After months of investigation and discussion regarding the infamous flag stomping in Malcolm X Plaza last semester, the College Republicans were let off the hook. It was ruled unanimously by the Student Organization Hearing Panel that there were no grounds to punish the club for its actions at its anti-terrorism rally, and everyone involved agreed that the members’ constitutional rights would have been compromised.

So, why are the members still playing the victim card and talking about lawsuits? When the College Republicans were first threatened with sanctions, the members shouted back that they would take legal action. They pled their case, brought up excellent points regarding their constitutional rights to free speech, and exposed the unfairness of attempts to muzzle them. But when these matters were decided in their favor, the threat of lawsuits still stood. Apparently, that wasn’t supposed to happen, because then the Republicans would lose their chance to bask in their sensationalized status as an oppressed group of courageous right-wingers on a predominantly left-wing campus.

When they complained, everybody listened. Normally, you call that progress. But the College Republicans did not want to win the battle. Apparently, the members prefer to play up the image of the “persecuted” group that has to fight tooth and nail to have their voice heard on our “radical leftist” campus. When everyone admitted that the threat of sanctions was hasty and unconstitutional, it wasn’t good enough. The group held on to any scrap of animosity against it so the members could milk the spotlight and pontificate.

Last week’s “Support the Troops” rally following the club’s victory was a shining example of a missed opportunity. We applaud a call to support those who dedicate their lives to serving our country. We applaud the presentations by current and former soldiers here at SF State. Unfortunately after this segment of their rally, the Republicans went back to their typical method of attacking and alienating, calling out every opposing viewpoint as crazy and radical, trivializing other perspectives and criticizing the craftmanship of Students Against War's handmade tombstones rather than encouraging substantiative dialogue.

This doesn’t accomplish anything. It’s wasting people’s time. The College Republicans aren’t trying to spark debate and they aren’t trying to make change. On the group’s Web site, their slogan reads: “Offended? Look At From Our Perspective: We Don’t Care!” That’s not productive and that’s not assertive. It is vague and ignorant, and sums up the group’s latest actions perfectly.

This attitude represents a dangerous element in society - the blindly ignorant people who will condemn and persecute based on what Bill O'Reilly said last night rather than drawing their own conclusions based on a set of facts. This group has shown no interest in facts or opposing viewpoints, merely finding new platforms to act as a soapbox for ill-advised claims. This candor is insulting to the population of SF State, which has a long history of progressive ideas and concrete action.

Syndicated columnist Debra J. Saunders wrote a piece in support of the group, ACLU and FIRE backed them up, SF State President Robert Corrigan apologized and ASI rescinded its resolution to place sanctions on the group. College Republican President Leigh Wolf even appeared on Fox News. What more do they want?

The group says its mission is to change the view of Republicans at SF State, where they say any view point or action is accepted so long as it is not Republican or conservative. So far, defending the name of the club seems to be the platform, not actually embracing political issues and making its case. What would the members be doing if they went to another school? Probably not join the Republican club. They need to accept the fact that politics are more nuanced at SF State than radical leftists and radical right-wingers.

If the members want so badly to dispel the myths and rumors about the College Republicans, it’s about time they follow up when they instigate debates. During last week’s rally, they had the opportunity to do just that when counter-protestors showed up in droves.

We’re not saying it’s wrong to offend people when you are trying to send a message. It’s a great place to start discussion. But offending people should not be the exclusive tactic for public dialogue. There is a point where you evolve past the initial hell raising, stop complaining and do something productive. At some point, you are going to have to tie yourself to specific causes — not cliché’ talking points — and explain your stance.

They complain that nobody listens, but we think everyone was listening very closely, which is why there were remarks from the crowd such as “You’re talking, but you aren’t saying anything!”

People stop listening when there is lack of substance or a point. Rhetoric only goes so far. A student political group should provide a supplement to news we have heard, to give us a new perspective so we can work together. Does the club care about the integrity of the Republican Party and educating students about its cause? Or are the members too worried that their 15 minutes are over?