Ted Cruz was a bizarre politician in college. He hopes you forget that he lobbied for liberal causes while the school was facing a $1 million dollar deficit, that he opposed spending when it came to campus safety and dorm intrusion, that he was a proponent of spending when it came to social events and parties, and that if he was ever a maverick, it was in his forerunner status as a ‘rape culture’ fear monger. Ted wants you to forget that the closest person in his life–whether it was his best friend in college, or his wife today–has always been inexorably linked to the financial institutions on Wall Street.
Most of all, Ted wants you to forget how badly he let his school down after a series of violent rapes took place, how he was preoccupied with parties, and how he tried to derail the implementation of a dormitory lock program every step of the way because he was afraid it would draw money away from social programs.
As PoliticalWave has already unraveled his past as a liberal globalist lawyer, its high time we examine the younger Cruz.
Spend Liberal, Think Little
The truth is often stranger than fiction. PoliticalWave and America’s Freedom Fighters are able to report that Ted Cruz, while running for numerous positions within student government at Princeton (and failing miserably multiple times), proposed a bizarre platform of big spending for social services including meal forgiveness, the building of an excessive public facility, and extended study periods. Perhaps Cruz wanted extra reading time so he could proof read his political advertisements considering he wrote “three(sic) should be a three-day reading period before mid-terms.” This isn’t to say that Cruz was actually a socialist in the reddest sense of the word. In fact, he also heavily lobbied to reduce spending on multiple occasions. Most notably, Ted Cruz tried to prevent Princeton from spending money to put locks on the dorm halls after the campus had seen an incredible increase in sexual assaults. That’s right. Cruz was a big liberal spender on parties and a conservative on security. But don’t worry folks, he will totally build us The Wall that he ripped off from Trump–but if you actually believe that I’m not sure it’s worth reading the rest of this article. If you are not as convinced as some of the most ardent Cruz supporters, have a look at this later advert from when Cruz was running for re-election. He could be applying for Greenpeace!
His Words, Not Mine
While commenting for the Daily Princetonian in 1990, Cruz was skeptical about how practical campus security measures were. “I personally don’t think it’s the best way of improving safety,” Cruz said. “I think the effect (locked entryways will have) in keeping people out of dorms is negligible. I do think it serves to be an inconvenience of being restrictive.” While Cruz said he believed locks would improve safety to a certain degree, he added, “perhaps the money could be better spent elsewhere.” Cruz was clearly okay with spending money on more social activities–he told his classmates just what they wanted to hear while running for class president. He just didn’t want to increase campus security. This is all somewhat surprising considering he has often bragged about how important sexual assault has been to him “since” college, when Cruz was arguably one of the biggest enablers of it on Princeton–fighting the security staff the whole way through the process of security implementation. Writing for Business Insider, Hunter Walker tried to claim that Cruz was “Ted Cruz Was 25 Years Ahead Of His Time On Fighting Campus Rape” and–forgive me Hunter–this is nothing more than complete bull. Maybe Hunter just did a poor job researching for his piece and maybe it had to do with the fact that Cruz offered him an exclusive interview, but whatever the case Cruz was no advocate for women back in 90s and he isn’t one today either. Based off of his promises to create more social opportunities, its hard to not wonder whether Cruz had difficulty getting his priorities straight. With the rising deficit looming in the background of administrators’ minds, its possible that Cruz felt security and parties were an either or decision and lobbied for what was most momentarily important to him.
It should probably be noted that Cruz opposed all of these minor security measures while serving on the Campus Safety Committee–a committee that he was a founding member of and a committee that was created for the purpose of implementing these very same measures. The Daily Princetonian had this to say about the Safety Committee’s formation: “The ad hoc group was created in response to two incidents which took place within a week of each other — a rape in Prospect Gardens in January 1989 and a stabbing in Wilson College library.” Keep the event in the Prospect Gardens in mind for a moment and we’ll come back to that in just a tick. With a bit of speculation, its not hard to imagine that Cruz joined this Committee under the auspices of protecting the vulnerable all while fully intending to use it as leverage against a door locking program that he felt was too expensive. This speculation is supported by a bit of evidence from another founding member who specifically cited “leaving doors unlocked” as one of the primary concerns of the group when it was formed. This concern seemed to quickly dissipate once Cruz got involved–which one former member would later point out.
The Bizarre Goal Develops
A year after the formation, Cruz was using the delegation as a means to push a radical low-budget agenda on security–an agenda that was not viewed well by his peers that almost unanimously ran on platforms of “campus safety, locked entryways and the addition of a second full-time counselor for the Sexual Harassment/Assault, Advising, Resources and Education program.” Regardless of the will of the Princeton people, Cruz and his tight-knit crew converted cohorts began to aggressively demand a debate with faculty on the matter.
Interestingly enough, one of Cruz’s biggest allies in his ‘fight against safety’ was David Panton. Panton was Cruz’s debate partner and roommate during his later years of college.
[As an aside, it’s been rumored that Cruz, despite being almost universally disliked on campus, was stomached because of the universal popularity of Panton–the former of the debating duo would go on to work for the Bush campaign where he would meet his wife Heidi, a future Goldman Sachs executive, and the latter would begin working at Navigational Capital Partners–a private equity firm with close working ties to Goldman Sachs and would heavily contribute to Cruz’s Senatorial campaign and be one of the leading voices encouraging him to make a 2016 election bid. The best friend and wife of the would-be “outsider” are just at the periphery of the most universally distrusted Wall Street behemoth in America. A coincidence, I am sure.].
Back on topic. Panton, was also coincidentally a member on the Safety Committee (because Cruz wouldn’t try to jury pack a committee he was interested in influencing, of course) and had an alarming vision of what the goal of a safety committee should be: “The goal of the safety committee will be to restrain the university and keep them from splurging.” Odd, I thought the primary concern would be to encourage the university to take proactive and commonsense measures (like, I dunno, locks?) to prevent crime on campus. The group was formed in response to a violent rape and stabbing, after all.
At the debate Cruz demanded take place (and hosted by the debate club Cruz played a leadership role in), Dick Spies, the vice president at the time, made sure to reference the 64 uninvited intruders that entered into the dormitories in the Fall semester of 1989 alone. Despite this inconvenient truth, Cruz put on his best show of feminism arguing that “the greater problem is date rape, or assaults by other students, which the planned system would do nothing to stop.” That’s right, Cruz was a ‘Rape Culture’ pioneer–but only to prevent people from locking the doors on dorm halls, because Cruz didn’t want other measures to be implemented outside of the dorms either. Do you remember that vicious rape mentioned above that took place in the campus Prospect Gardens? It was suggested that those gardens should be locked at night to prevent assailants from taking advantage of their seclusion–Cruz was an opponent of that measure too. The only measure that he was in favor of was better campus lighting. But why did he oppose locking off the campus gardens? Because Cruz didn’t “like the statement it makes!” Walls don’t make great statements either. Just like locks their presence is a giant “Do Not Enter” sign.
The Tale Of Two Teds: His And Reality’s
Now, all of this is very strange because Cruz won over support (if 50 students finding his argument valid isn’t substantial, it is still 50 students more than one should expect) among the student body. He was able to manipulate the agenda of the committee he had gained a seat on within one year, so that the group which was founded with the intention of locking the dorms, now opposed the security measure entirely.
Barry Langman, former member of the committee, was understandably confused by the swift transition from support to opposition. Eventually, Ted’s cabal accepted a pilot program in a select number of dorms–but only after there was a special button added to the door systems so that students could complain if any issues cropped up. Jerrold Witsil, was the Director of Public Safety during this debacle and his final words to Ted on the matter were as follows: “Ted! Ted! Give it up, Ted! We’re not looking at the locks on entryway doors in a sense of ‘that’s the answer,’ It’s a package. There are more lights and more phones coming.”
Still, Ted did not “give it up.” A year later, using campus funds, the wannabe fiscal conservative was still going at it and hosted an event to further assess the program. This was Ted’s final stand, and The Daily Princetonian seemed to have had enough of Cruz’s shenanigans, running an article titled “Forum on dormitory locks draws extremely sparse student turnout,” this time it was Dick Spies and student government ally, Sharon Simpson, that got the last word. “It is the university’s responsibility — and my responsibility to decide on behalf of the university —to create a safe environment on campus,” said Spies. And, Simpson with an obvious quip at Cruz agreed “No system is going to work,” she said, “if the students don’t care and don’t cooperate.”
Ted’s war on safety, his encouragement of fiscal irresponsibility for the sake of parties, his distaste for sensible expenses for the sake of security, and his incessant need to argue and be proven right for the sake of his pride thankfully all failed him. But Cruz’s campaign against campus security would be warped and woven into a narrative about being a personal champion of “protecting” women’s rights. How he thought he was protecting them by encouraging an “another year of vulnerability,” as Spies would describe it, I don’t know. Maybe he wanted to have the money spent “elsewhere,” maybe he wanted to power trip over administrators. One thing is sure from this example: just like Cruz’s fake filibuster and just like the time he assisted in shutting down the government–Cruz has never been one to make deals, never one to compromise. He has always been an obstinate instigator and he cannot be trusted with the Oval Office for that reason alone.
Next time PoliticalWave and AFF will cover Cruz’s days as Solicitor General. Here’s a sneak peak: