|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 10 2015 04:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The racism needn't be "pervasive" to warrant a requisite response from the administration. This isn't a legal sufficiency argument, it's about how to best run a supposedly inclusive institution of higher learning.
For example, universities are the ones tasked with assembling investigatory commissions that are supposed to do the very thing you're doing, xDaunt, that being look into whether the incidents mentioned rise above the level of isolated occurrences. They didn't even do that much and therein lies the problem. Sure, I can understand a university forming a commission to investigate such incidents if it was clear that there might be a problem. But such commissions take resources, and I'm not seeing much to suggest that a sufficient threshold was reached to warrant such a commission. Again, are we really just talking about a shit swastika and some isolated comments? No. The students and protesters have made it clear that it is has been an ongoing issue. Those are just the recent incidents that the media has decided to cover. Any previous incidents have not been reported on by the media and may or may not have been documented by the school. Based on what? When real racist incidents occur (cross burnings, the dissemination of indisputably racist material, etc), they typically show up in the news. The absence of any kind of reporting is simply striking given the seemingly disproportionate response of the student body. Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's appropriate you would think so. I hadn't been following the story at all until late last week, and now I see that the president has resigned. None of this makes any sense to me. I would think that there'd be a record of what exactly went wrong somewhere (ie what the university specifically ignored), but I haven't been able to find any information on that point. So I'm legitimately curious as to what the university did wrong and thought that y'all might have some information. So far I'm wildly unsatisfied. The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice? Exactly how long should the students be required to put up with the racism until it is "systematic" enough to meet your standard? A year of documenting events without a response? 2? This built over the span of 2 months. Is that long enough? I dunno, I'd have to think about it. It's like Judge Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Right now I don't see it. Well, it would appear that the school, students, and facility else is not working on the XDaunt burden of proof system and relies on what he can find in a google search. Or the simpler solution is that the media hasn't dug into the events prior to September 2015, so the information being reported on. Since when is it a good idea to simply take the word of the mob?
How does an individual student prove a claim like people yelling slurs while driving by? Physical things to point to are easy, but most smoking guns are hidden behind closed frat doors and seldom recorded in video or print until they get real stupid and start doing bus chants with outside dates like OU. I could easily see something getting to the point where action is necessary even without a great amount of physical proof.
|
On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's appropriate you would think so. I hadn't been following the story at all until late last week, and now I see that the president has resigned. None of this makes any sense to me. I would think that there'd be a record of what exactly went wrong somewhere (ie what the university specifically ignored), but I haven't been able to find any information on that point. So I'm legitimately curious as to what the university did wrong and thought that y'all might have some information. So far I'm wildly unsatisfied. The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice?
Even if the swastika was just "dipshit fraternity hazing" that doesn't make it any less threatening to the individuals seeing it. Hate crimes (and terrorism in general) are just as much (if not more) about the perceptions of the victim as they are about the intentions of the perpetrator. There's a reason the U.S. calls the people that hijacked flights on 9/11 terrorists and not martyrs.
+ Show Spoiler +Incidentally, this is one of the few things I agree with Riot about with respect to "toxicity" in that the only people that can define whether you're a poor influence on a game are the people in the game with you even if you were just "being witty."
I also think you're confusing "the community is racist" with "people on campus feel intimidated and believe the authorities should have investigated more."
|
On November 10 2015 04:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The racism needn't be "pervasive" to warrant a requisite response from the administration. This isn't a legal sufficiency argument, it's about how to best run a supposedly inclusive institution of higher learning.
For example, universities are the ones tasked with assembling investigatory commissions that are supposed to do the very thing you're doing, xDaunt, that being look into whether the incidents mentioned rise above the level of isolated occurrences. They didn't even do that much and therein lies the problem. Sure, I can understand a university forming a commission to investigate such incidents if it was clear that there might be a problem. But such commissions take resources, and I'm not seeing much to suggest that a sufficient threshold was reached to warrant such a commission. Again, are we really just talking about a shit swastika and some isolated comments? No. The students and protesters have made it clear that it is has been an ongoing issue. Those are just the recent incidents that the media has decided to cover. Any previous incidents have not been reported on by the media and may or may not have been documented by the school. Based on what? When real racist incidents occur (cross burnings, the dissemination of indisputably racist material, etc), they typically show up in the news. The absence of any kind of reporting is simply striking given the seemingly disproportionate response of the student body. Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's appropriate you would think so. I hadn't been following the story at all until late last week, and now I see that the president has resigned. None of this makes any sense to me. I would think that there'd be a record of what exactly went wrong somewhere (ie what the university specifically ignored), but I haven't been able to find any information on that point. So I'm legitimately curious as to what the university did wrong and thought that y'all might have some information. So far I'm wildly unsatisfied. The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice? Exactly how long should the students be required to put up with the racism until it is "systematic" enough to meet your standard? A year of documenting events without a response? 2? This built over the span of 2 months. Is that long enough? I dunno, I'd have to think about it. It's like Judge Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Right now I don't see it. Well, it would appear that the school, students, and facility else is not working on the XDaunt burden of proof system and relies on what he can find in a google search. Or the simpler solution is that the media hasn't dug into the events prior to September 2015, so the information being reported on. Since when is it a good idea to simply take the word of the mob?
When shit swastikas, slavery references, and yelling "nigger" at people doesn't qualify as "real racist incidents" I think it's clear what's wrong with your perspective.
|
On November 10 2015 04:40 Plansix wrote:
Once again, your metric “I’ll know it when I see it” leaves much to be desired. I am faced with an ethereal metric of proof that I must meet to prove to you that the racism was systematic and the protests have merits. And my willingness to attempt to meet that burden of proof have vanished. And to be honest, I wonder if anything could meet that standard without the crosses being burned on the campus lawn. And even then, you might claim it was just a prank and proves nothing.
And calling the protests a mob is hyperbolic since it carries the support from many of the schools staff as well.
But I leave you to your opinion on the subject, as I see zero gain in attempting to change it.
Well, if we wanted to put it in legal terms, I'd expect to see at least prima facie evidence of pervasive racism at the university before requiring the university to take special steps (like forming a commission) to deal with it. Isolated racist comments and a shit-smeared swastika clearly don't meet that standard my mind, which is why I've been asking whether there's more.
|
Another lawyer discovers that everything doesnt function like a court of justice.
Next step, acknowledging it, last one accepting that it might be a good thing.
|
On November 10 2015 04:58 Trumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The racism needn't be "pervasive" to warrant a requisite response from the administration. This isn't a legal sufficiency argument, it's about how to best run a supposedly inclusive institution of higher learning.
For example, universities are the ones tasked with assembling investigatory commissions that are supposed to do the very thing you're doing, xDaunt, that being look into whether the incidents mentioned rise above the level of isolated occurrences. They didn't even do that much and therein lies the problem. Sure, I can understand a university forming a commission to investigate such incidents if it was clear that there might be a problem. But such commissions take resources, and I'm not seeing much to suggest that a sufficient threshold was reached to warrant such a commission. Again, are we really just talking about a shit swastika and some isolated comments? No. The students and protesters have made it clear that it is has been an ongoing issue. Those are just the recent incidents that the media has decided to cover. Any previous incidents have not been reported on by the media and may or may not have been documented by the school. Based on what? When real racist incidents occur (cross burnings, the dissemination of indisputably racist material, etc), they typically show up in the news. The absence of any kind of reporting is simply striking given the seemingly disproportionate response of the student body. On November 10 2015 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's appropriate you would think so. I hadn't been following the story at all until late last week, and now I see that the president has resigned. None of this makes any sense to me. I would think that there'd be a record of what exactly went wrong somewhere (ie what the university specifically ignored), but I haven't been able to find any information on that point. So I'm legitimately curious as to what the university did wrong and thought that y'all might have some information. So far I'm wildly unsatisfied. The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice? Exactly how long should the students be required to put up with the racism until it is "systematic" enough to meet your standard? A year of documenting events without a response? 2? This built over the span of 2 months. Is that long enough? I dunno, I'd have to think about it. It's like Judge Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Right now I don't see it. Well, it would appear that the school, students, and facility else is not working on the XDaunt burden of proof system and relies on what he can find in a google search. Or the simpler solution is that the media hasn't dug into the events prior to September 2015, so the information being reported on. Since when is it a good idea to simply take the word of the mob? How does an individual student prove a claim like people yelling slurs while driving by? Physical things to point to are easy, but most smoking guns are hidden behind closed frat doors and seldom recorded in video or print until they get real stupid and start doing bus chants with outside dates like OU. I could easily see something getting to the point where action is necessary even without a great amount of physical proof.
Let's just presume that people are too freely yelling "nigger" around campus. Does that really warrant a special commission and investigation?
|
On November 10 2015 05:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 04:40 Plansix wrote:
Once again, your metric “I’ll know it when I see it” leaves much to be desired. I am faced with an ethereal metric of proof that I must meet to prove to you that the racism was systematic and the protests have merits. And my willingness to attempt to meet that burden of proof have vanished. And to be honest, I wonder if anything could meet that standard without the crosses being burned on the campus lawn. And even then, you might claim it was just a prank and proves nothing.
And calling the protests a mob is hyperbolic since it carries the support from many of the schools staff as well.
But I leave you to your opinion on the subject, as I see zero gain in attempting to change it. Well, if we wanted to put it in legal terms, I'd expect to see at least prima facie evidence of pervasive racism at the university before requiring the university to take special steps (like forming a commission) to deal with it. Isolated racist comments and a shit-smeared swastika clearly don't meet that standard my mind, which is why I've been asking whether there's more.
The problem is that we are no in a court of law and you control the standard of proof as to what is prima facie evidence. We stated several times that the threats, slurs and other forms of aggression have been ongoing, but you have deemed them as isolated. And you have refused to address the evidence the staff also supported the protest, as it does not support your points. Or that the AG said the president should take steps to try and address the issues.
And lets be clear, we are not trying to prove there is systematic racism. We are attempting to prove the protests have merit, which you have said they don't. You then hung your hat on us proving that systematic racism was the cause because you knew it would be nearly impossible to prove with the resources at hand. Goal post shifting at its finest.
On November 10 2015 05:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 04:58 Trumpet wrote:On November 10 2015 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The racism needn't be "pervasive" to warrant a requisite response from the administration. This isn't a legal sufficiency argument, it's about how to best run a supposedly inclusive institution of higher learning.
For example, universities are the ones tasked with assembling investigatory commissions that are supposed to do the very thing you're doing, xDaunt, that being look into whether the incidents mentioned rise above the level of isolated occurrences. They didn't even do that much and therein lies the problem. Sure, I can understand a university forming a commission to investigate such incidents if it was clear that there might be a problem. But such commissions take resources, and I'm not seeing much to suggest that a sufficient threshold was reached to warrant such a commission. Again, are we really just talking about a shit swastika and some isolated comments? No. The students and protesters have made it clear that it is has been an ongoing issue. Those are just the recent incidents that the media has decided to cover. Any previous incidents have not been reported on by the media and may or may not have been documented by the school. Based on what? When real racist incidents occur (cross burnings, the dissemination of indisputably racist material, etc), they typically show up in the news. The absence of any kind of reporting is simply striking given the seemingly disproportionate response of the student body. On November 10 2015 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's appropriate you would think so. I hadn't been following the story at all until late last week, and now I see that the president has resigned. None of this makes any sense to me. I would think that there'd be a record of what exactly went wrong somewhere (ie what the university specifically ignored), but I haven't been able to find any information on that point. So I'm legitimately curious as to what the university did wrong and thought that y'all might have some information. So far I'm wildly unsatisfied. The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice? Exactly how long should the students be required to put up with the racism until it is "systematic" enough to meet your standard? A year of documenting events without a response? 2? This built over the span of 2 months. Is that long enough? I dunno, I'd have to think about it. It's like Judge Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Right now I don't see it. Well, it would appear that the school, students, and facility else is not working on the XDaunt burden of proof system and relies on what he can find in a google search. Or the simpler solution is that the media hasn't dug into the events prior to September 2015, so the information being reported on. Since when is it a good idea to simply take the word of the mob? How does an individual student prove a claim like people yelling slurs while driving by? Physical things to point to are easy, but most smoking guns are hidden behind closed frat doors and seldom recorded in video or print until they get real stupid and start doing bus chants with outside dates like OU. I could easily see something getting to the point where action is necessary even without a great amount of physical proof. Let's just presume that people are too freely yelling "nigger" around campus. Does that really warrant a special commission and investigation?
The real question is do the black students feel safe when people yelling racial slurs at them?
|
On November 10 2015 05:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 04:58 Trumpet wrote:On November 10 2015 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The racism needn't be "pervasive" to warrant a requisite response from the administration. This isn't a legal sufficiency argument, it's about how to best run a supposedly inclusive institution of higher learning.
For example, universities are the ones tasked with assembling investigatory commissions that are supposed to do the very thing you're doing, xDaunt, that being look into whether the incidents mentioned rise above the level of isolated occurrences. They didn't even do that much and therein lies the problem. Sure, I can understand a university forming a commission to investigate such incidents if it was clear that there might be a problem. But such commissions take resources, and I'm not seeing much to suggest that a sufficient threshold was reached to warrant such a commission. Again, are we really just talking about a shit swastika and some isolated comments? No. The students and protesters have made it clear that it is has been an ongoing issue. Those are just the recent incidents that the media has decided to cover. Any previous incidents have not been reported on by the media and may or may not have been documented by the school. Based on what? When real racist incidents occur (cross burnings, the dissemination of indisputably racist material, etc), they typically show up in the news. The absence of any kind of reporting is simply striking given the seemingly disproportionate response of the student body. On November 10 2015 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's appropriate you would think so. I hadn't been following the story at all until late last week, and now I see that the president has resigned. None of this makes any sense to me. I would think that there'd be a record of what exactly went wrong somewhere (ie what the university specifically ignored), but I haven't been able to find any information on that point. So I'm legitimately curious as to what the university did wrong and thought that y'all might have some information. So far I'm wildly unsatisfied. The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice? Exactly how long should the students be required to put up with the racism until it is "systematic" enough to meet your standard? A year of documenting events without a response? 2? This built over the span of 2 months. Is that long enough? I dunno, I'd have to think about it. It's like Judge Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Right now I don't see it. Well, it would appear that the school, students, and facility else is not working on the XDaunt burden of proof system and relies on what he can find in a google search. Or the simpler solution is that the media hasn't dug into the events prior to September 2015, so the information being reported on. Since when is it a good idea to simply take the word of the mob? How does an individual student prove a claim like people yelling slurs while driving by? Physical things to point to are easy, but most smoking guns are hidden behind closed frat doors and seldom recorded in video or print until they get real stupid and start doing bus chants with outside dates like OU. I could easily see something getting to the point where action is necessary even without a great amount of physical proof. Let's just presume that people are too freely yelling "nigger" around campus. Does that really warrant a special commission and investigation?
Yes... I don't see how there really is a serious question here.
|
On November 10 2015 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The racism needn't be "pervasive" to warrant a requisite response from the administration. This isn't a legal sufficiency argument, it's about how to best run a supposedly inclusive institution of higher learning.
For example, universities are the ones tasked with assembling investigatory commissions that are supposed to do the very thing you're doing, xDaunt, that being look into whether the incidents mentioned rise above the level of isolated occurrences. They didn't even do that much and therein lies the problem. Sure, I can understand a university forming a commission to investigate such incidents if it was clear that there might be a problem. But such commissions take resources, and I'm not seeing much to suggest that a sufficient threshold was reached to warrant such a commission. Again, are we really just talking about a shit swastika and some isolated comments? No. The students and protesters have made it clear that it is has been an ongoing issue. Those are just the recent incidents that the media has decided to cover. Any previous incidents have not been reported on by the media and may or may not have been documented by the school. Based on what? When real racist incidents occur (cross burnings, the dissemination of indisputably racist material, etc), they typically show up in the news. The absence of any kind of reporting is simply striking given the seemingly disproportionate response of the student body. On November 10 2015 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's appropriate you would think so. I hadn't been following the story at all until late last week, and now I see that the president has resigned. None of this makes any sense to me. I would think that there'd be a record of what exactly went wrong somewhere (ie what the university specifically ignored), but I haven't been able to find any information on that point. So I'm legitimately curious as to what the university did wrong and thought that y'all might have some information. So far I'm wildly unsatisfied. The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice? Exactly how long should the students be required to put up with the racism until it is "systematic" enough to meet your standard? A year of documenting events without a response? 2? This built over the span of 2 months. Is that long enough? I dunno, I'd have to think about it. It's like Judge Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Right now I don't see it. Well, it would appear that the school, students, and facility else is not working on the XDaunt burden of proof system and relies on what he can find in a google search. Or the simpler solution is that the media hasn't dug into the events prior to September 2015, so the information being reported on. Since when is it a good idea to simply take the word of the mob? When shit swastikas, slavery references, and yelling "nigger" at people doesn't qualify as "real racist incidents" I think it's clear what's wrong with your perspective.
When you consider that there was one shit swastika incident, which had already prompted mandatory "Sensitivity training" for all students, and two referenced drunk people yelling the n word in a campus of 35,000 students it's hard to extrapolate clear systemic racism at Mizzou. These protests started based off of Hunger Strike Guy's being upset at his healthcare being cut (which was because of Obamacare rather than any racism) and picked up steam when people started calling for Wolfe's resignation. Their list of demands is absolutely absurd, calling for racial quotas in hiring faculty (illegal) and they wanted both Wolfe's resignation and among other things an apology for his white privilege. And even when he said steps were being taken to meet their demands they did not care and called for his head immediately.
The protesters are impatient, disorganized bullies, and this controversy will both lower the value of their Mizzou degrees (should they complete them) and exacerbate the racial divide on campus. I'd equate this whole situation to an angry child throwing a tantrum and it's a shame that Wolfe had to throw himself under the bus here.
|
On November 10 2015 05:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 04:58 Trumpet wrote:On November 10 2015 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The racism needn't be "pervasive" to warrant a requisite response from the administration. This isn't a legal sufficiency argument, it's about how to best run a supposedly inclusive institution of higher learning.
For example, universities are the ones tasked with assembling investigatory commissions that are supposed to do the very thing you're doing, xDaunt, that being look into whether the incidents mentioned rise above the level of isolated occurrences. They didn't even do that much and therein lies the problem. Sure, I can understand a university forming a commission to investigate such incidents if it was clear that there might be a problem. But such commissions take resources, and I'm not seeing much to suggest that a sufficient threshold was reached to warrant such a commission. Again, are we really just talking about a shit swastika and some isolated comments? No. The students and protesters have made it clear that it is has been an ongoing issue. Those are just the recent incidents that the media has decided to cover. Any previous incidents have not been reported on by the media and may or may not have been documented by the school. Based on what? When real racist incidents occur (cross burnings, the dissemination of indisputably racist material, etc), they typically show up in the news. The absence of any kind of reporting is simply striking given the seemingly disproportionate response of the student body. On November 10 2015 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's appropriate you would think so. I hadn't been following the story at all until late last week, and now I see that the president has resigned. None of this makes any sense to me. I would think that there'd be a record of what exactly went wrong somewhere (ie what the university specifically ignored), but I haven't been able to find any information on that point. So I'm legitimately curious as to what the university did wrong and thought that y'all might have some information. So far I'm wildly unsatisfied. The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice? Exactly how long should the students be required to put up with the racism until it is "systematic" enough to meet your standard? A year of documenting events without a response? 2? This built over the span of 2 months. Is that long enough? I dunno, I'd have to think about it. It's like Judge Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Right now I don't see it. Well, it would appear that the school, students, and facility else is not working on the XDaunt burden of proof system and relies on what he can find in a google search. Or the simpler solution is that the media hasn't dug into the events prior to September 2015, so the information being reported on. Since when is it a good idea to simply take the word of the mob? How does an individual student prove a claim like people yelling slurs while driving by? Physical things to point to are easy, but most smoking guns are hidden behind closed frat doors and seldom recorded in video or print until they get real stupid and start doing bus chants with outside dates like OU. I could easily see something getting to the point where action is necessary even without a great amount of physical proof. Let's just presume that people are too freely yelling "nigger" around campus. Does that really warrant a special commission and investigation?
!?!?
!?!?!?
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
It is extremely normal for college campuses to have teams dedicated to making students feel safe and respected. Honest question: Have you never seen this sort of thing wherever you went to school? I feel like anti-racism stuff was super prevalent both during my undergrad and graduate work.
|
On November 10 2015 05:27 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 10 2015 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The racism needn't be "pervasive" to warrant a requisite response from the administration. This isn't a legal sufficiency argument, it's about how to best run a supposedly inclusive institution of higher learning.
For example, universities are the ones tasked with assembling investigatory commissions that are supposed to do the very thing you're doing, xDaunt, that being look into whether the incidents mentioned rise above the level of isolated occurrences. They didn't even do that much and therein lies the problem. Sure, I can understand a university forming a commission to investigate such incidents if it was clear that there might be a problem. But such commissions take resources, and I'm not seeing much to suggest that a sufficient threshold was reached to warrant such a commission. Again, are we really just talking about a shit swastika and some isolated comments? No. The students and protesters have made it clear that it is has been an ongoing issue. Those are just the recent incidents that the media has decided to cover. Any previous incidents have not been reported on by the media and may or may not have been documented by the school. Based on what? When real racist incidents occur (cross burnings, the dissemination of indisputably racist material, etc), they typically show up in the news. The absence of any kind of reporting is simply striking given the seemingly disproportionate response of the student body. On November 10 2015 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's appropriate you would think so. I hadn't been following the story at all until late last week, and now I see that the president has resigned. None of this makes any sense to me. I would think that there'd be a record of what exactly went wrong somewhere (ie what the university specifically ignored), but I haven't been able to find any information on that point. So I'm legitimately curious as to what the university did wrong and thought that y'all might have some information. So far I'm wildly unsatisfied. The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice? Exactly how long should the students be required to put up with the racism until it is "systematic" enough to meet your standard? A year of documenting events without a response? 2? This built over the span of 2 months. Is that long enough? I dunno, I'd have to think about it. It's like Judge Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Right now I don't see it. Well, it would appear that the school, students, and facility else is not working on the XDaunt burden of proof system and relies on what he can find in a google search. Or the simpler solution is that the media hasn't dug into the events prior to September 2015, so the information being reported on. Since when is it a good idea to simply take the word of the mob? When shit swastikas, slavery references, and yelling "nigger" at people doesn't qualify as "real racist incidents" I think it's clear what's wrong with your perspective. When you consider that there was one shit swastika incident, which had already prompted mandatory "Sensitivity training" for all students, and two referenced drunk people yelling the n word in a campus of 35,000 students it's hard to extrapolate clear systemic racism at Mizzou. These protests started based off of Hunger Strike Guy's being upset at his healthcare being cut (which was because of Obamacare rather than any racism) and picked up steam when people started calling for Wolfe's resignation. Their list of demands is absolutely absurd, calling for racial quotas in hiring faculty (illegal) and they wanted both Wolfe's resignation and among other things an apology for his white privilege. And even when he said steps were being taken to meet their demands they did not care and called for his head immediately. The protesters are impatient, disorganized bullies, and this controversy will both lower the value of their Mizzou degrees (should they complete them) and exacerbate the racial divide on campus. I'd equate this whole situation to an angry child throwing a tantrum and it's a shame that Wolfe had to throw himself under the bus here.
Please explain the staff and football coaches also supporting the protests. Or were they bulled into supporting student protests as well?
|
Jen Bush is making headlines again. This time it's about Baby Hitler and how we would killed the future fuher as a toddler.
This is desperatation.
|
On November 10 2015 05:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 05:27 ampson wrote:On November 10 2015 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 10 2015 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The racism needn't be "pervasive" to warrant a requisite response from the administration. This isn't a legal sufficiency argument, it's about how to best run a supposedly inclusive institution of higher learning.
For example, universities are the ones tasked with assembling investigatory commissions that are supposed to do the very thing you're doing, xDaunt, that being look into whether the incidents mentioned rise above the level of isolated occurrences. They didn't even do that much and therein lies the problem. Sure, I can understand a university forming a commission to investigate such incidents if it was clear that there might be a problem. But such commissions take resources, and I'm not seeing much to suggest that a sufficient threshold was reached to warrant such a commission. Again, are we really just talking about a shit swastika and some isolated comments? No. The students and protesters have made it clear that it is has been an ongoing issue. Those are just the recent incidents that the media has decided to cover. Any previous incidents have not been reported on by the media and may or may not have been documented by the school. Based on what? When real racist incidents occur (cross burnings, the dissemination of indisputably racist material, etc), they typically show up in the news. The absence of any kind of reporting is simply striking given the seemingly disproportionate response of the student body. On November 10 2015 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I hadn't been following the story at all until late last week, and now I see that the president has resigned. None of this makes any sense to me. I would think that there'd be a record of what exactly went wrong somewhere (ie what the university specifically ignored), but I haven't been able to find any information on that point. So I'm legitimately curious as to what the university did wrong and thought that y'all might have some information. So far I'm wildly unsatisfied.
The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice? Exactly how long should the students be required to put up with the racism until it is "systematic" enough to meet your standard? A year of documenting events without a response? 2? This built over the span of 2 months. Is that long enough? I dunno, I'd have to think about it. It's like Judge Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Right now I don't see it. Well, it would appear that the school, students, and facility else is not working on the XDaunt burden of proof system and relies on what he can find in a google search. Or the simpler solution is that the media hasn't dug into the events prior to September 2015, so the information being reported on. Since when is it a good idea to simply take the word of the mob? When shit swastikas, slavery references, and yelling "nigger" at people doesn't qualify as "real racist incidents" I think it's clear what's wrong with your perspective. When you consider that there was one shit swastika incident, which had already prompted mandatory "Sensitivity training" for all students, and two referenced drunk people yelling the n word in a campus of 35,000 students it's hard to extrapolate clear systemic racism at Mizzou. These protests started based off of Hunger Strike Guy's being upset at his healthcare being cut (which was because of Obamacare rather than any racism) and picked up steam when people started calling for Wolfe's resignation. Their list of demands is absolutely absurd, calling for racial quotas in hiring faculty (illegal) and they wanted both Wolfe's resignation and among other things an apology for his white privilege. And even when he said steps were being taken to meet their demands they did not care and called for his head immediately. The protesters are impatient, disorganized bullies, and this controversy will both lower the value of their Mizzou degrees (should they complete them) and exacerbate the racial divide on campus. I'd equate this whole situation to an angry child throwing a tantrum and it's a shame that Wolfe had to throw himself under the bus here. Please explain the staff and football coaches also supporting the protests. Or were they bulled into supporting student protests as well?
Because a person is a staff member at a University doesn't preclude them from acting childish. The coaches and Athletic Department joined in because football is a huge moneymaker and they needed their football players back. It looks terrible for the coach and players not to be on the same page and they wagered correctly that throwing their clout (and millions of dollars by extension) behind the protesters would get their players back faster than fighting them.
|
On November 10 2015 05:36 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 05:31 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 05:27 ampson wrote:On November 10 2015 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 10 2015 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The racism needn't be "pervasive" to warrant a requisite response from the administration. This isn't a legal sufficiency argument, it's about how to best run a supposedly inclusive institution of higher learning.
For example, universities are the ones tasked with assembling investigatory commissions that are supposed to do the very thing you're doing, xDaunt, that being look into whether the incidents mentioned rise above the level of isolated occurrences. They didn't even do that much and therein lies the problem. Sure, I can understand a university forming a commission to investigate such incidents if it was clear that there might be a problem. But such commissions take resources, and I'm not seeing much to suggest that a sufficient threshold was reached to warrant such a commission. Again, are we really just talking about a shit swastika and some isolated comments? No. The students and protesters have made it clear that it is has been an ongoing issue. Those are just the recent incidents that the media has decided to cover. Any previous incidents have not been reported on by the media and may or may not have been documented by the school. Based on what? When real racist incidents occur (cross burnings, the dissemination of indisputably racist material, etc), they typically show up in the news. The absence of any kind of reporting is simply striking given the seemingly disproportionate response of the student body. On November 10 2015 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice? Exactly how long should the students be required to put up with the racism until it is "systematic" enough to meet your standard? A year of documenting events without a response? 2? This built over the span of 2 months. Is that long enough? I dunno, I'd have to think about it. It's like Judge Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Right now I don't see it. Well, it would appear that the school, students, and facility else is not working on the XDaunt burden of proof system and relies on what he can find in a google search. Or the simpler solution is that the media hasn't dug into the events prior to September 2015, so the information being reported on. Since when is it a good idea to simply take the word of the mob? When shit swastikas, slavery references, and yelling "nigger" at people doesn't qualify as "real racist incidents" I think it's clear what's wrong with your perspective. When you consider that there was one shit swastika incident, which had already prompted mandatory "Sensitivity training" for all students, and two referenced drunk people yelling the n word in a campus of 35,000 students it's hard to extrapolate clear systemic racism at Mizzou. These protests started based off of Hunger Strike Guy's being upset at his healthcare being cut (which was because of Obamacare rather than any racism) and picked up steam when people started calling for Wolfe's resignation. Their list of demands is absolutely absurd, calling for racial quotas in hiring faculty (illegal) and they wanted both Wolfe's resignation and among other things an apology for his white privilege. And even when he said steps were being taken to meet their demands they did not care and called for his head immediately. The protesters are impatient, disorganized bullies, and this controversy will both lower the value of their Mizzou degrees (should they complete them) and exacerbate the racial divide on campus. I'd equate this whole situation to an angry child throwing a tantrum and it's a shame that Wolfe had to throw himself under the bus here. Please explain the staff and football coaches also supporting the protests. Or were they bulled into supporting student protests as well? Because a person is a staff member at a University doesn't preclude them from acting childish. The coaches and Athletic Department joined in because football is a huge moneymaker and they needed their football players back. It looks terrible for the coach and players not to be on the same page and they wagered correctly that throwing their clout (and millions of dollars by extension) behind the protesters would get their players back faster than fighting them.
So the argument is everyone is under the oppressive yoke of the politically correct bullies forcing people out of office with their crazy demands? And the staff is just going along with it because they fear they will be part of the fall out if they don’t? This is some impressive mental gymnastic I am seeing here. Everyone is either being forced or childish, no possibility for merit to here.
Never mind that they have been trying to get a response from the president on these issue since the school year started. Or that they are in a part of the country that has had some recent problems with people in power not taking racism seriously.
|
On November 10 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 04:40 Plansix wrote:
Once again, your metric “I’ll know it when I see it” leaves much to be desired. I am faced with an ethereal metric of proof that I must meet to prove to you that the racism was systematic and the protests have merits. And my willingness to attempt to meet that burden of proof have vanished. And to be honest, I wonder if anything could meet that standard without the crosses being burned on the campus lawn. And even then, you might claim it was just a prank and proves nothing.
And calling the protests a mob is hyperbolic since it carries the support from many of the schools staff as well.
But I leave you to your opinion on the subject, as I see zero gain in attempting to change it. Well, if we wanted to put it in legal terms, I'd expect to see at least prima facie evidence of pervasive racism at the university before requiring the university to take special steps (like forming a commission) to deal with it. Isolated racist comments and a shit-smeared swastika clearly don't meet that standard my mind, which is why I've been asking whether there's more. The problem is that we are no in a court of law and you control the standard of proof as to what is prima facie evidence. We stated several times that the threats, slurs and other forms of aggression have been ongoing, but you have deemed them as isolated. And you have refused to address the evidence the staff also supported the protest, as it does not support your points. Or that the AG said the president should take steps to try and address the issues. And lets be clear, we are not trying to prove there is systematic racism. We are attempting to prove the protests have merit, which you have said they don't. You then hung your hat on us proving that systematic racism was the cause because you knew it would be nearly impossible to prove with the resources at hand. Goal post shifting at its finest. Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 05:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 04:58 Trumpet wrote:On November 10 2015 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The racism needn't be "pervasive" to warrant a requisite response from the administration. This isn't a legal sufficiency argument, it's about how to best run a supposedly inclusive institution of higher learning.
For example, universities are the ones tasked with assembling investigatory commissions that are supposed to do the very thing you're doing, xDaunt, that being look into whether the incidents mentioned rise above the level of isolated occurrences. They didn't even do that much and therein lies the problem. Sure, I can understand a university forming a commission to investigate such incidents if it was clear that there might be a problem. But such commissions take resources, and I'm not seeing much to suggest that a sufficient threshold was reached to warrant such a commission. Again, are we really just talking about a shit swastika and some isolated comments? No. The students and protesters have made it clear that it is has been an ongoing issue. Those are just the recent incidents that the media has decided to cover. Any previous incidents have not been reported on by the media and may or may not have been documented by the school. Based on what? When real racist incidents occur (cross burnings, the dissemination of indisputably racist material, etc), they typically show up in the news. The absence of any kind of reporting is simply striking given the seemingly disproportionate response of the student body. On November 10 2015 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I hadn't been following the story at all until late last week, and now I see that the president has resigned. None of this makes any sense to me. I would think that there'd be a record of what exactly went wrong somewhere (ie what the university specifically ignored), but I haven't been able to find any information on that point. So I'm legitimately curious as to what the university did wrong and thought that y'all might have some information. So far I'm wildly unsatisfied.
The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice? Exactly how long should the students be required to put up with the racism until it is "systematic" enough to meet your standard? A year of documenting events without a response? 2? This built over the span of 2 months. Is that long enough? I dunno, I'd have to think about it. It's like Judge Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Right now I don't see it. Well, it would appear that the school, students, and facility else is not working on the XDaunt burden of proof system and relies on what he can find in a google search. Or the simpler solution is that the media hasn't dug into the events prior to September 2015, so the information being reported on. Since when is it a good idea to simply take the word of the mob? How does an individual student prove a claim like people yelling slurs while driving by? Physical things to point to are easy, but most smoking guns are hidden behind closed frat doors and seldom recorded in video or print until they get real stupid and start doing bus chants with outside dates like OU. I could easily see something getting to the point where action is necessary even without a great amount of physical proof. Let's just presume that people are too freely yelling "nigger" around campus. Does that really warrant a special commission and investigation? The real question is do the black students feel safe when people yelling racial slurs at them?
Are you sure that you're a paralegal? Do you even know what prima facie evidence is? It's the most basic offerings of proof. Basically all that I'm asking for is that there be some whiff that there's pervasive racism at the school before everybody gets all bent out of shape about it. I sure as shit am not asking that any of this bullshit go to court.
The bottom line is that people seem to be up in arms over the isolated usage of racial slurs, which is simply absurd. But given the track record of the SJW/ultra-PC crowd, I can't say that I'm surprised.
|
They got a response from the president about the swastika incident with mandatory sensitivity training. They got multiple assurances from the president that their demands were being looked at and that actions were being taken. I've made my arguments, and I just operate on the assumption that some faculty can be wrong. Apparently you think they are infallible, but in that case why didn't all of them join in the protests? Because the majority didn't. Nor did the majority of students. But in a campus of 35000, ten percent is still enough to make a huge fuss. I'm not doing any mental gymnastics, I'm assessing the situation based off of what I know, and I know that their demands were absolutely ridiculous and that they didn't even give the president any time to act upon them before continuously calling for his resignation.
|
On November 10 2015 05:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 04:58 Trumpet wrote:On November 10 2015 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The racism needn't be "pervasive" to warrant a requisite response from the administration. This isn't a legal sufficiency argument, it's about how to best run a supposedly inclusive institution of higher learning.
For example, universities are the ones tasked with assembling investigatory commissions that are supposed to do the very thing you're doing, xDaunt, that being look into whether the incidents mentioned rise above the level of isolated occurrences. They didn't even do that much and therein lies the problem. Sure, I can understand a university forming a commission to investigate such incidents if it was clear that there might be a problem. But such commissions take resources, and I'm not seeing much to suggest that a sufficient threshold was reached to warrant such a commission. Again, are we really just talking about a shit swastika and some isolated comments? No. The students and protesters have made it clear that it is has been an ongoing issue. Those are just the recent incidents that the media has decided to cover. Any previous incidents have not been reported on by the media and may or may not have been documented by the school. Based on what? When real racist incidents occur (cross burnings, the dissemination of indisputably racist material, etc), they typically show up in the news. The absence of any kind of reporting is simply striking given the seemingly disproportionate response of the student body. On November 10 2015 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's appropriate you would think so. I hadn't been following the story at all until late last week, and now I see that the president has resigned. None of this makes any sense to me. I would think that there'd be a record of what exactly went wrong somewhere (ie what the university specifically ignored), but I haven't been able to find any information on that point. So I'm legitimately curious as to what the university did wrong and thought that y'all might have some information. So far I'm wildly unsatisfied. The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice? Exactly how long should the students be required to put up with the racism until it is "systematic" enough to meet your standard? A year of documenting events without a response? 2? This built over the span of 2 months. Is that long enough? I dunno, I'd have to think about it. It's like Judge Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Right now I don't see it. Well, it would appear that the school, students, and facility else is not working on the XDaunt burden of proof system and relies on what he can find in a google search. Or the simpler solution is that the media hasn't dug into the events prior to September 2015, so the information being reported on. Since when is it a good idea to simply take the word of the mob? How does an individual student prove a claim like people yelling slurs while driving by? Physical things to point to are easy, but most smoking guns are hidden behind closed frat doors and seldom recorded in video or print until they get real stupid and start doing bus chants with outside dates like OU. I could easily see something getting to the point where action is necessary even without a great amount of physical proof. Let's just presume that people are too freely yelling "nigger" around campus. Does that really warrant a special commission and investigation?
The answer to that question is Yes. That should be obvious, but the way you worded it makes me unsure that you believe so. Do you not think schools should have organizations dedicated to campus safety and stemming bigotry? Because the vast majority of schools think such a thing is a great idea.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i approve of some forms of oppression, including the oppression of racist frat bros
|
On November 10 2015 05:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 04:40 Plansix wrote:
Once again, your metric “I’ll know it when I see it” leaves much to be desired. I am faced with an ethereal metric of proof that I must meet to prove to you that the racism was systematic and the protests have merits. And my willingness to attempt to meet that burden of proof have vanished. And to be honest, I wonder if anything could meet that standard without the crosses being burned on the campus lawn. And even then, you might claim it was just a prank and proves nothing.
And calling the protests a mob is hyperbolic since it carries the support from many of the schools staff as well.
But I leave you to your opinion on the subject, as I see zero gain in attempting to change it. Well, if we wanted to put it in legal terms, I'd expect to see at least prima facie evidence of pervasive racism at the university before requiring the university to take special steps (like forming a commission) to deal with it. Isolated racist comments and a shit-smeared swastika clearly don't meet that standard my mind, which is why I've been asking whether there's more. The problem is that we are no in a court of law and you control the standard of proof as to what is prima facie evidence. We stated several times that the threats, slurs and other forms of aggression have been ongoing, but you have deemed them as isolated. And you have refused to address the evidence the staff also supported the protest, as it does not support your points. Or that the AG said the president should take steps to try and address the issues. And lets be clear, we are not trying to prove there is systematic racism. We are attempting to prove the protests have merit, which you have said they don't. You then hung your hat on us proving that systematic racism was the cause because you knew it would be nearly impossible to prove with the resources at hand. Goal post shifting at its finest. On November 10 2015 05:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 04:58 Trumpet wrote:On November 10 2015 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The racism needn't be "pervasive" to warrant a requisite response from the administration. This isn't a legal sufficiency argument, it's about how to best run a supposedly inclusive institution of higher learning.
For example, universities are the ones tasked with assembling investigatory commissions that are supposed to do the very thing you're doing, xDaunt, that being look into whether the incidents mentioned rise above the level of isolated occurrences. They didn't even do that much and therein lies the problem. Sure, I can understand a university forming a commission to investigate such incidents if it was clear that there might be a problem. But such commissions take resources, and I'm not seeing much to suggest that a sufficient threshold was reached to warrant such a commission. Again, are we really just talking about a shit swastika and some isolated comments? No. The students and protesters have made it clear that it is has been an ongoing issue. Those are just the recent incidents that the media has decided to cover. Any previous incidents have not been reported on by the media and may or may not have been documented by the school. Based on what? When real racist incidents occur (cross burnings, the dissemination of indisputably racist material, etc), they typically show up in the news. The absence of any kind of reporting is simply striking given the seemingly disproportionate response of the student body. On November 10 2015 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice? Exactly how long should the students be required to put up with the racism until it is "systematic" enough to meet your standard? A year of documenting events without a response? 2? This built over the span of 2 months. Is that long enough? I dunno, I'd have to think about it. It's like Judge Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Right now I don't see it. Well, it would appear that the school, students, and facility else is not working on the XDaunt burden of proof system and relies on what he can find in a google search. Or the simpler solution is that the media hasn't dug into the events prior to September 2015, so the information being reported on. Since when is it a good idea to simply take the word of the mob? How does an individual student prove a claim like people yelling slurs while driving by? Physical things to point to are easy, but most smoking guns are hidden behind closed frat doors and seldom recorded in video or print until they get real stupid and start doing bus chants with outside dates like OU. I could easily see something getting to the point where action is necessary even without a great amount of physical proof. Let's just presume that people are too freely yelling "nigger" around campus. Does that really warrant a special commission and investigation? The real question is do the black students feel safe when people yelling racial slurs at them? Are you sure that you're a paralegal? Do you even know what prima facie evidence is? It's the most basic offerings of proof. Basically all that I'm asking for is that there be some whiff that there's pervasive racism at the school before everybody gets all bent out of shape about it. I sure as shit am not asking that any of this bullshit go to court. The bottom line is that people seem to be up in arms over the isolated usage of racial slurs, which is simply absurd. But given the track record of the SJW/ultra-PC crowd, I can't say that I'm surprised.
I am 100% sure of my profession, thanks. This isn't a court of law and I have no ability to provide you with that evidence. I can't call witnesses or every verify documents. Any news article I link is hearsay. And even if I did the simple google search and linked that article, you might deem it not acceptable:
http://fusion.net/story/229493/university-of-missouri-protests-explained/
In the the span of 2 months this is the list of things reported by black students. It this year abnormal? Did something happen to the students over the summer?
NPR has reported on it and publish the responses from black facility members and why they think its a problem:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/08/455232301/read-two-personal-statements-that-help-explain-the-situation-at-mizzou
But once again, it is unclear if this is the proof you require. Because again, you will know it when you see it.
|
On November 10 2015 05:27 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2015 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 10 2015 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The racism needn't be "pervasive" to warrant a requisite response from the administration. This isn't a legal sufficiency argument, it's about how to best run a supposedly inclusive institution of higher learning.
For example, universities are the ones tasked with assembling investigatory commissions that are supposed to do the very thing you're doing, xDaunt, that being look into whether the incidents mentioned rise above the level of isolated occurrences. They didn't even do that much and therein lies the problem. Sure, I can understand a university forming a commission to investigate such incidents if it was clear that there might be a problem. But such commissions take resources, and I'm not seeing much to suggest that a sufficient threshold was reached to warrant such a commission. Again, are we really just talking about a shit swastika and some isolated comments? No. The students and protesters have made it clear that it is has been an ongoing issue. Those are just the recent incidents that the media has decided to cover. Any previous incidents have not been reported on by the media and may or may not have been documented by the school. Based on what? When real racist incidents occur (cross burnings, the dissemination of indisputably racist material, etc), they typically show up in the news. The absence of any kind of reporting is simply striking given the seemingly disproportionate response of the student body. On November 10 2015 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:41 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2015 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2015 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's appropriate you would think so. I hadn't been following the story at all until late last week, and now I see that the president has resigned. None of this makes any sense to me. I would think that there'd be a record of what exactly went wrong somewhere (ie what the university specifically ignored), but I haven't been able to find any information on that point. So I'm legitimately curious as to what the university did wrong and thought that y'all might have some information. So far I'm wildly unsatisfied. The problem is that they didn't do anything. They have people driving around the campus yelling racial slurs as passing black students and that hasn't been addressed. It’s been an ongoing, escalating issue where the threats and racism increase as the black students attempt to have them addressed. And the president didn’t do anything beyond just wait until it went away, which isn’t acceptable. If there was a truly pervasive racist atmosphere at the university and the administration did nothing about it, I agree, the president should resign. I'm merely trying to understand whether there was this pervasive racist atmosphere at the university. If it existed, one would expect that there'd be a fairly detailed record of it, which I am not seeing. Drawing a swastika with shit can just as easily be ascribed to dipshit fraternity hazing as any other motive. All that I'm seeing beyond that are isolated racist remarks. How is this enough to damn an entire community as being racist? What exactly is the university supposed to do beyond circulating a meaningless CYA email to everyone telling them to be nice? Exactly how long should the students be required to put up with the racism until it is "systematic" enough to meet your standard? A year of documenting events without a response? 2? This built over the span of 2 months. Is that long enough? I dunno, I'd have to think about it. It's like Judge Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Right now I don't see it. Well, it would appear that the school, students, and facility else is not working on the XDaunt burden of proof system and relies on what he can find in a google search. Or the simpler solution is that the media hasn't dug into the events prior to September 2015, so the information being reported on. Since when is it a good idea to simply take the word of the mob? When shit swastikas, slavery references, and yelling "nigger" at people doesn't qualify as "real racist incidents" I think it's clear what's wrong with your perspective. When you consider that there was one shit swastika incident, which had already prompted mandatory "Sensitivity training" for all students, and two referenced drunk people yelling the n word in a campus of 35,000 students it's hard to extrapolate clear systemic racism at Mizzou. These protests started based off of Hunger Strike Guy's being upset at his healthcare being cut (which was because of Obamacare rather than any racism) and picked up steam when people started calling for Wolfe's resignation. Their list of demands is absolutely absurd, calling for racial quotas in hiring faculty (illegal) and they wanted both Wolfe's resignation and among other things an apology for his white privilege. And even when he said steps were being taken to meet their demands they did not care and called for his head immediately. The protesters are impatient, disorganized bullies, and this controversy will both lower the value of their Mizzou degrees (should they complete them) and exacerbate the racial divide on campus. I'd equate this whole situation to an angry child throwing a tantrum and it's a shame that Wolfe had to throw himself under the bus here. The demands certainly are absurd. I'm wondering if anywhere in campus administration there were documented reports of daily/weekly occurrences of racial epithets and threats/perceived threats of violence. I don't want any underlying unacknowledged problem just swept up into the mob that knows its power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
