Once again the left riles the masses with claims of racism when its real goal is to get rid of those pursuing fiscal sanity and budget restaint
zoinks, even right wing nut job Sean Hannity says the guy deserved his fate because he didn't act on some really disgusting acts. But thanks for the usual reactionary response.
Fix the typo in the thread title if you're going to keep this thread alive.
Huh - so if someone calls you the N word and you do something about it you are "playing the race card". Interesting.
The OP is right in one respect - this is about money but it's about the $1 million they would forfeit for not playing the football game.
it's about the $1 million they would forfeit for not playing the football game.
There's incredible latent power in college football players' activism. Good for them.
eliz said:
Huh - so if someone calls you the N word and you do something about it you are "playing the race card". Interesting.
The OP is right in one respect - this is about money but it's about the $1 million they would forfeit for not playing the football game.
The school president did not do that. And it is claimed not proven. And not his responsibility even if everything as reported.
His only sin was trying to cut the budget and that makes you hated.
I have a dear friend who's now stuck with Mitch Daniels as her university boss. He needs to go next.
I think Zoinks' point is that when he was a young, black undergrad at Mizzou, it was nothing but racial harmony.
The war has long been over, zoinks. Lefties own the media, academia, and Hollywood.
bettyd said:
From what I've read, various black students have claimed white students have used racial slurs against them and that there is an "atmosphere of racism". One female student claimed a truck full of white students drove by and they called her the N word. I don't know how the President of the university can stop that if that is indeed what happened.
Agreed. Obviously, this is something we wouldn't wish on people. I'm unsure of what the President of the University should do. He can't shield people from this kind of speech as distasteful as it is. I find this situation very confusing.
I must admit. I don't know very much about this University President. But, I don't really see that he did anything too terrible. Certainly, not anything to warrant a hunger strike.
I was listening to the guy who was on a hunger strike and this action is actually a result of several instances on "inaction" on the President's part whenever there is a need for Leadership which only contributing to an environment that allowed it to continue.
Interesting enough, this guy included not making any campus chances when this young woman (Sasha Courey) was violated (by football players) and the subsequent inaction on the school's part lead her to commit suicide.
That's the key to all this - "several instances of inaction." And let's not make students the whole focus - faculty and coaches also agreed the guy should go.
terp said:
bettyd said:Agreed. Obviously, this is something we wouldn't wish on people. I'm unsure of what the President of the University should do...
From what I've read, various black students have claimed white students have used racial slurs against them and that there is an "atmosphere of racism". One female student claimed a truck full of white students drove by and they called her the N word. I don't know how the President of the university can stop that if that is indeed what happened.
He should do something. Even if it doesn't work- he should do something, or say something. What he shouldn't do is do nothing. Mr. Wolfe acknowledged that the problems existed and then proceeded to do nothing. The people that pay him to do something would have preferred that he do something. He didn't. Now he's free to do anything.
Similar things happening at Yale. From the NY Times:
The debate over Halloween costumes began late last month when the university’s Intercultural Affairs Committee sent an email to the student body asking students to avoid wearing “culturally unaware and insensitive” costumes that could offend minority students. It specifically advised them to steer clear of outfits that included elements like feathered headdresses, turbans or blackface.
Photo
Students in front of the Sterling Memorial Library at Yale University.CreditChristopher Capozziello for The New York TimesIn response, Erika Christakis, a faculty member and an administrator at a student residence, wrote an email to students living in her residence hall on behalf of those she described as “frustrated” by the official advice on Halloween costumes. Students should be able to wear whatever they want, she wrote, even if they end up offending people.
An early childhood educator, she asked whether blond toddlers should be barred from being dressed as African-American or Asian characters from Disney films.
“Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious … a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive?” she wrote. “American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.”
Ms. Christakis’s email touched on a long-running debate over the balance between upholding free speech and protecting students from hurt feelings or personal offense. It also provoked a firestorm of condemnation from Yale students, hundreds of whom signed an open letter criticizing her argument that “free speech and the ability to tolerate offence” should take precedence over other considerations.
“To ask marginalized students to throw away their enjoyment of a holiday, in order to expend emotional, mental, and physical energy to explain why something is offensive, is — offensive,” the letter said. “To be a student of color on Yale’s campus is to exist in a space that was not created for you.”
Ms. Christakis’s email also led to at least one heated encounter on campus between her husband, Nicholas Christakis, a faculty member who works in the same residential college, and a large group of students who demanded that he apologize for the beliefs expressed by him and his wife, which they said failed to create a “safe space” for them.
When he was unwilling to do so, the students angrily cursed and yelled at him, according to a video posted to YouTube by a free speech group critical of the debate. On Sunday it had been viewed over 450,000 times.
“You should step down!” one student shouted at Mr. Christakis, while demanding between expletives to know why Yale had hired him in the first place. “It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It is about creating a home here!”
“You’re supposed to be our advocate!” another student yelled.
“You are a poor steward of this community!” the first student said before turning and walking away. “You should not sleep at night! You are disgusting.”
A couple of videos show the exchange between Professor Chistakis and the student.
http://youtu.be/gM-VE8r7MSI
http://youtu.be/9IEFD_JVYd0
Interesting to learn that Yale University is not about creating an intellectual space. 
I guess this is what happens when you don't have Apartheid to protest against.
How about a new rule at Yale: You wear what you want at Halloween, and when you get the ***** kicked out of you for it Yale creates a safe space for you to bleed and cry for a while while you learn one of the most important lessons you can get from university - how to make it through life without being an over-privileged obnoxious cockwomble.
edit: ***** got bleeped.
ridski said:
I guess this is what happens when you don't have Apartheid to protest against.
How about a new rule at Yale: You wear what you want at Halloween, and when you get the ***** kicked out of you for it Yale creates a safe space for you to bleed and cry for a while while you learn one of the most important lessons you can get from university - how to make it through life without being an over-privileged obnoxious cockwomble.
edit: ***** got bleeped.
"One of the purposes of college is to articulate stupid arguments in stupid ways and then learn, through interactions with fellow students and professors, exactly how stupid they are. Anyone who thinks that the current generation of college students is uniquely stupid is either an amnesiac or willfully ignorant… As a professor with 20 years of experience, I can assure you that college students have been saying stupid things since the invention of college students.
The difference today is that because of social media, it is easy for college students to have their opinions go viral when that was not the original intent… If you are older than 22 and reading this, imagine for a second how you would feel if professional pundits pored over your undergraduate musings in real time."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/09/a-clash-between-administrators-and-students-at-yale-went-viral-why-that-is-unfortunate-for-all-concerned/
Yale is a community that values free expression as well as inclusivity. And while students, undergraduate and graduate, definitely have a right to express themselves, we would hope that people would actively avoid those circumstances that threaten our sense of community or disrespects, alienates or ridicules segments of our population based on race, nationality, religious belief or gender expression.
I don't get the uproar over this. Basically they're saying "when you celebrate the holiday, please don't act like an ignorant a******."
When did asking people to be considerate of each other become a serious infringement on the right to free speech?
terp said:
Similar things happening at Yale. From the NY Times:
No, not similar at all.
ridski said:
I guess this is what happens when you don't have Apartheid to protest against.
How about a new rule at Yale: You wear what you want at Halloween, and when you get the ***** kicked out of you for it Yale creates a safe space for you to bleed and cry for a while while you learn one of the most important lessons you can get from university - how to make it through life without being an over-privileged obnoxious cockwomble.
edit: ***** got bleeped.
Forget *****. "Cockwomble" is superb. Thank you.
When You're Popular you don't need free speech
Free speech is not something that people would normally see as a realm of economics, but in many ways, an economic understanding of the support and opposition to free speech can shed a lot of light on what’s happening now in the West.
The first thing that needs to be noted is that the left is winning the culture war. Even though more people identify as “conservative” than “liberal” in the United States, more people now identify as “liberal” than in the past by a substantial margin. Attitudes toward gay marriage shifted extremely quickly toward the left while support for legal abortion stayed mostly steady. And obviously the media, academia, and Hollywood are far to the left as a study by the non-partisan political analytics firm Crowdpac found (and as anyone who watches anything other than Fox Newscan tell after about five minutes).
Now, some of this is certainly good, such as the shifting views on marijuana legalization. Some is troubling, such as the growing popularity of socialism.
Regardless though, the left, having ascended to cultural dominance, is no longer in need of free speech. After all, no one ever got in trouble for agreeing with the conventional wisdom. As Noam Chomsky said, “Even Goebbels was in favor of free speech he liked.”
On the other hand, the right is behind the eight ball in the culture wars and thereby supports the concept of free speech because they need it lest their very opinions be outlawed. In an economic sense, this could be called the “diminishing marginal utility of free speech.”
The law of diminishing marginal utility states that while keeping consumption of other products constant, there is decline in marginal utility that a person derives from consuming an additional unit of that product. In this case, the product is free speech. New leftists may have proposed unfettered free speech back in the early 1960s, but that was just because the right was the one in power culturally at the time. Free speech had a high utility to the left at the time and low utility to the right.
Now the situation has reversed. The right is at the disadvantage so it appeals to free speech. The left is ahead and no longer needs free speech, so it has discarded it.
If that statement sounds hyperbolic, just think of all of the campus speech codes and the ever expanding list of mostly trivial microagressions that can be taken for “hate speech.” Here is just a small sampling of examples to illustrate how absurd this has become:
- Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla after a massive backlash for having opposed gay marriage.
- A candidate in the European elections was arrested in Britain for quoting a passage from Winston
- Churchill about Islam.
- Gert Wilders, a politician in the Netherlands, was tried on five counts including “criminally insulting Muslims because of their religion.”
- Conservative radio host Michael Savage was banned from the airwaves in Britain.
- Both Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant were dragged in frontof the Canadian Human Rights Commission on charges of being “Islamophobic.”
- A man was fired because someone eaves dropped on his joke about dongles and caused a fuss about it on social media.
- A group called Color of Change applied enough pressure to get Patrick Buchanan fired from MSNBC for expressing politically incorrect opinions in his book Suicide of a Superpower.
- The “Pickup Artist” Julien Blanc was barred from entering Britain for making sexist comment.
- A student at Purdue University was found guilty of “racial harassment” for reading (yes, reading) a book called Notre Dame Vs the Klan in which — it should be noted — the Klan is the bad guy
Indeed, the list goes on endlessly, and is perhaps best summed up by the almost unconscionable lack of self-awareness required by University of Manchester feminists who recently censored the anti-feminist columnist Milo Yiannopoulos from participating in a debate on — you guessed it — censorship.
Of course much of this is just social pressure or the decisions of private institutions, which is permissible (albeit not condoned) under a libertarian framework. But much of it does involve outright government force, or the longing to use it. For example, Adam Weinstein wants to literally “Arrest Climate-Change Deniers.”
Indeed, while many believe that the youth of today are the most politically tolerant in history, they are actually the least. As April Kelly-Woessner notes, “political tolerance is generally defined as the willingness to extend civil liberties and basic democratic rights to members of unpopular groups.” Which groups are unpopular, is not the question being asked.
So, for example, someone who believes that a man should be able to marry his pet goat is not necessarily politically tolerant. What would make him tolerant in this sense is whether he is willing to recognize the rights (particularly regarding speech) of those who disagree with him and his marital proclivities.
In this respect, political tolerance has declined substantially. For the first time since it was measured, the political tolerance of young people has fallen below that of their parents and as Kelly-Woessner again notes, “… is correlated with a ‘social justice’ orientation,” at least for those under forty.
Indeed, the inability to tolerate political views that run counter to one’s own, particularly on the left, has become so ridiculous to be comical. Just take, for example,Judith Shulevtiz’s description of the “safe space” set up at Brown University because of a debate between the feminist Jessica Valentia and Wendy McElroy where McElroy was likely to criticize the term “rape culture.”
The safe space … was intended to give people who might find comments “troubling” or “triggering,” a place to recuperate. The room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma.
Well, at least they actually let the debate happen.
But the left has not always had a monopoly on anti-free speech thought and legislation. Nor does the right seem to be opposed to it when it can push such things through today. Helen Thomas was fired from the White House Press Corps for saying “The Jews should get the Hell out of Palestine.” Shirley Sherrod was fired for allegedly anti-white statements, a Kansas woman was fired for a fifty-word Facebook post that was considered anti-American-soldier, and the right went into a fervor over Jeremy Wright’s “chickens coming home to roost” comment.
Whereas liberals want to ban words such as “slut” and, at least in Sheryl Sandberg’s case, “bossy” too conservatives used to all but ban those “seven words you couldn’t say.”
When the right had more cultural authority, alleged communists were being dragged in front of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Civil Rights activists were harassed, and the Motion Picture Production Code banned Hollywood directors from showing things such as miscegenation.
But that was then and this is now. As the pendulum of cultural prominence swung from one side to the other, the left and right swapped their support for free speech.
Nevertheless, I don’t want to draw a false equivalence here and say the right would be just as bad as the left if they were winning the culture wars. Much of the ideology on the left, at least the far left, is derived from the likes of Herbert Marcuse and other cultural Marxists who explicitly wanted to limit the free speech of “oppressor classes.”
Discerning what exactly free speech is can sometimes be challenging, as in cases of libel, slander, and direct threats. But these are really not the issues at heart here. The vast majority of speech being “regulated” today is simply that of an unpopular opinion. Yes, many ideas are bad. And they should be refuted. Moreover, resorting to the use of political force to silence adversaries is a sign of the weakness of one’s own position. But, in using force to silence others, anti-speech crusaders are making another argument. They’re arguing that political force can and should be used to silence people we don’t like. What idea could be worse than that?
Surprised at how inarticulate this students are while yelling at the Master. Yelling and whining about being safe.
bramzzoinks said:
His only sin was trying to cut the budget and that makes you hated.
This crystallizes for me a way of thinking that is not helpful.
For zoinks, the single most important thing for any government entity is to cut spending.
And that's fine, he's entitled to his opinion. But where it veers off the rails is when that is applied to everyone -- government spending is the most important thing to the students, the football team, the university president.
It's not. Zoinks can sift through the haystack of problems and incidents that led to any situation and pull out a straw that has to do with budget-cutting. "Aha! See! It's about spending!"
Just because it's very important to you does not mean that its opposite is very important to someone else.
krugle1 said:
Surprised at how inarticulate this students are while yelling at the Master. Yelling and whining about being safe.
These poor students don't understand that Master always knows best. He is uniquely qualified to explain to them the precise degree of discomfort they will be required to endure so that ALL can enjoy their rights, free of encumbrance. They do not understand that it is all in fun and that at no time are their fellow students attempting to denigrate them or their "culture". This is a valuable life lesson. The Yale upperclassmen who violate them in jest today are their potential employers who will violate them for real tomorrow. Get tough 'cause you ain't seen nothing yet. And if you wanted to be ‘safe’ at school you shoulda thought about an HBCU.
I think this time Zoinks is pretty close to being right. The elusive offense of Mr. Wolfe is that he was originally a CEO - a trend in management in large educational systems.
He had no experience in academia and came in, as he was hired to do, with an eye on cutting costs and increasing profitability. Not surprisingly, the cost savings he sought were felt by people at all levels from graduate students to faculty. His impact on the system was largely felt to have been a negative one, and the grumbling agreement was that he was "bad."
Adding to that, he had no acumen for leadership in an academic setting: bringing the community together, resolving conflicts, and navigating Racial animus with competence and awareness.
Ultimately, the community rallied around his social failings although there were many other unpopular institutional changes that led to this tipping point.
That's my reading of it, anyway.
This brought me back to my college days--in a not-so-good way. She is such a type: The type that's more interested in instilling outrage than teaching.
terp said:
This gets more bizarre. Missouri Students attempt to keep journalists out to protect their "Safe Space". Mass Media Professor calls for Muscle.
jersey_boy said:
Adding to that, he had no acumen for leadership in an academic setting: bringing the community together, resolving conflicts, and navigating Racial animus with competence and awareness.
Ultimately, the community rallied around his social failings although there were many other unpopular institutional changes that led to this tipping point.
Frankly, then, I'm not sorry he's gone and I hope the University leadership learns from this experience.
flimbro, I'm referring to Yale and their requirement that admin vet and approve Halloween costumes. You find that acceptable?
krugle1 said:
flimbro, I'm referring to Yale and their requirement that admin vet and approve Halloween costumes. You find that acceptable?
To be honest I wasn't sure whether or not you were being sarcastic. I assumed you were and I responded in kind. For me the student was difficult to understand because she was distressed and struggling to retain her composure. However, I wouldn't describe her as inarticulate- I understood exactly what she was saying. In the two clips available it's obvious that while the Master was more than willing to explain why the students would have to accept what they deemed offensive- he was not as interested in allowing them to express themselves. For this reason I thought she was correct in telling him to "be quiet" so she could provide their viewpoint.
Here's an excerpt from a memo he wrote in the summer of this year:
Here is what the Yale College website says about my position: “The master is the chief administrative officer and the presiding faculty presence in each residential college. He or she is responsible for the physical well being and safety of students in the residential college, as well as for fostering and shaping the social, cultural, and educational life and character of the college.” I take this charge seriously, and it governs our relationship. It is a big honor and responsibility to be a college master at Yale. I want to help all of you create a home here – one where you are able to pursue your intellectual and personal aspirations and obtain the most from this world-class university.
(I'll post the link below)
What's important here is that she was accurate about him being responsible for assuring their physical well being (as much as any administrator can) and safety- that is in fact his job. So, in this context it is not out of bounds for her/them to be angered by his actions if they find them to be at odds with their interests which would certainly include "obtain(ing) the most from this world-class university".
The disconnect is produced when the Master has to tell those students that their comfort comes in second to other folks' "right" to make them uncomfortable. If she was my daughter I'd tell her that I was proud of the way she stood up for herself and that she was in the right. I'd also tell her that as a Black person and a woman she should pace herself, because the Master was certainly not the last white person/man who would take it upon himself to explain the world to her. I'd tell her to get used to it and figure out a way to combat it when you disagree or it'll never change. I would remind her that life is full of *****s hell bent on making you feel uncomfortable- put this issue in perspective- it's only Halloween.
Now, how about getting back to class- Yale is expensive.
Regarding the email, I read it and I didn't see the language that required that costumes be vetted and approved by the administration. You may have information I don't. What I read seemed to boil down to a request that students refrain from being jackasses on Halloween.
In my experience most folks are well aware of when they are being *****s- they just don't care. On Halloween some students and young adults- especially those who enjoy some degree of privilege (real or imagined) make a point to press the envelope and do in fact set out to hurt, enrage and denigrate people who they do not respect.
Here's a link to the Master's memo:
http://silliman.yalecollege.yale.edu/news/thoughts-title-master
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Featured Events
Advertisement
Once again "The Left" responds to these inane threads.