Opinion: Clear is beautiful
Written by Christopher Guinn, Nov 14, 2011, 0 Comments
“Transparency in government” is a phrase tossed around on the campaign trail and at meet-the-elected official pancake breakfasts, but once in power, former proponents of openness lose their taste for it.
When you read an article about a declaration of public policy and the quote is attributed to a “high ranking official” or “top presidential aide,” this usually means the announcement was made during what is called a background briefing, where no names are allowed. This allows officials to make statements without ever having to own them. It also shifts power toward government and away from the people surrogated by the press, by allowing the government to test the water of public opinion.
If things don’t work out, it’s as if it was never said at all, because who do you hold accountable? President Bush was accused of over-using background briefings, so much that it was hindering the public’s ability to hold politicians accountable, but President Obama has only continued the trend. Few ever step back from the safety of secrecy. It’s a culture of CYA.
When a political action committee runs a hateful political ad without having to disclose authorship, it allows candidates to hold out their pristine white gloves and pretend they had nothing to do with that brutish business. They’re more than willing to take the jump in the polls, however.
When a former trustee of USF spends over $2,000 to ship over 30 students across the state to Boca Raton for a political cause, that powerful and connected person is divorcing themselves from the consequences of their political action. That is not only politically expedient, but also cowardly.
Had the students really caused a “ruckus” as state university officials seemed to fear they would, the students would have been the ones to face the consequences, not the benefactor.
All levels of the university hierarchy, from the board of trustees to members of the Tampa student government, have tasked themselves with protecting this individual from public and student scrutiny.
It’s OK, however, for students to take the hit of an unexcused absence for a political stance that if not explicitly, was implicitly and enthusiastically supported by the administration of the university. The students weren’t a voice, they were a prop—there’s little room for nuanced personal opinion in a silent protest.
The donor provided money and a message; the students provided their reputations. They have a right to know whose flag flies behind them.
