ConcernedStudent1950 ("CS1950") vs the Media

Flimbro,

Well.  I'm glad you mean no disrespect.  

And my comment regarding safe places please don't misunderstand me.  I don't expect people to cower in the face of insults, racist or otherwise.  I was commenting more on the video with the professor where those students were, in my view, harassing that journalist.  

I still don't believe that you can eliminate individual stupidity, bigotry, racism.  I think you can attack systemic racism, and I do think that exists.  My point is that I don't think you can truly eliminate people holding these opinions.  Has there ever been, in the history of man, a time when this type of thinking didn't exist?

I'm trying to understand here.  And it is very possible I'm missing some things.  So, please help me understand.  We have a situation where:

• Students yelled racial slurs at the student body president from the back of a pickup truck.  
• A drunk yells slurs while students are preparing for Homecoming
• A swastika is drawn in feces on a residence hall wall

I have not heard that any of the people involved in these incidents were actually identified.  I could be wrong about that though.  The administration instated diversity training.   

A student the goes on hunger strike.  Among his demands are for the University President to admit his privilege.   The football team says they aren't going to play and the University President steps down. 

I'm just not sure how these long standing issues are the fault the University President.  I'm not really defending the guy.  48 hours ago, I had never heard of him.  I just would like to understand.  What problems does getting the University President to step down solve?  

I will readily admit I have never dealt with the exact issues these students are dealing with.  It's not that I have never had ethic insults hurled in my direction, I have.   And I don't know if I'm privileged or not.  I guess its all relative.  But, I am not going to apologize for my life or how I've lived and continue to live it.  I am not going to apologize for my ethnic background.  Nor am I going to apologize for the means, or lack thereof of my parents. To anyone.  

terp said:
I'm trying to understand here.  

This is a common refrain in your posts. Others, here and elsewhere, valiantly respond with purposeful attempts to explain whatever it is that you're not getting. I can't help wondering: Do they ever work?

What are you failing to understand that the minorities on this campus understand that these are not isolated incidents. Instead, they are manifestations within an atmosphere where people feel comfortable saying and doing these things. It's much more than hurling ethnic insults.

terp said:
I'm trying to understand here.  And it is very possible I'm missing some things.  So, please help me understand.  We have a situation where:

• Students yelled racial slurs at the student body president from the back of a pickup truck.  
• A drunk yells slurs while students are preparing for Homecoming
• A swastika is drawn in feces on a residence hall wall

My understanding from what I've read is that African American students at Missouri weren't just complaining about a few isolated incidents.  They are claiming that there is a persistent pattern of racism that makes them feel unwelcome on their own campus.  The president of the university did little or nothing in terms of responding or investigating if the claims have merit.  Outsiders can of course claim that they think the students are being overly sensitive.  But that's neither here nor there.  It's the university president's job to take such issues seriously, not ignore them.  And in the state of Missouri, both liberal and conservative observers agreed that he had not addressed the issue and should step down.

We see this pattern again and again.  A group of African American people says that they see systematic racism at an institution.  And some people take that seriously at the beginning.  Then there's the inevitable backlash in which many others claim that racism isn't really a problem, or if it is, the bigger problem is when black people charge white people with racism.  

My opinion is that if a group of people feel unwelcome somewhere, it's about 99% likely that they in fact are being made to feel unwelcome.  At least to the extent that their complaint should be taken seriously and not dismissed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/students-share-what-its-like-to-be-black-at-mizzou_56439736e4b0603773476699

A short video with 4 students addressing the issue of racism on campus is included in the article.

The issue of harassment of the student journalists or photographers and the actions of Ms. Click is secondary and minor and already corrected, so the over analysis and hand-wringing over the mistakes made in the heat of the moment are just a misdirection to take away from the substance of the protest.

No,  @RealityforAll, the end does not justify the means, however theres no "end" here.   There is protest and organization and some actions - some that will help to educate and heal wounds and some that will hurt, will open new wounds, but that occurs with all endeavors that try to effect change.

We've seen the rise of overt racism, racists becoming  more and more mainstream, since the election of President Obama, and what we are seeing here is the push back.   

An interesting segway on this discussion involves that student-photog.  Somewhat ironically, he actually covered the Ferguson protests and won a few awards for his pictorials.  If anything his pictures really showed the human/painful side of the issues in that part of the country.

http://journalism.missouri.edu/2015/06/photojournalism-student-tim-tai-wins-2-awards-in-national-hearst-championship/  

http://timtaiphoto.com/fergusons-son/ 

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:
I'm trying to understand here.  

This is a common refrain in your posts. Others, here and elsewhere, valiantly respond with purposeful attempts to explain whatever it is that you're not getting. I can't help wondering: Do they ever work?

Are you hostile with everyone that may not 100% agree with all of your positions?  I'm must trying to understand. 

I think Dave just lost his Switzerland status.

ml1 said:
My understanding from what I've read is that African American students at Missouri weren't just complaining about a few isolated incidents.  They are claiming that there is a persistent pattern of racism that makes them feel unwelcome on their own campus.  The president of the university did little or nothing in terms of responding or investigating if the claims have merit.  Outsiders can of course claim that they think the students are being overly sensitive.  But that's neither here nor there.  It's the university president's job to take such issues seriously, not ignore them.  And in the state of Missouri, both liberal and conservative observers agreed that he had not addressed the issue and should step down.
We see this pattern again and again.  A group of African American people says that they see systematic racism at an institution.  And some people take that seriously at the beginning.  Then there's the inevitable backlash in which many others claim that racism isn't really a problem, or if it is, the bigger problem is when black people charge white people with racism.  
My opinion is that if a group of people feel unwelcome somewhere, it's about 99% likely that they in fact are being made to feel unwelcome.  At least to the extent that their complaint should be taken seriously and not dismissed.

OK.  Fair enough.  So, the issue with the President is that the claims of racism were not investigated sufficiently?   And what courses of action are appropriate to rectify the situation?

I personally have no idea if the students at Mizzou are being overly, under, or just the right amount sensitive.  However, there does seem to be a pattern of this on college campuses(safe spaces, trigger warnings, micro-agression, etc).  I mean you have comedians as benign as Jerry Seinfeld saying he won't play college campuses because they are overly PC.  I saw a poll where over half of college students favor speech codes to limit free speech on campus.   Thus, I may be guilty of looking at the issue through that spectrum.   

yellowgato said:
An interesting segway on this discussion involves that student-photog.  Somewhat ironically, he actually covered the Ferguson protests and won a few awards for his pictorials.  If anything his pictures really showed the human/painful side of the issues in that part of the country.
http://journalism.missouri.edu/2015/06/photojournalism-student-tim-tai-wins-2-awards-in-national-hearst-championship/  
http://timtaiphoto.com/fergusons-son/ 

He's really good, and I think he was trying to convey that he was supporting the protesters, but that got lost in the moment.

drummerboy said:
what creeped me out was how many times I heard the protesters scream about invading their personal space. And I hardly watched any of the video yet.

+1

@terp
As has been mentioned you've taken great pains to remain confused about this issue. That's either an indication of an authentic inability to grasp relatively simple concepts or an effort to feign ignorance and in effect dismiss the issue altogether.    Take your pick. 

I think you get it.

For the most part.

"Students yelled racial slurs at the student body president from the back of a pickup truck.  

A drunk yells slurs while students are preparing for Homecoming

A swastika is drawn in feces on a residence hall wall"

These are some of the current complaints. They may or may not meet your personal threshold for racial harassment- but it's fair to assume, as others here have intimated, that for the recipients they represent proof of an ongoing and consistent atmosphere of racial hatred that they find unacceptable.

You should also assume that events mirroring these have been occurring on that campus since Black students were allowed to enroll in the 50's. You should assume that all of the preceding presidents of the school have either attempted in some way, shape, fashion or form to deal with these issues- or, depending on the times, chosen to ignore them entirely. Whatever the strategy, the fact that these same problems exist today serves as obvious proof that not enough is being done. 

"I still don't believe that you can eliminate individual stupidity, bigotry, racism.  I think you can attack systemic racism, and I do think that exists.  My point is that I don't think you can truly eliminate people holding these opinions.  Has there ever been, in the history of man, a time when this type of thinking didn't exist?"

And that is the status quo- so should nothing be done?  Would you allow that for yourself?  And how do you attack systemic racism if not by addressing and challenging it's agents while simultaneously working to upend the institutional underpinnings that support those agents?

White American racism is not an individual endeavor. It is a purposeful policy four hundred years in the making- codified, supported and perpetuated by our society and maintained by individuals who possess both the "stupidity" you mention as well as remarkable intelligence.  It is a way of life- as natural here as the air we breathe. Eradicating it without dismantling the systems it created and currently maintains will be next to impossible.

That said, for many people effected by racism, surrender is simply not an option. A life characterized and constrained by insult, neglect, violence, plunder and terror is no life. That small group of students in Missouri and at Yale or any college in the US who find themselves standing at the door to adulthood see this and while they may misstep on the way they refuse to settle for less than freedom- and that in the end is all that matters. 

You would do well to watch and learn to see the struggle through their eyes instead of pointing toward surrender because to you, fighting back is fruitless. 

That is of course if you're really "trying to understand".

ParticleMan said:
I think Dave just lost his Switzerland status.

I think Dave calls it like he sees it and that's refreshing and necessary.

terp said:

ml1 said:
My understanding from what I've read is that African American students at Missouri weren't just complaining about a few isolated incidents.  They are claiming that there is a persistent pattern of racism that makes them feel unwelcome on their own campus.  The president of the university did little or nothing in terms of responding or investigating if the claims have merit.  Outsiders can of course claim that they think the students are being overly sensitive.  But that's neither here nor there.  It's the university president's job to take such issues seriously, not ignore them.  And in the state of Missouri, both liberal and conservative observers agreed that he had not addressed the issue and should step down.
We see this pattern again and again.  A group of African American people says that they see systematic racism at an institution.  And some people take that seriously at the beginning.  Then there's the inevitable backlash in which many others claim that racism isn't really a problem, or if it is, the bigger problem is when black people charge white people with racism.  
My opinion is that if a group of people feel unwelcome somewhere, it's about 99% likely that they in fact are being made to feel unwelcome.  At least to the extent that their complaint should be taken seriously and not dismissed.

OK.  Fair enough.  So, the issue with the President is that the claims of racism were not investigated sufficiently?   And what courses of action are appropriate to rectify the situation?
I personally have no idea if the students at Mizzou are being overly, under, or just the right amount sensitive.  However, there does seem to be a pattern of this on college campuses(safe spaces, trigger warnings, micro-agression, etc).  I mean you have comedians as benign as Jerry Seinfeld saying he won't play college campuses because they are overly PC.  I saw a poll where over half of college students favor speech codes to limit free speech on campus.   Thus, I may be guilty of looking at the issue through that spectrum.   

this is a tangent, and not meant as anything other than a critique of Jerry Seinfeld.  But his "evidence" for not playing colleges any more is that students didn't laugh at his joke about how people scrolling through their smartphones look like "gay French kings."  wtf?  what does that even mean?  No one laughed because the joke a) made no sense and b) wasn't funny.

Sometimes when people don't laugh, it isn't because they're too uptight, or too PC, or too afraid to appear bigoted.  Sometimes the joke just isn't funny.  Occam's Razor and all that...

flimbro said:

ParticleMan said:
I think Dave just lost his Switzerland status.

I think Dave calls it like he sees it and that's refreshing and necessary.

I don't disagree. It was in reference to another thread where he was called Switzerland by another poster.

terp said:

ml1 said:
My understanding from what I've read is that African American students at Missouri weren't just complaining about a few isolated incidents.  They are claiming that there is a persistent pattern of racism that makes them feel unwelcome on their own campus.  The president of the university did little or nothing in terms of responding or investigating if the claims have merit.  Outsiders can of course claim that they think the students are being overly sensitive.  But that's neither here nor there.  It's the university president's job to take such issues seriously, not ignore them.  And in the state of Missouri, both liberal and conservative observers agreed that he had not addressed the issue and should step down.
We see this pattern again and again.  A group of African American people says that they see systematic racism at an institution.  And some people take that seriously at the beginning.  Then there's the inevitable backlash in which many others claim that racism isn't really a problem, or if it is, the bigger problem is when black people charge white people with racism.  
My opinion is that if a group of people feel unwelcome somewhere, it's about 99% likely that they in fact are being made to feel unwelcome.  At least to the extent that their complaint should be taken seriously and not dismissed.

OK.  Fair enough.  So, the issue with the President is that the claims of racism were not investigated sufficiently?   And what courses of action are appropriate to rectify the situation?
  

I don't claim to know.  But I do know that the university was never going to figure it out if they never bothered to look into the issue.

The Mo ACLU, in a press release, has responded to MU police request for "hateful speech" to be reported to them (the MU police).  Most important point in this press release IMHO is the following comment:  "[M]istakenly addressing symptoms – instead of causes – and doing it in a way that runs counter to the First Amendment is not the wise or appropriate response."

===============================================

ACLU Statement on MU Law Enforcement's Attempt to Police Free Speech

http://www.aclu-mo.org/newsviews/2015/11/10/aclu-statement-mu-law-enforcements-attempt-police-free-speec

November 10, 2015
The following may be attributed to Jeffrey Mittman, Executive Director of the ACLU of Missouri:
“The ACLU of Missouri is disappointed with the recent request by the University of Missouri Police to report ‘hurtful speech,’ which simultaneously does too much and too little.
Racial epithets addressed to a specific person in a threatening or intimidating manner can be illegal, and may require action by police and/or university administrators.   But, no governmental entity has the authority to broadly prohibit ‘hurtful’ speech – or even undefined ‘hateful’ speech, or to discipline against it. 
Conversely, institutional racism and a history of turning a blind-eye to systemic inequities does require action.  But mistakenly addressing symptoms – instead of causes – and doing it in a way that runs counter to the First Amendment is not the wise or appropriate response.
Missourians can rightfully expect our public university to establish policies and practices that proactively educate administrators, faculty, staff and students about the causes of, and solutions to, systemic racism and inequality, and that comports with the right to free speech and expression.”

==========================================

MU Police Department asks students, faculty to report hateful speech to them

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/higher_education/mu-police-department-asks-students-faculty-to-report-hateful-speech/article_036779a6-87de-11e5-a1fd-7b09bf4bf1f1.html

JENNIFER ALDRICH
 Nov 10, 2015

COLUMBIA— The MU Police Department wants people who encounter hateful speech to call them.

According to an email sent out Tuesday morning, the department said that instances of hateful and hurtful speech are "not crimes," but it would still like to know when they happen.

The email states: “While cases of hateful and hurtful speech are not crimes, if the individual(s) identified are students, MU’s Office of Student Conduct can take disciplinary action.”

For a sanction to occur, the person committing the act must be an MU student or staff member, Maj. Brian Weimer of the MU Police Department said. He said that it is not up to the Police Department to discipline suspects because hate speech is not a crime, but he said the department is serving as a place to make the report.

"It’s important to note that hateful speech is not a crime," Weimer said. "So there will be no arrests and no citations issued; this is just a place to report."

Weimer said that the department would evaluate all incidents brought to it to determine if they should be forwarded to the MU Office of Student Conduct.

According to Weimer, hateful and hurtful speech has a broad meaning. He said that hateful speech or hurtful speech is "different for various people" and that this is a "reporting mechanism."

According to the department's email, those at MU can take these steps when reporting hateful or hurtful speech:

Call the police immediately at 882-7201. If you are in an emergency situation, dial 911.
Give the communications operator a summary of the incident, including location.
Provide a detailed description of the individual(s) involved.
Provide license plate and vehicle descriptions, if appropriate.
If possible and if it can be done safely, take a photo of the individual(s) with your cell phone.

Supervising editor is Jack Suntrup.

flimbro said:
@terp
As has been mentioned you've taken great pains to remain confused about this issue. That's either an indication of an authentic inability to grasp relatively simple concepts or an effort to feign ignorance and in effect dismiss the issue altogether.    Take your pick. 
I think you get it.
For the most part.

"Students yelled racial slurs at the student body president from the back of a pickup truck.  
A drunk yells slurs while students are preparing for Homecoming

A swastika is drawn in feces on a residence hall wall"
These are some of the current complaints. They may or may not meet your personal threshold for racial harassment- but it's fair to assume, as others here have intimated, that for the recipients they represent proof of an ongoing and consistent atmosphere of racial hatred that they find unacceptable.
You should also assume that events mirroring these have been occurring on that campus since Black students were allowed to enroll in the 50's. You should assume that all of the preceding presidents of the school have either attempted in some way, shape, fashion or form to deal with these issues- or, depending on the times, chosen to ignore them entirely. Whatever the strategy, the fact that these same problems exist today serves as obvious proof that not enough is being done. 
"I still don't believe that you can eliminate individual stupidity, bigotry, racism.  I think you can attack systemic racism, and I do think that exists.  My point is that I don't think you can truly eliminate people holding these opinions.  Has there ever been, in the history of man, a time when this type of thinking didn't exist?"
And that is the status quo- so should nothing be done?  Would you allow that for yourself?  And how do you attack systemic racism if not by addressing and challenging it's agents while simultaneously working to upend the institutional underpinnings that support those agents?
White American racism is not an individual endeavor. It is a purposeful policy four hundred years in the making- codified, supported and perpetuated by our society and maintained by individuals who possess both the "stupidity" you mention as well as remarkable intelligence.  It is a way of life- as natural here as the air we breathe. Eradicating it without dismantling the systems it created and currently maintains will be next to impossible.
That said, for many people effected by racism, surrender is simply not an option. A life characterized and constrained by insult, neglect, violence, plunder and terror is no life. That small group of students in Missouri and at Yale or any college in the US who find themselves standing at the door to adulthood see this and while they may misstep on the way they refuse to settle for less than freedom- and that in the end is all that matters. 
You would do well to watch and learn to see the struggle through their eyes instead of pointing toward surrender because to you, fighting back is fruitless. 
That is of course if you're really "trying to understand".

What problems does getting rid of this specific University President solve again?  Apologies, that got lost in your rant.  

I'm not sure why you keep claiming that there is nothing to be done?   I have stated the exact opposite as it pertains to systemic racism.  

Have fun in your safe place. 

hoops said:

yellowgato said:
An interesting segway on this discussion involves that student-photog.  Somewhat ironically, he actually covered the Ferguson protests and won a few awards for his pictorials.  If anything his pictures really showed the human/painful side of the issues in that part of the country.
http://journalism.missouri.edu/2015/06/photojournalism-student-tim-tai-wins-2-awards-in-national-hearst-championship/  
http://timtaiphoto.com/fergusons-son/ 

He's really good, and I think he was trying to convey that he was supporting the protesters, but that got lost in the moment.

He's very good. But he's not a photo journalist- yet. His mistake was allowing the students to make him the story. He got in the way and lost his head just like the students lost theirs. If he was a working journalist he would have had his head handed to him for not getting the shot, but providing it for the competition. 

If he's simply a creative freelancer looking to capture moments like those he captured in Ferguson than he has to learn to get his priorities straight and move without impeding or interfering with the story he's supposed to be covering. 

The students are allowed to be emotional- as a potential professional, he isn't. Better to move to where they ask you to go immediately. Wait five minutes and then head right back in and get your shot. Repeat as needed.

I agree with the ACLU. However, efforts to address the causes is difficult, messy and fraught. Too often, such conversations are dismissed entirely, by some, that we shouldn't make too much of the "actions of one looney." And then we quickly get nowhere.

RealityForAll said:
The Mo ACLU, in a press release, has responded to MU police request for "hateful speech" to be reported to them (the MU police).  Most important point in this press release IMHO is the following comment:  "[M]istakenly addressing symptoms – instead of causes – and doing it in a way that runs counter to the First Amendment is not the wise or appropriate response."

flimbro said:

He's very good. But he's not a photo journalist- yet. His mistake was allowing the students to make him the story. He got in the way and lost his head just like the students lost theirs. If he was a working journalist he would have had his head handed to him for not getting the shot, but providing it for the competition. 
If he's simply a creative freelancer looking to capture moments like those he captured in Ferguson than he has to learn to get his priorities straight and move without impeding or interfering with the story he's supposed to be covering. 
The students are allowed to be emotional- as a potential professional, he isn't. Better to move to where they ask you to go immediately. Wait five minutes and then head right back in and get your shot. Repeat as needed.

1.) IMHO student photog, Mr. Tai,  did NOT lose his head in the clip that I posted initially.  Let others come to their own conclusions.

2.)  Your advice to the student photog is: "Better to move to where they ask you to go immediately."  

Would you give the same advice if a police officer made the same request to a CS1950 protester?  I doubt it very much.  CS1950 protesters lack authority to give orders to other students and journalists in a public space (the first amendment protects the rights of students and journalists).

3.)  Click's words "I need some muscle"  are troubling.  And a quote that you would expect to hear in a movie about illicit activity (not from a college professor).

4.)  The above linked video documents that the CS1950 protesters were repeatedly making false claims that Tai was pushing them.  Absent the video, I am fairly certain Mr. Tai would be looking at criminal charges due to these false claims of pushing/assaulting the CS1950 protesters.  Bearing false witness lets the world know about the moral compass of those particular protesters (please note I did not say all the CS1950 protesters engaged in this behavior but enough did, with a professor acting as ringleader, to make this very troubling).

@ terp

Rant? That's 10 minutes of work on the phone in a cab to the airport- for rants I need a good half hour and a comfortable chair.

To your question, getting rid of the ineffective President means that someone else will be appointed in his place. That someone else will be instructed to pay attention to the bothersome Black kids because rumor has it that they don't like to be called nigger on the way to chemistry class. 

That new president will also be reminded that the football team is comprised of expensive to recruit Black kids who run very fast, hit very hard and catch very well and that is very good for the school and the school's bank account. They will also be reminded that the coach makes a sihtload of cash and that they'd prefer that it not go to waste. They will ask that the president understand that when and if questioned, this economic concern should actually be presented as 'an effort to create a safe and nurturing environment for Black and brown students' - until they can figure out a way to get more huge white boys who will not make trouble and be content providing the school with income while playing football for free.

That new president will be asked to schedule regular meetings with student groups and to instruct his staff to respond to each and every complaint with action when necessary and punitive measures when required. White students who are currently operating under the impression that celebrating their first amendment freedoms involves creative writing in siht will be discouraged and told that any continued freelance graphic work may result in expulsion or loss of scholarship.

That's a start right?

terp said:

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:
I'm trying to understand here.  

This is a common refrain in your posts. Others, here and elsewhere, valiantly respond with purposeful attempts to explain whatever it is that you're not getting. I can't help wondering: Do they ever work?

Are you hostile with everyone that may not 100% agree with all of your positions?  I'm must trying to understand. 

No hostility. I just wasn't aware of an instance when you concluded: "Ah, I see your point now. Thanks for helping me understand." So I honestly wondered.

ETA: If the answer is yes, and that I'm a blockhead for not noticing, no response would cheer me more.

flimbro said:
@ terp
Rant? That's 10 minutes of work on the phone in a cab to the airport- for rants I need a good half hour and a comfortable chair.
To your question, getting rid of the ineffective President means that someone else will be appointed in his place. That someone else will be instructed to pay attention to the bothersome Black kids because rumor has it that they don't like to be called nigger on the way to chemistry class. 
That new president will also be reminded that the football team is comprised of expensive to recruit Black kids who run very fast, hit very hard and catch very well and that is very good for the school and the school's bank account. They will also be reminded that the coach makes a sihtload of cash and that they'd prefer that it not go to waste. They will ask that the president understand that when and if questioned, this economic concern should actually be presented as 'an effort to create a safe and nurturing environment for Black and brown students' - until they can figure out a way to get more huge white boys who will not make trouble and be content providing the school with income while playing football for free.
That new president will be asked to schedule regular meetings with student groups and to instruct his staff to respond to each and every complaint with action when necessary and punitive measures when required. White students who are currently operating under the impression that celebrating their first amendment freedoms involves creative writing in siht will be discouraged and told that any continued freelance graphic work may result in expulsion or loss of scholarship.
That's a start right?

I don't really know if it's a start.  Perhaps its a start if things like writing in siht was actually encouraged under the prior President.  *shrugs*

@reality

He's not a journalist, I have been- and on that day he failed. That's my point. The protestors are there to protest and secure their rights. He's there to photograph the event.  He made an amateur mistake.  The crowd was wrong to push him around. You're right, the faculty advisor lost her mind- but none of that should have prevented him or the videographer from doing their job. 

As a photojournalist (budding perhaps) he was wrong to allow the situation to escalate to that point. As an impartial chronicler of events or a professional photographer (if that is in fact how he wants to be perceived) he missed the opportunity and allowed the event to consume him and prevent him from getting the shot- which is his job or at least his intent.

None of what I'm saying here has anything to do with cops and protestors and how they respond to orders, but with a talented, fledgling photographer who failed to put himself in a position to advocate for a group that he is in at least partial agreement with.

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:
I'm trying to understand here.  

This is a common refrain in your posts. Others, here and elsewhere, valiantly respond with purposeful attempts to explain whatever it is that you're not getting. I can't help wondering: Do they ever work?

Are you hostile with everyone that may not 100% agree with all of your positions?  I'm must trying to understand. 

No hostility. I just wasn't aware of an instance when you concluded: "Ah, I see your point now. Thanks for helping me understand." So I honestly wondered.
ETA: If the answer is yes, and that I'm a blockhead for not noticing, no response would cheer me more.

OK.  To answer your question, there have been times when I've either changed my mind or admitted I was wrong on this very board.  One time it occurred during a discussion w/ someone here who is regularly and openly hostile to me.  Those times have been recognized(by ParticleMan perhaps?) because they are rare occurrences on this board for everyone.  

Hope that helps,

terp

ParticleMan said:

flimbro said:

ParticleMan said:
I think Dave just lost his Switzerland status.

I think Dave calls it like he sees it and that's refreshing and necessary.

I don't disagree. It was in reference to another thread where he was called Switzerland by another poster.

I saw that and chuckled too. It was funny but I also thought it kinda sold him short. I think his grasp of whatever issue he weighs in on and the subtlety he employs in his response goes unappreciated by too many here. 

flimbro said:
@reality
He's not a journalist, I have been- and on that day he failed. That's my point. The protestors are there to protest and secure their rights. He's there to photograph the event.  He made an amateur mistake.  The crowd was wrong to push him around. You're right, the faculty advisor lost her mind- but none of that should have prevented him or the videographer from doing their job. 
As a photojournalist (budding perhaps) he was wrong to allow the situation to escalate to that point. As an impartial chronicler of events or a professional photographer (if that is in fact how he wants to be perceived) he missed the opportunity and allowed the event to consume him and prevent him from getting the shot- which is his job or at least his intent.
None of what I'm saying here has anything to do with cops and protestors and how they respond to orders, but with a talented, fledgling photographer who failed to put himself in a position to advocate for a group that he is in at least partial agreement with.

I doubt Tim Tai knew at the time that standing up for his simple right of being there would become a media issue.

terp said:

flimbro said:
@ terp

...That new president will be asked to schedule regular meetings with student groups and to instruct his staff to respond to each and every complaint with action when necessary and punitive measures when required. White students who are currently operating under the impression that celebrating their first amendment freedoms involves creative writing in siht will be discouraged and told that any continued freelance graphic work may result in expulsion or loss of scholarship.
That's a start right?

I don't really know if it's a start.  Perhaps its a start if things like writing in siht was actually encouraged under the prior President.  *shrugs*

The point is that this president, like any other head of any other thing, was paid to respond and control and manage.  In another time the college president would actually be paid to foster a positive academic environment as well- this guy wasn't hired to do that and to his detriment didn't possess the 'heart', the political smarts or intellectual wherewithal to know that he should respond forcefully and decisively to these students. In that sense he did encourage the swastika.  The next guy hired to increase profits will make other mistakes, but he won't make these same mistakes and in America that is progress.

My arm is tired and this horse has no pulse.

dave said:

flimbro said:
@reality
He's not a journalist, I have been- and on that day he failed. That's my point. The protestors are there to protest and secure their rights. He's there to photograph the event.  He made an amateur mistake.  The crowd was wrong to push him around. You're right, the faculty advisor lost her mind- but none of that should have prevented him or the videographer from doing their job. 
As a photojournalist (budding perhaps) he was wrong to allow the situation to escalate to that point. As an impartial chronicler of events or a professional photographer (if that is in fact how he wants to be perceived) he missed the opportunity and allowed the event to consume him and prevent him from getting the shot- which is his job or at least his intent.
None of what I'm saying here has anything to do with cops and protestors and how they respond to orders, but with a talented, fledgling photographer who failed to put himself in a position to advocate for a group that he is in at least partial agreement with.

I doubt Tim Tai knew at the time that standing up for his simple right of being there would become a media issue.

Sure he did. He understood the importance of what was happening- that's why he was there to photograph it. He knew that there were still photogs behind him and he saw the videographer standing a foot and a half to his right.  He spent time in Ferguson- he's been around long enough to know at least a little. 

He was on his way to getting a shot that he couldn't get from outside that perimeter, back where the other photogs were (that's why you see them behind him in the video footage) he's got good instincts that's obvious. What he didn't have was the presence of mind to read the crowd, stop interacting with the first person that questioned him, get out of their eyesight so he could come back again to get his shot. In the end, he'd have a great picture and they would have had positive instead of negative press coverage as a result of his being present that day.