This press release from the Bucknell Conservatives Club speaks for itself:

LEWISBURG, PA ñ Bucknell University general counsel Wayne Bromfield has refused to allow Congressman Pat Toomey to give a speech on campus because he is running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. However, left-wing activist Ralph Nader is still being permitted to give the Universityís commencement address, despite the fact that he is running for president. Nader will be paid $13,000 for his commencement speech, which happens to be $13,000 more than the BUCC planned to pay Toomey.

The Bucknell University Conservatives Club (BUCC) invited Toomey to campus to give a speech on April 8 on the topic of ìcivic engagement,î under the condition that he would ìnot solicit contributions or workers for his campaign or attack campaign opponents while at the University.î According to an account in The Bucknellian, the same speech topic and conditions were imposed on Nader due to a University policy stipulating that no single political candidate can appear on campus during an election year.

ìThis decision is blatant hypocrisy,î BUCC president Charles Mitchell stated. ìIf the Bucknell administration is willing to break its own rules to have Ralph Nader come talk about ëcivic engagement,í then it should be willing to do the same for Pat Toomey.î

Mitchell continued, ìThis policy is just one more ridiculous Bucknell restriction on free speech, and not surprisingly, itís only enforced against certain speech. Selective repression such as this has no place in a free society, much less at a university. Apparently Bucknellís official version of ëdiversityí doesnít include conservative congressmen.î

In an email sent to BUCC vice president for special events Dominic Rupprecht, Bromfield defended his decision on the basis that when Nader was invited to speak on campus he was not yet a candidate, whereas Toomey was. But this is a straw man, according to Rupprecht: ìRalph Nader's candidacy for the presidency of the United States certainly could have been anticipated by any reasonable observer of American politics. He had run in 1996 and 2000, and gave every indication that he would do so again.î

Bromfield also told Rupprecht, ìThere is no reason for Pat Toomey to come to Bucknell in the month he is seeking to win a primary nomination other than to promote his candidacy. Whatever the text of his speech, that is transparently the intent.î This is an interesting argument, given that the BUCC as an organization cannot and does not endorse candidates. (Several BUCC officers have endorsed Rep. Toomey as individuals, but that is another matter.)

As Rupprecht put it in an email to Bromfield, ìCongressman Toomeyís speech is not, I repeat, is not intended to promote his candidacy. Nowhere in his speech will the Congressman ask for votes,Ýadvocate his election, or urge the defeat of his opponent. We invited Congressman Toomey, a hero of the conservative movement, to discuss the crucial issues of the day and the fact that Bucknell students ought to do something about them, i.e. be civically engaged.î

BUCC vice president for finance Dawn Meling added, ìI must say I find it interesting that Mr. Bromfield apparently could not reasonably conclude that Mr. Nader would run for the presidency, but does have magical foreknowledge regarding what Rep. Toomey would speak about.î

Given Bromfieldís decision, Toomey is instead giving a campaign speech in downtown Lewisburg, less than 500 feet from campus. The speech will take place at the Brynwood Room, at the corner of Sixth and Market Streets in downtown Lewisburg, from 4:00 to 5:00 PM on April 8. That event will not be sponsored by the BUCC, but rather by Toomeyís supporters in Union County. The BUCC will be encouraging members of the Bucknell community to attend solely because of Toomeyís ability to intelligently articulate a principled conservative viewpoint.

ìItís a shame this conservative hero has been banned from campus,î Rupprecht said, ìbut even as a New Jersey resident who couldnít vote for him for anything, Iím really excited to meet him. Also, Rep. Toomeyís visit will hopefully make a very important point: that Bucknellís policy on political candidates is simply unreasonable and should be repealed, and until that date arrives, equitably enforced by the administration.î

The Bucknell University Conservatives Club was founded in September 2001 to combat the systematic exclusion of conservative, libertarian, and classical liberal ideas from the University. It publishes a well-known magazine, The Counterweight, and has hosted many speakers, most recently Ben Stein. One of the most successful student political organizations in the country, it was featured on the cover of the May 25, 2003 New York Times Magazine and has also received coverage from other broadcast and print media including MTV, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the Washington Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and NPR.

Bromfield is a lawyer? I'm surprised he passed the bar exam - there is no rational basis for allowing Ralph Nader to give a speech but not Cong. Toomey? The fact that Nader is getting paid $13,000 only makes it worse - you could make a reasonable argument that such payment consitutes an illegal campaign contribution by the school. Where is the ACLU when you need them (hint: suing NY state to require it to recognize homosexual marriages)?

In 1996, Penn State in a surprise invitation (I wonder who the original speaker was), brought in presidential reelection candidate Bill Clinton. The tie to the election was inescapable, and anyone thinking that it was a way to honor us graduating MSers and PhDs crossed the line between naivetÈ and flaming dishonesty. Somehow I donít think all the teamsters (yes, teamsters!) they bussed in (and who disrupted the ceremony by all getting up and leaving after his speech), were interested in recognizing our achievements. All of us new PhDs were hooded Moonie-Wedding style instead of one at time, as was the tradition, lest we riskÖ disrupting (?) the presidentís safety or slowing down the ceremony. Yeah... no politics -- it was all for us and our moms and dads.

Since then, every time Iíve seen a president or other mega-beautiful person stealing the staring role at a graduation ceremony, I feel a dark sense of sympathy for the students and genuine hate toward the administration who just spoiled their parentís day.

Donít EVER tell me that inviting a presidential candidate to a campus commencement is NOT political. Even if theyíre not paid (or get a ìpittanceî as Nader is getting), they are providing free press, a free podium, and a captive broad-based audience (who is then expected to be polite) to their campaign in exchange for national television coverage for the schoolís administration.

It clearly shows that everyone is equal in academia, but some people are more equal than others. In the academia Animal Farm, the LLL contingent is the pigs.

Nader "is not" running for office because he "was not"? Mighty Bill Clinton "was not" having sex with Monica because he "is not" having sex in front of us on the Lehrer show? Not knowing what "is" is, I am lost.

It's hard to rouse oneself to even imitation surprise over this stuff anymore, but it rarely so beautifully plays into the hands of those who argue that conservative viewpoints are suppressed on campus. Pat Toomey is my congressman, as it happens. He's not my favorite person on the planet, but the idea that he (or anyone on two legs) is likely to deliver a more self-promoting, politically-motivated speech than Ralph Nader, in any public forum at any time whatever, is berserk.

I have to agree with DBL that my first reaction to this was to wonder why Bucknell bothers employing lawyers when I could probably have made a better argument than did Bromfield.

Nader accepted the invitation several months before he declared his candidacy, while Toomey is currently in the midst of a campaign. The policy can only apply to the status of speakers at the time they are invited as it's subjective to try to predict whether they might run for office (Nader had said he would not were Dean or Kucinich to win the nomination) and poor public relations, as well as costly and impractical, to cancel already-scheduled speakers who have since become candidates.

Such an argument would have still pointed to a flawed policy but at least Bromfield would have been maintaining that it was being impartially applied. Instead, he couldn't leave it at that and had to turn the discussion into one of the intentions of Toomey's speech, which as Sean illustrated, makes for an easy counter-argument that Nader's speech is certain to be political and of benefit to his own candidacy.

Does anyone doubt that the 13k paid to Nader will find its way (legally of course) into Nader's campaign funding machine?
Does anyone doubt that the commencement speech (which I suspect will take place in May or June at the beginning of the real presidential race) will attract some press coverage (t.v. and print) and provide Nader with the opportunity for some free sound bites?
Does anyone doubt that Nader's speech, no matter how carefully crafted, will be free of some political content? Even if he exhorts students to work for companies that don't export jobs or don't accept government defense contracts, etc. he is making a political statement and it is prceisely those statements with political content that will generate press coverage.
The double standard here is obvious and as noted by others not in the least bit unusual on campus. However, what continues to annoy me is the apparent inability or self-delusion of Bromfield and others into thinking that there is no double standard at play here. I suspect the Bucknell adminstration believes they are being even-handed and sit in their common rooms shaking their heads at the knee-jerk reaction of those pesky campus conservatives who won't accept the even handed manner in which Bucknell is handling this matter.
Last, this left-leaning commenter continues to believe that campus policies such as the one at issue in Bucknell are used to regulate offensive speakers (those that do not share the prevailing campus orthodoxy) and not offensive speech.

Could it be that this is a nefarious plot by the Bucknell administration to help President Bush? I mean every dollar that goes to Nader and any pub he gets is coming out of Kerry's vote totals.

Also: worst. legal argument. ever.

If they wanted to find a new speaker for commencement and maintain a consistent policy, then great. Otherwise, let terrible Toomey speak.