The University of Southern California canceled its Tuesday gubernatorial debate after facing fiery criticism about excluding every gubernatorial candidate of color.<\/p>\n
Although the university defended the methodology used to determine who was invited to participate in the forum, they canceled the debate less than 24 hours before it was set to take place because of the mounting controversy.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe recognize that concerns about the selection criteria for tomorrow\u2019s gubernatorial debate have created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters,\u201d the university said in a statement to The Times. \u201cUnfortunately, USC and [debate co-sponsor] KABC have not been able to reach an agreement on expanding the number of candidates at tomorrow\u2019s debate. As a result, USC has made the difficult decision to cancel tomorrow\u2019s debate and will look for other opportunities to educate voters on the candidates and issues.\u201d<\/p>\n
The move came hours after Democratic legislative leaders called on voters to boycott the debate if the university did not invite candidates who were excluded from participating.<\/p>\n
The unsparing letter added another layer of controversy to Tuesday\u2019s forum. <\/p>\n
\u201cWe are writing to demand you open the March 24 gubernatorial debate to all leading candidates,\u201d said the letter sent Monday evening to USC President Beong-Soo Kim by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), Senate President Pro Tem Monique Lim\u00f3n (D-Goleta) and the leaders of the legislative Latino, Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, Native American, LGBTQ, Jewish and women\u2019s caucuses. \u201cThe outcry over this debate is deafening and includes legal demands from the excluded candidates\u2019 attorneys, public calls by elected leaders across the state, concerns from the included candidates\u2019 own campaigns, and growing alarm from California voters. Instead of responding to these valid concerns by expanding the debate, USC has doubled down.\u201d<\/p>\n
USC officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday evening after the letter was sent. Tuesday\u2019s debate was set to take place less than two months before ballots begin arriving in voters\u2019 mailboxes, in the midst of a gubernatorial contest with a sprawling field of candidates that is more unpredictable than any statewide race in recent memory.<\/p>\n
Political scientists, public policy professors and researchers associated with USC, UCLA, Stanford, Harvard and several other universities across the nation issued a letter Monday defending Christian Grose, the USC political science professor who developed the methodology that determined which candidates were invited to participate in the debate.<\/p>\n
They called on the university to publicly defend Grose, arguing that although scholarly debate is important, the criticism about the debate criteria he fashioned had turned ugly and was part of a broader effort to chill academic speech.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat Professor Grose has faced … is not substantive or methodological debate. Attacks and insinuations from members of the political classes include completely baseless allegations of election-rigging, inconsistency, bias, and data manipulation,\u201d the letter said. \u201cThese are harmful character assassinations. … They are of a piece with other attempts to strong-arm or malign scholars that have become all too common in America.\u201d<\/p>\n
The controversy over the methodology the university used to select candidates centered on the inclusion of San Jos\u00e9 Mayor Matt Mahan \u2014 a white candidate who recently entered the race and is polling poorly \u2014 while former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee were excluded.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe university\u2019s selection process \u2014 built on a formula never before used for a debate of this scale, has delivered a result that is biased,\u201d the legislative leaders\u2019 letter said. \u201cWhen a methodology produces this outcome \u2014 one that elevates a candidate with notable ties to USC\u2019s donor community and the co-director of the Dornsife Center for the Political Future \u2014 the burden falls on USC to explain itself, not on everyone else to accept it. If USC does not do the right thing, we call on California voters to boycott this debate.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mike Murphy, a co-director of the USC center hosting the debate, which was also co-sponsored by Univision, has been voluntarily advising an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan. The veteran GOP strategist previously said he had nothing to do with organizing the debate and that he had asked for unpaid leave at the university through the June 2 primary if he were to take a paid role.<\/p>\n