Dems host panel on women and politics

Elysia Glover Assistant News Editor

The political panel on Women in Politics, jointly hosted by the College Democrats and Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance (FMLA) Alliance on April 2 tackled tears, jeers, and identity.

Panelists Professor of English Eve Dunbar, Professor of Political Science Sidney Plotkin, and Professor of Classics Barbara Olsen responded to questions from both organizers and attendees.

More than 20 students and faculty members scattered throughout Rockefeller 200 reflected on the candidates in the on-going presidential primary race, and the role identity politics has played in influencing who people vote for and why.

This was the second time this year that the Vassar Democrats and FMLA co-sponsored a panel event, having hosted a discussion on health care in the fall.

The political panel comes at a time when the political fervor on campus feels anything but feverish, a fact supported by the low turnout.

“The Democratic primary feels very decided on campus,” said Secretary of the College Democrats Kelly Stout ’10. “There seems to be this assumption that everyone is voting Obama, and I think when everyone is in agreement, it can be hard to have a political discussion.”

However, organizers Stout, President Alex Sheff ’08, Co-Vice President of the Vassar Democrats Brian Hamm ’09, and FMLA secretary Claire Webb ’10 all hoped the panel would help strengthen and inform a debate they feel is already raging in the classrooms, dorms, and dining rooms. Careful to reject claims of political apathy among Vassar community members, all three assured that the intention of Tuesday’s debate was to strengthen the one that already exists.

“I do feel there is political discussion on campus,” explained Webb ’10. “I do not think that Vassar students are inactive in this election, I just think it’s time for a more formal discussion, one students can hopefully leave from more informed.”

The atmosphere in the room was not one of hostility or fierce division, but of careful reflection and consideration, as panelists and audience alike attempted to weigh in on the significance of sex, race and the media in current political culture.

Organizers kicked off the debate with a case study of the media’s reaction to Hillary Clinton’s public crying and the political reverberations of that display among the voting public.

The discussion quickly led to debate on the obstacles facing a female candidate running for a historically “masculine” position in government.

As Olsen argued, “There is no template for a female presidential candidate. Historically, there is the notion that women are not strong enough to run for president, or to be a military leader, and whatever choice Senator Clinton makes, there will be a gender-based reaction leveled at her.”

Careful not to limit the discussion to issues specific to Clinton, panelists and organizers opened the discussion to the political position of women more generally, as voters, First Ladies and potential candidates. The discussion repeatedly returned to the political significance of the media’s portrayal of the presidential family, and more importantly, the First Lady, and the impact that the resulting stereotypes can have in shaping the voters’ perception of an ideal presidential candidate.

Not ignoring the significance of race in the Democratic Primary, the issue of the African-American women’s vote was highlighted near the end of the evening’s discussion. “What does this mean for women of color?” asked Dunbar. “The media’s erasure of black women in this race demonstrates that they are not ready to deal with black women as a political population.”

Plotkin believes that student engagement in politics is widespread. “My sense is that students are very alive to the campaign.” He added, “I’ve sensed a lot of support for Obama, but I’ve also sensed on the part of many students, not only women students, but a sense that came out of this discussion too, that Clinton has been treated badly, and there is a sense of injustice.”