HARRY Truman once said, "You want a friend in Washington? Get a dog." Well, one thing is certain, the Managing Board's Aug.24 lead editorial "Debating the Center's Mistake," showed us how President Truman must have felt and tempted us to undertake a massive rescue mission at the local pound. However, we at the Center of Politics thought our time might be better spent sharing a few important details (details that have consumed our summer) concerning our upcoming Oct. 9 debate.
First, the Center for Politics is a non-partisan, non-profit organization, which means we cannot show favoritism or cater to any candidate, Democrat, Republican or Independent. If you follow the Managing Board's assertion that "any benchmark is arbitrary," then any "necessary" standard -- even the 10 percent which the Managing Board suggested -- becomes arbitrary. Given such a paradigm, how then can an organization such as ours ensure that it does not show favoritism? We do that by being consistent in the standards of inclusion that are applied from one gubernatorial election to the next. It is not our place at the Center for Politics to change the standard simply because some may decide that a third or fourth candidate is different from other third or fourth candidates to whom the same rules have applied in previous years' debates.
Second, why does The Cavalier Daily pessimistically assume that a 15 percent inclusion standard will "effectively exclude third party candidate Russell H. Potts?" In a CD news story ("Center of Politics to host gubernatorial debates") that ran the same day as the Manging Board's editorial dismissing Potts' chances, his campaign communications director Mike McCall said he is confident Potts will reach the 15 percent threshold and will positively participate in the debate. Why then do you doubt his abilities?
At the Center for Politics, we have never presumed to know one way or the other whether Potts will achieve 15 percent support among the people of Virginia. Politics Prof. Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics has stated in newspapers across the Commonwealth that we hope he will. Accordingly, in addition to insisting on a standard that affords Potts the opportunity to participate, we have also been making dual-track preparations for this debate, establishing a format for two candidates and another format for three candidates.
What a stark contrast this is to the two other debates that have already been organized between the two major-party candidates. Unlike the Center for Politics debate, each of the others has categorically denied Potts the opportunity to share the stage with Kaine and Kilgore. Such arrangements would never be acceptable to the Center for Politics, and we have a well-documented record to prove it.Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of your editorial was the assertion that, "Throughout this process, the Center missed numerous opportunities to work towards a three-man debate." The fact is many debates were proposed over the course of the summer by many different organizations. Indeed, some of these organizations approached the Center for Politics and/or Sabato offering us opportunities to co-sponsor, moderate and/or assist with organizing their debates. To all who offered, we made them aware that the Center for Politics also had an invitation on the table which proposed to follow the same rules we used for the 2001 gubernatorial debate. What the Managing Board also didn't know is that Sabato personally accepted an offer to moderate a debate hosted by a large media organization which proposed to automatically invite all three candidates.This proposed debate was rejected!
For the record, of the debates that have already occurred or are currently scheduled to occur during the 2005 gubernatorial campaign season, the Center for Politics' debate is the only one to offer Potts the opportunity to be included. Despite your critique, to host the only statewide televised debate of the 2005 gubernatorial election is, indeed, a coup for the University. Finally, it's clear that the current debate environment unfairly favors the two major parties, and, as has been reported, the Center for Politics is taking the lead in convening meetings following the 2005 gubernatorial election to create a committee or commission responsible for organizing televised candidate debates in future years. This committee or commission is essential in making sure that candidates do not dodge their obligations to Virginians.
While the freedom of the press is one of the most valuable liberties present in America today, and nowhere should it be more prosperous than Mr. Jefferson's University, along with that freedom comes significant responsibility. An editorial board must always be free to state its opinion, but if its goal is to truly educate and influence its readers, then it must take careful measure to fully understand the details of the topic it chooses to discuss. In the editorial the Managing Board wrote: "When you think of the ideals of the University of Virginia, you think of great intellectual discourse where ideas are offered, challenged and considered from every angle." Unfortunately, it was your editorial that failed to reach this noble ideal.
Matt Smyth is the director of Communications for the U.Va. Center for Politics.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
