Since the 1960s, liberal organizations have infested American colleges like NIU. These groups have held numerous rallies and events promoting abortion, gay marriage, anti-American propaganda and countless other left-wing agendas.

Thank the good Lord NIU has the College Republicans who constantly battle these liberal forces … oh wait, never mind. They don’t.

Since my first encounter with the CR in 2004, I have been consistently let down by the group’s lack of interest in promoting conservative issues at NIU.

Rather than advancing conservative ideology or standing up to liberal detractors, the leadership of the CR has regularly and cowardly shied away from any such confrontations. Instead, the CR has focused on helping politicians win elections.

Helping Republicans is fine and all, but the group limits itself by not voicing itself on campus. They are simply lap dogs for local politicians.

Sure, the College Republicans recently held a poorly advertised debate with the College Democrats, but the match was more of a glorified speech reading contest and few participants talked with conviction or passion.

In addition, the debate barely happened. According to the NIU College Democrats Web site, CR leadership constantly canceled meetings leaving many wondering if they were even interested in defending the main tenants of their platform.

According to the CR Web site as of Feb. 28, well … former CR chairman John Acardo wishes all CR members a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Unfortunately, confusion and disarray are all too pervasive in the CR. But what can one expect from a group that had three chairmen in this year alone?

It wasn’t always this way. The College Republicans were once led by strong, convicted members who had spines big enough to take on liberal threats.

I spoke with Ted McCarron, former chairman of the CR from 1994-95. He told me the CR was a very active group here at NIU when he got involved in the late 1980s. According to Ted, the CR used to hold anti-Soviet rallies, pro-life meetings, pro-gun meetings and other conservative-orientated activities.

The current problem started in 1996. McCarron told me “once James Barr took over as CR chairman, the group was never the same. Instead of promoting conservative initiatives like my predecessors and I did, Barr steadily moved the group to the left and reorganized it into a faction where local Republicans, conservative or not, could utilize cheap labor for their election campaigns.”

McCarron said he began to see heavier involvement in the SA by CR officers. I believe this is one of the major reasons the CR doesn’t do much on campus.

Leading the SA takes time. These unconcerned CR officers spent more time advancing their SA careers than promoting a CR agenda on campus, which resulted in the decay of the group.

Over the years, Barr’s successors continued this tradition. The last four CR chairmen were heavily involved in the SA/CAB. Instead of stepping aside to let others who genuinely cared about the group takeover, these weak-kneed leaders selfishly hung onto the group, only to let it die further.

I asked current CR chairwoman Paulette Tolene about her plans for on-campus activities. While she is excited and dedicated to advancing CR initiatives, unfortunately, as always, they are off-campus.

She proposed bringing in more Republican candidates to talk to the group and recruit members for helping in elections. Like I said before, helping political candidates is fine, but there should be more to the CR than being slaves to politicians.

While I believe Tolene’s sincerity and optimism, I do not believe the way to save the CR from mediocrity is to do more of the same. The group needs on-campus publicity by holding rallies or protests advancing conservative initiatives within the Republican platform.

Until this happens, conservatives will have virtually no voice on campus limiting academic diversity.