David:
The recent events at the University of Missouri illustrate a disturbing trend.
A student mob successfully ousted a university president not for something he did wrong, but because they didn't think he did enough right.
Doug:
Gosh, those students are really powerful when they stand together and protest. They could really change the world! That does sound like a disturbing trend. Wait, why is that a disturbing trend? Or maybe this is really about race and you don't want to say it?
David:
It is racial, according to the organizers. But what exactly is the grievance? You know, ISIS is a group standing together to change the world. So fighting for something as a group or mob is not always a good thing, eh?
Doug:
I see: for you, it depends on what the message is. Then you can decide if you support a group's right to protest and affect change. If you don't agree with the message, then these protestors are like ISIS. If you do agree with the message, then they must be Freedom Fighters.
David:
You're wrong about that. Protesting is the American way. Remember the Boston Tea Party? The Sons of Liberty? But these students are protesting just to protest. They wanted the figurative heads of the president and the chancellor, and they got that. And yet they are still protesting, but can't really tell you what the new goals are. It reminds me of the Occupy Wall Street protests: Many people who were upset, but each one of them seemed to have a different grievance. Shanty towns full of complainers without direction or goals doesn't make for a movement.
Doug:
In a democracy, we hope that all disagreements are made via standing together and protesting. So, you can't really be against protesting. I'm still trying to figure out why you think that this is a disturbing trend? If you don't know what the grievance is, then how can you judge their position?
David:
Protestors without stated goals, or students who are still protesting after their stated goals are met are just an unruly crowd. They are no longer protestors.
Doug:
So the disturbing trend is: protesters protest, they get what they want, and they continue to meet. Well, that is a first-world disturbing trend!
David:
And at Yale, professors are under attack for standing up for freedom of ideas, even if you disagree with those ideas. Now, if someone says something you disagree with, you are to call the campus police!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426853/yale-student-protest-safe-space-political-correctness
Doug:
If you want to find out what is going on at Yale, you probably do not want to start with an opinion piece in the National Review by Jonah Goldberg. Even in that biased perspective, I didn't see anything about calling the police on people you disagree with. You just made that up. Here is a perspective in their own words:
https://medium.com/@aaronzlewis/what-s-really-going-on-at-yale-6bdbbeeb57a6
David:
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/11/11/aclu-missouri-needs-to-protect-students-free-speech-rights
When the ACLU says you've gone to far, well, for a Democrat that must be a particularly savage slap-down.
Doug:
It is funny that you see the ACLU as a left-leaning organization. They are lawyers that protect Civil Liberties. Civil Liberties are those freedoms that we all should value. The ACLU is pointing out to the Missouri students that you should not stifle the discussion. If that is considered a "savage slap-down" then your analogies are very different from mine.
David:
The ACLU has chosen liberal issue to focus their major efforts, and they do it in a way that is unfair. Rather than sue the New York Public School system (or other large district flush with cash) over the use of the words "Christmas Vacation" on the school calendar, they sue small, rural school systems that have no resources and have to buckle because they cannot afford to mount any opposition. You don't see that, because the ACLU fights for things you already believe should be mandated.
Doug:
New rule: how about I argue my points, and you argue yours. I'll say what I believe in. You can imagine all you want. But, you don't like the ACLU because they don't fight fair? Recall that we are talking about the ACLU here because you agree with them (e.g., slapping down those dirty hippies).
David:
Sometimes the Left violates the constitution in such an egregious way, that even the ACLU has to finally step in and warn them...
It seems we are raising a new batch of young people who have the idea brainwashed into their little fragile heads that anything that makes them uncomfortable (or that they don't want to listen to) should be shouted down and attacked. Their poor psyches can't handle the stress of debate.
Doug:
You are talking about like GOP Presidential hopefuls, right? They wanted to change the way that Republican debates are held, so they protested. And they stood by their principles until the NRC relented.... oh, no they didn't. They caved because they couldn't agree on a set of demands.
David:
No. Everyone agrees that the moderators acted with discourtesy at the event, and their questions were biased and rude.
Doug:
No, not "everyone" agrees that the moderators acted with "discourtesy." That is a Republican talking point to try to make everyone believe that any questions are hostile and that the media is biased. In fact, everyone secretly believes that the GOP candidates are babies and can't handle Fox news moderators, let alone ISIS, or France for that matter.
David:
Perhaps you should read more than the Huffington Post.
Doug:
I read a lot things, but not the Huffington Post. But knowledge is not the enemy. You should read things you don't agree with, and that is not a weakness.
David:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/opinion-blog/2015/10/29/cnbc-moderators-ruined-the-gop-debate
The backlash was so overwhelming, that no changes need to be made. Future moderators know they will be held accountable for bad behavior. The problem resolved itself.
Doug:
Great! Then next debate should be on MSNBC! Or Fox for that matter. Let Megyn Kelly have another go. That evil Liberal Media!
David:
But at Missouri, the president and the chancellor both resigned and have been replaced. So, just what are the set of demands now? You said that the issues are all about race.
Doug:
Actually, I asked you if this was about race. See above. Why do they have to have additional demands? Didn't they get what they want?
David:
Yes, and yet they are still protesting. About what?
Doug:
I don't think that a single person stepping down can change anything overnight.
David:
But they still haven't clarified what it is they are protesting for now.
The organizer of the "Million Student March" says the issues are "free education, complete forgiveness of debts, and $15 per hour wages for college employees". No mention of anything racial, but plenty that sounds like Hillary's talking points. This video puts it all in a nice nutshell (emphasis on "nut"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e50fQLyebI
Doug:
This is a different group, protesting different things.
David:
They are the only student group that has actually identified what they are now protesting about.
Doug:
And you are confused because they don't focus on the same issues that other students do? And what a brave student to go on national TV facing Neil Cavuto on Fox. These sound like brave students questioning the status quo.
David:
Brave and stupid. That's not a good mix.
Doug:
Look, you may not agree with them, but calling students "stupid" is not productive. If you want to change people's minds you have to show them a better answer.
David:
If you are the spokesperson for a national march, that is to include a multitude of others (I think it was actually more like the Thousand Student March), you should have a little bit of ability to express your goals in some type of realistic way. She looked foolish in the interview because she lacked any workable facts. She is ignorant of the world around her, and by her own admission, she just doesn't "believe" what is real.
In some instances, these overly sensitive students are being led in their boorish and offensive behavior by their own college professors.
Doug:
I thought that they were arguing with their college professors. You said that college "professors were under attack."
David:
Both are true. At Yale, the students are attacking professors who believe in free speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNtXS8y1S6A
And at Missouri, ironically, it is a journalism professor who is asking the crowd to provide "some muscle" to throw a journalism student out of a public meeting space, clearly violating the First Amendment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPG43X7SDB8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S3yMzEee18
I find these videos disturbing.
Doug:
These are students, and professors, learning many lessons. These are individuals, not trained in Civil Liberties law. I certainly don't agree with squelching any debate, and I agree that we should not letting the debaters control the process. She wasn't a "journalism professor" by the way. She was "affiliated" with the School of Journalism but that relationship is under review. No professor of Journalism would tell a reporter to go away.
David:
This is from MU's own website, and lists her as an Assistant Professor.
https://communication.missouri.edu/faculty/click
Doug:
She is an Assistant Professor, in the school of Communication. She is not a professor in the school of Journalism. These are two very different things, as different as Biology and Chemistry. I am an Associate Professor in Computer Science. I am not qualified to teach in Journalism.
David:
Sorry. I always assumed that journalism was a type of communication.
I don't accept that you have to be a civil liberties lawyer to understand civil liberties. It seems that civil liberties are something that should be discussed at length by college students on campus.
Doug:
I would argue that they are discussing Civil Liberties on on campus. That is exactly what they are doing.
David:
And yet, your defense of their actions is they don't understand civil liberties. Apparently these students and professors believe in free speech only for them, and not for anybody else. The poor student reporter wasn't even taking a side. He's just there to report the events, and ended up assaulted under the direction of the assistant professor (who has since resigned.) What has happened to college campuses? Where did the rigors of thought and debate go?
Doug:
It sounds like these students are flexing their protest muscles. We want to create an active student body yes? We want them to make the world a better place through action?
David:
Promoting violence or aggression to make your point does not make for a better world.
Doug:
Protests are not violent. They are the cure for violence.
David:
Hmmm. Assaulting a student reporter to cure violence. That sounds a lot like a line from the book "1984". Silencing those that disagree with you, to attain goals that are not defined, doesn't make the world a better place. Sorry you feel that is such a noble cause.
Doug:
Sorry that that is what you understand that the protests are about. Listen to what the students are upset about. Don't get distracted by the process.
David:
I'm listening, but the silence is deafening. I'd like to know what the protests are now about. And if the process is disruptive and angry, without any goals, or even stated issues, then it isn't a protest at all, but just an angry mob.
Hopefully, calmer (and more responsible) heads will prevail. Like Purdue University's Mitch Daniels:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-adult-on-campus-1447287400
Doug:
Daniels does have to walk a tight-rope, between supporting students, Purdue, and his politics. The student-led Statement of Values was exactly this, no more, and no less:
http://www.purdue.edu/president/email/2015/We-Are-Purdue-Statement-of-Values.pdf
This is a cheer. It isn't a "stark contrast" to what is going on at Yale and Missouri. If you think that there couldn't be the same kinds of protests at Purdue, then you don't understand what the students want. This isn't about Daniels' ability to control students; this is about student unrest. The noble cause is that people are willing to stand up for what they believe in. It is democracy in action.
David:
Mitch Daniels isn't controlling students. Purdue has established rules of debate with respect for both sides, and for opposing views to have an equal place at the discussion. The students at Purdue themselves have decided opposing thought will not be silenced. That is not what is going on at Missouri or Yale. Watch those raw YouTube videos again. Purdue's approach is like this blog: Differing ideas presented in a (mostly) respectful tone. That is democracy in action.
Doug:
Mitch Daniels is controlling the students. You think all Purdue students would be happy with their voice being reduced to that cheer? Sorry, but you don't get to dictate how the opposing side makes their argument. They ain't going to blog; they are going to protest. It will be loud and messy. That is democracy in action.
The recent events at the University of Missouri illustrate a disturbing trend.
A student mob successfully ousted a university president not for something he did wrong, but because they didn't think he did enough right.
Doug:
Gosh, those students are really powerful when they stand together and protest. They could really change the world! That does sound like a disturbing trend. Wait, why is that a disturbing trend? Or maybe this is really about race and you don't want to say it?
David:
It is racial, according to the organizers. But what exactly is the grievance? You know, ISIS is a group standing together to change the world. So fighting for something as a group or mob is not always a good thing, eh?
Doug:
I see: for you, it depends on what the message is. Then you can decide if you support a group's right to protest and affect change. If you don't agree with the message, then these protestors are like ISIS. If you do agree with the message, then they must be Freedom Fighters.
David:
You're wrong about that. Protesting is the American way. Remember the Boston Tea Party? The Sons of Liberty? But these students are protesting just to protest. They wanted the figurative heads of the president and the chancellor, and they got that. And yet they are still protesting, but can't really tell you what the new goals are. It reminds me of the Occupy Wall Street protests: Many people who were upset, but each one of them seemed to have a different grievance. Shanty towns full of complainers without direction or goals doesn't make for a movement.
Doug:
In a democracy, we hope that all disagreements are made via standing together and protesting. So, you can't really be against protesting. I'm still trying to figure out why you think that this is a disturbing trend? If you don't know what the grievance is, then how can you judge their position?
David:
Protestors without stated goals, or students who are still protesting after their stated goals are met are just an unruly crowd. They are no longer protestors.
Doug:
So the disturbing trend is: protesters protest, they get what they want, and they continue to meet. Well, that is a first-world disturbing trend!
David:
And at Yale, professors are under attack for standing up for freedom of ideas, even if you disagree with those ideas. Now, if someone says something you disagree with, you are to call the campus police!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426853/yale-student-protest-safe-space-political-correctness
Doug:
If you want to find out what is going on at Yale, you probably do not want to start with an opinion piece in the National Review by Jonah Goldberg. Even in that biased perspective, I didn't see anything about calling the police on people you disagree with. You just made that up. Here is a perspective in their own words:
https://medium.com/@aaronzlewis/what-s-really-going-on-at-yale-6bdbbeeb57a6
David:
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/11/11/aclu-missouri-needs-to-protect-students-free-speech-rights
When the ACLU says you've gone to far, well, for a Democrat that must be a particularly savage slap-down.
Doug:
It is funny that you see the ACLU as a left-leaning organization. They are lawyers that protect Civil Liberties. Civil Liberties are those freedoms that we all should value. The ACLU is pointing out to the Missouri students that you should not stifle the discussion. If that is considered a "savage slap-down" then your analogies are very different from mine.
David:
The ACLU has chosen liberal issue to focus their major efforts, and they do it in a way that is unfair. Rather than sue the New York Public School system (or other large district flush with cash) over the use of the words "Christmas Vacation" on the school calendar, they sue small, rural school systems that have no resources and have to buckle because they cannot afford to mount any opposition. You don't see that, because the ACLU fights for things you already believe should be mandated.
Doug:
New rule: how about I argue my points, and you argue yours. I'll say what I believe in. You can imagine all you want. But, you don't like the ACLU because they don't fight fair? Recall that we are talking about the ACLU here because you agree with them (e.g., slapping down those dirty hippies).
David:
Sometimes the Left violates the constitution in such an egregious way, that even the ACLU has to finally step in and warn them...
It seems we are raising a new batch of young people who have the idea brainwashed into their little fragile heads that anything that makes them uncomfortable (or that they don't want to listen to) should be shouted down and attacked. Their poor psyches can't handle the stress of debate.
Doug:
You are talking about like GOP Presidential hopefuls, right? They wanted to change the way that Republican debates are held, so they protested. And they stood by their principles until the NRC relented.... oh, no they didn't. They caved because they couldn't agree on a set of demands.
David:
No. Everyone agrees that the moderators acted with discourtesy at the event, and their questions were biased and rude.
Doug:
No, not "everyone" agrees that the moderators acted with "discourtesy." That is a Republican talking point to try to make everyone believe that any questions are hostile and that the media is biased. In fact, everyone secretly believes that the GOP candidates are babies and can't handle Fox news moderators, let alone ISIS, or France for that matter.
David:
Perhaps you should read more than the Huffington Post.
Doug:
I read a lot things, but not the Huffington Post. But knowledge is not the enemy. You should read things you don't agree with, and that is not a weakness.
David:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/opinion-blog/2015/10/29/cnbc-moderators-ruined-the-gop-debate
The backlash was so overwhelming, that no changes need to be made. Future moderators know they will be held accountable for bad behavior. The problem resolved itself.
Doug:
Great! Then next debate should be on MSNBC! Or Fox for that matter. Let Megyn Kelly have another go. That evil Liberal Media!
David:
But at Missouri, the president and the chancellor both resigned and have been replaced. So, just what are the set of demands now? You said that the issues are all about race.
Doug:
Actually, I asked you if this was about race. See above. Why do they have to have additional demands? Didn't they get what they want?
David:
Yes, and yet they are still protesting. About what?
Doug:
I don't think that a single person stepping down can change anything overnight.
David:
But they still haven't clarified what it is they are protesting for now.
The organizer of the "Million Student March" says the issues are "free education, complete forgiveness of debts, and $15 per hour wages for college employees". No mention of anything racial, but plenty that sounds like Hillary's talking points. This video puts it all in a nice nutshell (emphasis on "nut"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e50fQLyebI
Doug:
This is a different group, protesting different things.
David:
They are the only student group that has actually identified what they are now protesting about.
Doug:
And you are confused because they don't focus on the same issues that other students do? And what a brave student to go on national TV facing Neil Cavuto on Fox. These sound like brave students questioning the status quo.
David:
Brave and stupid. That's not a good mix.
Doug:
Look, you may not agree with them, but calling students "stupid" is not productive. If you want to change people's minds you have to show them a better answer.
David:
If you are the spokesperson for a national march, that is to include a multitude of others (I think it was actually more like the Thousand Student March), you should have a little bit of ability to express your goals in some type of realistic way. She looked foolish in the interview because she lacked any workable facts. She is ignorant of the world around her, and by her own admission, she just doesn't "believe" what is real.
In some instances, these overly sensitive students are being led in their boorish and offensive behavior by their own college professors.
Doug:
I thought that they were arguing with their college professors. You said that college "professors were under attack."
David:
Both are true. At Yale, the students are attacking professors who believe in free speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNtXS8y1S6A
And at Missouri, ironically, it is a journalism professor who is asking the crowd to provide "some muscle" to throw a journalism student out of a public meeting space, clearly violating the First Amendment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPG43X7SDB8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S3yMzEee18
I find these videos disturbing.
Doug:
These are students, and professors, learning many lessons. These are individuals, not trained in Civil Liberties law. I certainly don't agree with squelching any debate, and I agree that we should not letting the debaters control the process. She wasn't a "journalism professor" by the way. She was "affiliated" with the School of Journalism but that relationship is under review. No professor of Journalism would tell a reporter to go away.
David:
This is from MU's own website, and lists her as an Assistant Professor.
https://communication.missouri.edu/faculty/click
Doug:
She is an Assistant Professor, in the school of Communication. She is not a professor in the school of Journalism. These are two very different things, as different as Biology and Chemistry. I am an Associate Professor in Computer Science. I am not qualified to teach in Journalism.
David:
Sorry. I always assumed that journalism was a type of communication.
I don't accept that you have to be a civil liberties lawyer to understand civil liberties. It seems that civil liberties are something that should be discussed at length by college students on campus.
Doug:
I would argue that they are discussing Civil Liberties on on campus. That is exactly what they are doing.
David:
And yet, your defense of their actions is they don't understand civil liberties. Apparently these students and professors believe in free speech only for them, and not for anybody else. The poor student reporter wasn't even taking a side. He's just there to report the events, and ended up assaulted under the direction of the assistant professor (who has since resigned.) What has happened to college campuses? Where did the rigors of thought and debate go?
Doug:
It sounds like these students are flexing their protest muscles. We want to create an active student body yes? We want them to make the world a better place through action?
David:
Promoting violence or aggression to make your point does not make for a better world.
Doug:
Protests are not violent. They are the cure for violence.
David:
Hmmm. Assaulting a student reporter to cure violence. That sounds a lot like a line from the book "1984". Silencing those that disagree with you, to attain goals that are not defined, doesn't make the world a better place. Sorry you feel that is such a noble cause.
Doug:
Sorry that that is what you understand that the protests are about. Listen to what the students are upset about. Don't get distracted by the process.
David:
I'm listening, but the silence is deafening. I'd like to know what the protests are now about. And if the process is disruptive and angry, without any goals, or even stated issues, then it isn't a protest at all, but just an angry mob.
Hopefully, calmer (and more responsible) heads will prevail. Like Purdue University's Mitch Daniels:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-adult-on-campus-1447287400
Doug:
Daniels does have to walk a tight-rope, between supporting students, Purdue, and his politics. The student-led Statement of Values was exactly this, no more, and no less:
http://www.purdue.edu/president/email/2015/We-Are-Purdue-Statement-of-Values.pdf
This is a cheer. It isn't a "stark contrast" to what is going on at Yale and Missouri. If you think that there couldn't be the same kinds of protests at Purdue, then you don't understand what the students want. This isn't about Daniels' ability to control students; this is about student unrest. The noble cause is that people are willing to stand up for what they believe in. It is democracy in action.
David:
Mitch Daniels isn't controlling students. Purdue has established rules of debate with respect for both sides, and for opposing views to have an equal place at the discussion. The students at Purdue themselves have decided opposing thought will not be silenced. That is not what is going on at Missouri or Yale. Watch those raw YouTube videos again. Purdue's approach is like this blog: Differing ideas presented in a (mostly) respectful tone. That is democracy in action.
Doug:
Mitch Daniels is controlling the students. You think all Purdue students would be happy with their voice being reduced to that cheer? Sorry, but you don't get to dictate how the opposing side makes their argument. They ain't going to blog; they are going to protest. It will be loud and messy. That is democracy in action.
"It seems we are raising a new batch of young people who have the idea brainwashed into their little fragile heads that anything that makes them uncomfortable (or that they don't want to listen to) should be shouted down and attacked. Their poor psyches can't handle the stress of debate." --Was it not older and more conservative Christians who made such ridiculous claims against the Starbucks cups? I guess their fragile little heads were uncomfortable with plain red and so they.. shouted and attacked..... you could even say that their poor psyches couldn't handle the stress of debate.
ReplyDeleteI actually had not heard anything about Starbuck's cup controversy. It appears that this is really just hype about a single guy on the internet:
Deletehttp://www.vox.com/2015/11/10/9707034/starbucks-red-cup-controversy
So I wouldn't say "Christians" are offended. But, anyone who is offended certainly fits into the categories we both have described.
But here is a larger question for you to ponder. If a group actually was offended in some way by these cups, should Starbucks remove them? Or would it be OK for Starbucks to say that group shouldn't be so sensitive about their cups? Are you arguing that someone shouldn't be offended if Starbucks didn't intend to be offensive?
"I actually had not heard anything about Starbuck's cup controversy" ... what kind of bubble do you live in, man? It does look like one Christian minister started it, but there were lots of Christians upset.
DeleteIf "red cups" represented violence or harassment of a group of people, then that is a very different issue, regardless of intention.
If people are offended by inclusivity then I'm worried... it's like people forget that Christmas is not the only holiday around this season and the Starbucks cups are STILL red and green, Christmas colors. It doesn't even make any sense why people were mad in the first place because they were defending the commercialization of a sacred holiday, but that's beside the point. They weren't offended by the cups, they were offended because they considered the cups "anti-Christian/Christmas" which (technically they're still Christmas colors anyway) is insane because they are MORE inclusive because NO religious affiliation is still not against a certain religion it is simply not FOR a certain one.
DeleteI note that neither of you addressed the issue of what To do if a group claims to be offended. In reviewing all of the stories related to Mizzou, outraged students claim there is "an atmosphere of hate". Some go on to describe that as meaning people "look at them in a demeaning way". What?
DeleteThat certainly does not meet Doug's definition of violence and harassment.
Have you ever had a pimple on your face, and all day you felt that everyone was,looking directly at,it? When the reality is no one even noticed. When you are certain that everyone is out to get you, every look or even smile may be interpreted wrongly. That sounds like what We're seeing at Mizzou. Prove me wrong.
And, I'm glad to finally hear Doug say that it isn't an offense to take action against if it doesn't promote violence or harassment. Good for you!
Your argument is Starbucks doesn't have to do anything because someone who is offended is crazy. What if I were to say that I consider the student arguments at Mizzou to be crazy?
DeleteYou aren't spending any time trying to understand where that minority group is coming from. Maybe you need to go to a mandatory religious comprehension class after diversity training.
I can hear you rolling your eyes, but you should pause and understand that these arguments are both similar, but you praise one side and condemn the other because they don't make sense to your worldview.
If you want me to prove to you that racism exists, then that is easy. Oh, unless you believe that being black is like having a pimple. Then I think I'll pass on that debate.
ReplyDeleteNo, just give me a solid example going on at Missouri, or Yale. Since you've said it's easy, you should have no trouble with that.
DeleteOf course, the example is of being over-sensitive. Perhaps the analogy was too esoteric for you.
I just went to a meeting yesterday on our campus with our own student protesters. There are some pretty terrible things that people say and do everyday to people of color.
DeleteSorry to hear that your all-girl, private university is such a hot-bed of racism. Based on the recent college protests, it seems that millennials may be more racist than any generation in the last 100 years.
DeleteThese situations are not similar! You said that "It appears that this is really just hype about a single guy on the internet." That does not equate to an entire group's centuries-long persecution. There is no equivalence via "claiming to be offended."
ReplyDeleteThere isn't really a controversy about Starbucks cups. I thought we had agreed on that. But, since the issue was brought up, I'm using it as a hypothetical. Without giving it any thought, you would dismiss a religious argument.
DeleteAre the Little Sisters of the Poor wrong in following their beliefs against the Obama Administration?
I would dismiss any argument that relied solely on the fact that it is a "religious argument." Lots of bad things have fallen into that category, so it gets no special treatment from any other argument.
DeleteAnd that is a problem. Any complaint of discrimination based on race or gender gets full attention of the media and even the president, but by your own words, religious discrimination needs some additional evidence or verification before it can be taken seriously. That's a double standard.
DeleteDavid said: "Any complaint of discrimination based on race or gender gets full attention of the media and even the president, but by your own words, religious discrimination needs some additional evidence or verification before it can be taken seriously. That's a double standard."
DeleteMy own words were: 'I would dismiss any argument that relied solely on the fact that it is a "religious argument."' I would also dismiss any argument that was solely a "racial argument." That is not a thing.
The Purdue students have joined the conversation: http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004045468/black-on-campus.html
ReplyDeleteAnd that is why Purdue is different from Mizzou. A student can stand out and voice opposition to the group, and he is able to speak. They are all expressing themselves, without violence, curse words, or professors calling for "muscle" to throw anybody out. They are all looking for a dialogue and discussion. I didn't hear anyone screaming for Mitch Daniels to resign. He's created a space, along with the student body, for a peaceful rally to take place.
DeleteYou certainly gleaned a lot from that one video! These protests look very similar to me.
DeleteThey are, except for all of the things I mentioned, which are different...
DeleteRegarding one of those "disturbing" videos:
ReplyDelete"In a statement on Tuesday, Ms. Click said, “I regret the language and strategies I used, and sincerely apologize to the M.U. campus community, and journalists at large, for my behavior, and also for the way my actions have shifted attention away from the students’ campaign for justice.” She said she had called the journalists involved to apologize, personally.
See a full exploration at the paper of record: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/university-of-missouri-names-law-professor-to-diversity-post.html