In reply to SEADave:
Who knows, just going off of what I'd read somewhere. That's evidence enough that you should take everything read on the Internet with a grain of salt. 
In reply to SEADave:
Who knows, just going off of what I'd read somewhere. That's evidence enough that you should take everything read on the Internet with a grain of salt.
WOW Really Paul? wrote:STM317 wrote:I glossed over this, but any single student on a scholarship for any merit, whether athletics or GPA, is being paid. Tuition, housing, food, books, education, training, etc is all compensation and should be treated like a job. If you refuse to work at your job, expect repercussions.alfadriver wrote: In reply to STM317: Remember that NBA athletes were going to sit out the playoffs if one of the owners was not removed from ownership. The players won. There is a lot of power in the players hands- regardless of the level.This is true. There will always be some power in the "rank and file". But a college student, who sees the University they attend make millions of dollars off of them, while they get paid nothing, probably has a lot more motivation than a pro athlete making 6 or 8 figures a year. Unless the University threatens to withhold room and board or take scholarships away, the college athlete has nothing to lose and everything to gain, while the pro has far more on the line with a boycott.
I see your point, but the University realistically isn't going to take away scholarships or room/board for these protesting athletes or they'd look even worse, and upset more people than they already have. SO the athletes knew they had nothing to lose by striking. That was my point. College athletes striking have far less to lose than Pro athletes.
Sorry, but athletes get a $100,000 college education and now they are getting stipends. I don't call that playing for nothing.
spitfirebill wrote: Sorry, but athletes get a $100,000 college education and now they are getting stipends. I don't call that playing for nothing.
So... maybe $25k/year for what amounts to being a minor league athlete - for the ones who are actually on a scholarship. How much money does the university make from their talents in that time? Is the university actually ensuring that they are able to focus enough on academics to get $100k worth of education?
In reply to STM317:
They ABSOLUTELY should have something to lose, and personally, I always hope they will versus caving to their demands.
No sense of perspective. Completely tone deaf.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/13/liberal-activists-upset-paris-terrorist-attacks-are-getting-attention-not-missouri/
WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to STM317: They ABSOLUTELY should have something to lose, and personally, I always hope they will versus caving to their demands.
Perhaps in some situations that might be the appropriate tact, but I don't think it would be smart here. You're suggesting a school with a history of racial tension pull the benefits of the predominately black football team/biggest money generator they have. That would cost the school millions of dollars because they wouldn't be able to play games that generate the VAST majority of income for the entire athletic department. That just creates a ton of financial problems and on top of those, you have an much bigger E36M3-storm of angry people bad mouthing your campus. From those angry about racial issues to alumni/boosters to the cross country team that can't get new equipment because the athletic department is broke, it would've made the existing problem much worse, and created new ones. Who would want their child attending a school like that? All of a sudden, not only is the athletic department not making the same revenue, but there are fewer tuition paying applicants, and the ripple effect continues.
WOW Really Paul? wrote:STM317 wrote:I glossed over this, but any single student on a scholarship for any merit, whether athletics or GPA, is being paid. Tuition, housing, food, books, education, training, etc is all compensation and should be treated like a job. If you refuse to work at your job, expect repercussions.alfadriver wrote: In reply to STM317: Remember that NBA athletes were going to sit out the playoffs if one of the owners was not removed from ownership. The players won. There is a lot of power in the players hands- regardless of the level.This is true. There will always be some power in the "rank and file". But a college student, who sees the University they attend make millions of dollars off of them, while they get paid nothing, probably has a lot more motivation than a pro athlete making 6 or 8 figures a year. Unless the University threatens to withhold room and board or take scholarships away, the college athlete has nothing to lose and everything to gain, while the pro has far more on the line with a boycott.
You are making a strong argument for unions.
Jobs should not come with hostile working environments, too. One should be allowed to protest against harassment and hostility without repercussions.
Just like unions are in place to make sure that people are not fired for no reason.
i saw a video somewhere of the protester getting "hit" by the car in the parade... the car was moving really, really slow- after they had surrounded it and moved in on it. in fact, the car was trying to move away... but then this brave warrior stepped up, and walked right into the bumper of the car that was going maybe 1/2mph at the time of impact...
so, yeah, between that and the way they started whining as soon as everyone's attention turned to the attacks in Paris: screw those guys... kick all of those protesters out of college and charge them with defamation, attempting to instigate a riot, and jaywalking or whatever..
poundsign:alllivesmatter oundsign:youscrewedupyourowneductaionyouidiots
Why is it that so many people are against people protesting.
Something so very American as freedom of assembly and free speech put together, and when that happens, we so much hate it.
What's up with that?
For those of you who really want to keep your guns, it would be nice if you defended people's rights to assembly and speech- even if you don't agree with it. It would make it a whole lot easier to defend your rights when you defend others.
In reply to alfadriver: Devils advocate for a moment, the thing that almost always irritates me about protesters is that they don't seem to have jobs. There have been things over the years that I could possibly have protested over but I was busy WORKING.
alfadriver wrote: Why is it that so many people are against people protesting. Something so very American as freedom of assembly and free speech put together, and when that happens, we so much hate it. What's up with that? For those of you who really want to keep your guns, it would be nice if you defended people's rights to assembly and speech- even if you don't agree with it. It would make it a whole lot easier to defend your rights when you defend others.
I don't know of anyone who has a problem with them protesting. I know a LOT of people who have a problem with them demanding their right to assemble and protest while denying other people THEIR 1st Amendment rights.
KyAllroad wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Devils advocate for a moment, the thing that almost always irritates me about protesters is that they don't seem to have jobs. There have been things over the years that I could possibly have protested over but I was busy WORKING.
Your choice to work does not mean that others have to make the choice you do. It's a choice.
Also, if you chose to work in a hostile environment, that is your choice. Others don't think that they have to.
But in this case, they are students. They have the ability to be flexible.
stroker wrote:alfadriver wrote: Why is it that so many people are against people protesting. Something so very American as freedom of assembly and free speech put together, and when that happens, we so much hate it. What's up with that? For those of you who really want to keep your guns, it would be nice if you defended people's rights to assembly and speech- even if you don't agree with it. It would make it a whole lot easier to defend your rights when you defend others.I don't know of anyone who has a problem with them protesting. I know a LOT of people who have a problem with them demanding their right to assemble and protest while denying other people THEIR 1st Amendment rights.
Here's where that is an issue- when does harassment cross the line of free speech?
Do people have the right to hassle and intimidate people at will?
Is that the society that we have?
Sorry if that makes no sense to me. Free speech should have some responsibility that goes along with it. Just like the right to bear arms does not give people the right to shoot other people for no reason.
I guess if we just want constant conflict... well.
In reply to alfadriver:
Protesters are free to exercise their right to free speech but they don't have the right to shout down other peoples opinions as sexist, racist, or in some way bigoted because they qualify as a protected class and others do not. I'm not saying that some people's opinions aren't those things but it seems to be the trend to do as if the differing opinion is bigoted.
I understand that seems like a brutal way to put it but that appears to be the way that these protests have been moving lately. The Black Lives Matter movement is a perfect example of this after hijacking Bernie Sanders rally and implying that he didn't understand, as he is after all a white successful male, when he marched with Martin Luther King Jr.
Also the people that they pick the people to make martyrs are chosen really poorly which makes their movement hard to take seriously when there's a number of good examples out there and a valid point to be made.
Just to add on:
I also have a problem with them not forcing the media to show that attempts were made to rectify the problem within the framework already provided. If you post up some letters written to the President of the school, get some school newspaper articles, file some dated complaints with the athletics board, or just generally show evidence besides "Well I complained once" it'll come out pretty quickly that there's a problem and people will take you seriously.
We've reached the point now where it's ok to protest and disrupt other peoples lives to make a point with some "we said / he said" argument for a brief bit of notoriety because it's a slow news day and this can be inflated to the crisis of the moment. I think that also ties back into that entitlement generation that we get into arguments here about on a regular basis. Everyone gets a participation trophy for participating in the "movement" and a feeling as if they accomplished something since they made it to the news despite the inconsequential effect of the victory.
Well now I've derailed my own thread after getting the information I was after.
In reply to The0retical:
Here's the thing- what is being protested here ISN'T other people's free speech. It's the total lack of response from that intimidating speech. Nobody condemned it, nobody tried to show the abused people that they are part of the community, nobody tried to shun the folks that were being a-holes.
None the less- while nobody can stop people from having opinions that are sexist, racists, or otherwise bigoted- at what point do we allow them to do actions? Do you let them go out and intimidate people at will? Do we just accept that?
If your kids were intimidated and verbally bullied, would you stand up and just accept it? Honestly.
At some point, education needs to come about to explain to the haters that their actions are bad for everyone- so while you are ok to think what you want- action isn't something that is acceptable.
Unless, of course, we just want constant conflict. And we want to push people over the edge so that they react with violence. Without some kind of limits, we will go from a verbal war to a physical one. That seems like a bad path to go down.
In reply to alfadriver:
I don't know the full extent of what happened to the people there, but there was official response. Two men from nearby universities were arrested for making death threats.
Now, this response came from the local PD, not the university or its (former) president. So, it may be that the university did not work sufficiently on its own to see to the needs/wants of its student body.
So someone responded to the community, but maybe the right people did not?
Critical question:
Is it the responsibility of the students to prove/demonstrate that the university is failing to live up to its responsibilities to care for them?
Or is it the responsibility of the university to prove/demonstrate that it is living up to its responsibilities to care for its students?
Alfadriver:
What you're describing is a multifaceted issue which there is no easy solution to because neither side is willing, or maybe even capable, of dealing with the generational issues which exist to bring it to a close. I understand where you're coming from on the response section so:
You're right I wouldn't just accept it if it was my child either. I would encourage her, and I would also, work within the framework provided and provide an overwhelming amount of documentation showing that I did everything I could do to get the university to fix the issue. I would then pursue any recourse available to me to force the university to fix that issue were unwilling to address it still be it legal resources or bringing an EEOC investigation down on the university (as the instructors should have done.) For reference my wife is a naturalized Hispanic woman so I do have concerns about this in the future.
As for the free speech restrictions. It is hard to vigorously side with the multiple Supreme Court decisions allowing hate speech not designed to incite violence. It is basically an admission that everyone is allowed to have their own ignorant opinion under the law of the land but, on the opposite side of the coin, introduces the possibility of social discourse which can change the way that the country views topics like this in the future. Really the only way to make this go away to preach tolerance in a way that doesn't come across as militant. Problematically it means means attempting to break the "(insert your race, nationality, or geolocational) culture" which seems to out in front so often and militantly adhered to by the same people that have those ignorant opinions that they have the right to express. That strategy going to take longer than any of us will live to see and it is quite possible that the militant adherence to political correctness that exists today by the social justice warriors, attempting to force tolerance on everyone, is hampering that type of conversation from happening.
All most of us can do is commit to making a difference in our own little microcosms. Hopefully enough people will commit to that to make a difference rather than using it as an identity to separate themselves as many are both seeking to do and actively attempting.
Most of the campus police I've seen are pretty efficient at issuing speeding and parking tickets. I wouldn't want them investigating something serious.
In reply to The0retical:
So if your child was in the position that the students were/are, you would expect something to happen. Since that is what you say, why are you so against the protesters in this case?
That's very confusing.
Also- since you will probably find out- but there are some words that we think as the majority are just words and labels incite a strong enough feeling for violence. For sure, the taunts were done to provoke- why else would someone put up a poop swastika? That's not some kind of joke.
But again, the students were not demanding that whoever did that should be thrown in jail- they were asking for a learning environment that where taunts, harassment, and bullying is not tolerated. That when it happens, at LEAST condemnation happens. Not just "we have some diversity programs" stuff.
In reply to Beer Baron:
I think it's reasonable for a student to have an administration at least condemn the actions. Put some plans together to address it, and prevent it. That's not too much to ask.
And for that, it's also reasonable that students who don't feel that the administration is looking out for them to be in a non-hostile environment, that they are allowed to protest.
In reply to alfadriver:
I'm not saying I'm against the protesters. I'm saying that I'm against the immediate jump to disrupting the learning environment with a protest that was made without presenting evidence, as far as I can tell, to affect some reforms. There's a lot of he says/she says things going on here. Where are the police reports? Where are the campus police reports? Where are the letters written to the president? Where are the letters written to the provost? Where are the letters written to the board of trustees? Where is the EEOC investigation that should have been opened by faculty stating that the university does nothing to stop discrimination? Where are the HR reports?
I'm sorry but if you can't at least attempt to work within the framework, as I've stated multiple times now, I don't have sympathy for your "movement." Posting something on Facebook doesn't count. Work with the tools you have first then rally people to your cause in the form of a protest or march. Otherwise you're the crisis of the moment and I promptly ignore it like it's that wonderfully effective Occupy Wall Street protest.
You can bet everything you own if it was my child in the middle of what is alleged I would have documentation in triplicate about what I did to attempt to get some movement from the university. Then I'd have moved through my legal options ensuring that I netted everyone was supposed to have prevented this type of thing. That sort of action draws attention and gives legitimacy to your cause. Starting a hashtag with a bunch of people that pile on with Ohhh me toos doesn't help anything unless you can prove you tried to do something. It also gives those allegedly in the wrong plausible deniability and makes you look foolish to outside observers.
As for the poop swastika, did done some stupid E36 M3 as a teenager, I never got off playing with poop or acting like a racist but, again as I stated earlier, that's something that should have been handled at the RA or disciplinary committee level. You don't depose a president over that unless the president is complicit. Which circles around to having to work within whatever you've got and document it prior to engaging in a protest which is going to disrupt the learning environment.
Edit: Should Tim Wolfe have denounced racist behavior? Yes. Do I expect some evidence of complacency on his part? Yes and that is what is lacking here.
Here are some questions to consider . . .
The first question . . . Let that sink in for a minute.
You'll need to log in to post.
