the level of my critics who sought to defame my name and character. The lies in last week’s Tower article are unfortunate, but I’m willing to move on and put aside petty personal squabbles. I look forward to continuing to host intriguing speakers, organizing fruitful social events, and promoting the values of the College Republicans and the mission of Catholic University. In short, I look forward to continuing my term as Chairman of College Republicans.
Joseph Stillwell is a junior history major from New Jersey. He serves as chairman of the CUA College Republicans.
