Basically, the black football players at U. of Missouri have announced that they will not play football until university president resigns and school "fixes" racial problems...
Any thoughts on what will happen, how this will play out?
"A Swastika was drawn on a dorm room wall"
And what is the president supposed to do about that? Or about a racially charged attack? All he can do is condemn the stuff.
In all likelyhood, the students will likely loose any scholarship they have. The School is not gonna replace a president for this.
So they're angry that the University President didn't immediately comment on some racial heckling? That seems a little extreme, is there more info on why there is some hatred for the administration? A week doesn't seem that long to wait for some official statement. Maybe on the Swastika, but the verbal insult seems pretty minor. I could see it easily taking a week for that even to filter its way onto the presidents desk. Its not like he knows or can control everything that goes on on campus.
Grey Templar wrote: So they're angry that the University President didn't immediately comment on some racial heckling? That seems a little extreme, is there more info on why there is some hatred for the administration? A week doesn't seem that long to wait for some official statement. Maybe on the Swastika, but the verbal insult seems pretty minor. I could see it easily taking a week for that even to filter its way onto the presidents desk. Its not like he knows or can control everything that goes on on campus.
Well, when I looked up further info, according to USA Today, the poo-swastika was merely the "most recent" of a number of racial incidents that have happened since school started this year. And that wasn't in a dorm room, but apparently a common/public area of a dorm building.
Hmm, maybe the President was just like "Oh great, not another incident" *grumble grumble and it took a while for it to get typed up and sent out.
I'd get pretty annoyed if that kept happening and I had to keep writing statements condemning them. Not like he can say anything new. Only so many ways you can say "this is bad and people shouldn't do this".
Grey Templar wrote: Hmm, maybe the President was just like "Oh great, not another incident" *grumble grumble and it took a while for it to get typed up and sent out.
I'd get pretty annoyed if that kept happening and I had to keep writing statements condemning them. Not like he can say anything new. Only so many ways you can say "this is bad and people shouldn't do this".
TBH he probably doesnt even type it, but his secretary. He probably even has generic letters for it.
Its like how if you turn 100 and tell the white house you get a letter from the president congratulating you. it isnt even him.
Basically, the black football players at U. of Missouri have announced that they will not play football until university president resigns and school "fixes" racial problems...
Any thoughts on what will happen, how this will play out?
I think that might affect any of the participants who are there on a sports based scholarship, which is actually a huge mechanism for social mobility in the SEC and South writ-large. Not good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: So they're angry that the University President didn't immediately comment on some racial heckling?
My college sends out same day notifications on "hate crime" reports from the local and campus cops. Its annoying, but easy enough to accomplish. I wish the same degree of attention were paid to assaults that occur on campus, to be totally honest.
Well yeah, a notification that X happened. I think what they're angry about is that there wasn't an immediate statement condemning the incidents, its not about notifying students, its about them wanting the administration to always be punctual in condemning events. Which if that is the case seems unreasonable.
Grey Templar wrote: Well yeah, a notification that X happened. I think what they're angry about is that there wasn't an immediate statement condemning the incidents, its not about notifying students, its about them wanting the administration to always be punctual in condemning events. Which if that is the case seems unreasonable.
Perhaps I'm reading a bit into this, but with these same articles tending to mention a grad student conducting a hunger strike, this isn't so much "they aren't condeming things" as it is "they're condemning things with their words, but ain't doing gak to actually fix it so that it isn't an actual problem"
However, I do agree with you that... there doesn't seem to be much more an administration can do aside from allowing LEOs full access to conduct their investigations and to continue to condemn the actions and foster an environment where racial equality is condoned.
Thats exactly what it reads like to me. People wrongly thinking some particular person actually can fix a problem and then getting mad when it isn't fixed, or isn't fixed fast enough. And do they really think him resigning is going to change anything? The new president is going to take a while to find and settle into his office, let alone begin even thinking about fixing anything. Its just going to cause chaos for no reason.
Grey Templar wrote: Well yeah, a notification that X happened. I think what they're angry about is that there wasn't an immediate statement condemning the incidents, its not about notifying students, its about them wanting the administration to always be punctual in condemning events. Which if that is the case seems unreasonable.
This is in Columbia, Missouri (small college town).
I'm in St. Louis... and I'm still not sure what's going on. Something isn't adding up.
Do they even know if the hecklers in the pickup were students? Could have just been some racist hicks driving by. I would also hardly call that plus a swastika as evidence of racism in the system at the school. Seems more like a couple racists students at worst. Its not like we can police peoples thoughts and beliefs either. I think they're making some unreasonable demands and pointing their ire in completely the wrong direction.
Now... everyone is bringing up grieviences up. Read up that links... it goes downhill there.
Huh...that's ah...certainly a list of demands.
While I ordinarily count myself more amongst the pinko may-day celebrating crowd, and I'm certainly sympathetic to a some of their points, as a whole, the list comes off as, well, entitled, particularly the fee & tuition waivers.
Lol whut, I would say maybe 2 of those demands are even approaching reasonable. You want free tuition if you work for the university? Don't let the door hit you on the way out champ.
Grey Templar wrote: Lol whut, I would say maybe 2 of those demands are even approaching reasonable. You want free tuition if you work for the university? Don't let the door hit you on the way out champ.
At that site guys, keep reading the articles on that timeline tool. It goes downhill.
Now... everyone is bringing up grieviences up. Read up that links... it goes downhill there.
Taking a page from Saul Alinski I see.
The grad students at my school tried this one, but they lost a lot of people's attention when they started heavily campaigning to do away with "all gendered bathrooms on campus."
I don't know. It sounds like the Graduate students have had a few issues with the school for awhile, and the loss of health coverage was just the last straw. Their demands are not unreasonable, and it sounds like they were previously getting most of those things but that for various reasons (that fairly seem partially out of the universities control) have been lost. The last line of the linked article by Whembly though makes it seem like this isn't some raving mob situation. Some students are upset but the school sounds amicable to working with them and them with the school.
Not sure it's something worth reporting and honestly unrelated to the OP article outside of both happening on the same campus.
As to the OP, I think the player has a valid point. As someone who experience similar issues in college I sympathize. College administrations love downplaying and pretending crazy bad gak doesn't happen. They send out notifications about all kinds of things, but if some is sexually assaulted, mugged, or harassed, the campus and their crony campus cops play a game of cover up. They prioritize the image of the school over the needs of students and that's what it sounds like the OP article is about.
Sept. 12: Missouri Students Association president Payton Head posts about a racial slur directed at him.
Payton Head, MU senior and president of MSA, renewed the dialogue about racism and the racial climate on campus after publishing a Facebook post about his first-hand experience with racism. The night before, Head said he was walking around campus when the passenger of a pickup repeatedly shouted the “N-word” at him.
Head’s statement went viral on social media, and many people shared their support of Head and frustration with MU’s response, or lack thereof, to his post.
“I’d had experience with racism before, like microaggressions, but that was the first time I’d experienced in-your-face racism,” Head told a Missourian reporter.
Oct. 5: Legion of Black Collegians members are the targets of racial slurs by a man on campus.
Another instance of racism brought the racial climate on campus again to the attention of students and administrators.
The Legion of Black Collegians shared a letter on social media describing the group's encounter with overt racism the night before. The group was rehearsing for a performance at Traditions Plaza when a “young man” talking on his cellphone walked up to the group. After being politely and repeatedly asked to leave, the man walked away but referenced LBC members using racial slurs.
That same day, MU Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin responded with a post of his own, acknowledging and condemning racism at MU.
“There was a silence that fell over us all, almost in disbelief that this racial slur in particular was used in our vicinity,” Naomi Collier, president of MU’s NAACP chapter and member of the LBC’s activities committee, wrote in the letter.
Oct. 8: Loftin announces mandatory online diversity training for faculty, staff and students, which is met with widespread skepticism.
The training came after a number of accounts of overt racism experience by students on campus, but was met with skepticism and suspicion.
Jonathan Butler, MU graduate student and campus activist, wrote a letter to Loftin saying the training was “a step in the right direction, but it is not enough.”
Oct. 10: Members of Concerned Student 1950 protest during the MU Homecoming Parade, blocking a car carrying UM System President Tim Wolfe.
Concerned Student 1950 refers to the year African-American students were first admitted to MU. The group targeted Wolfe’s car during Homecoming to send the message that students will not be ignored by administrators on the issue of discrimination on campus.
“We’ve sent emails, we’ve sent tweets, we’ve messaged but we’ve gotten no response back from the upper officials at Mizzou to really make change on this campus,” Butler said afterward.
The protesters blocked the street and Wolfe’s car for about 15 minutes, chanting and making speeches, until they were dispersed by police. Some students watching the parade also joined in on the protest in support. No protesters were arrested for disturbing the parade.
“I joined in the line because white silence is compliance, like what they were yelling in the Student Center. I feel like I can’t just sit by and watch. It’s not my fight, but I support it,” MU undergraduate Breanne LoPresti told a reporter.
Oct. 21: Concerned Student 1950 issues a statement of demands, including a formal apology from Wolfe and his removal from office.
Ten days after the Homecoming protest, the group issued the statement with eight demands, including enforcement of mandatory racial awareness and inclusion training for all faculty, staff and students; an increase in the percentage of black faculty and staff; and an increase in funding to hire mental health professionals for the MU Counseling Center, particularly those of color; and more staff for social justice centers on campus.
A number of groups showed their support for the sentiment, including the Department of Black Studies, the Department of Classical Studies and the School of Health Professions.
Oct. 24: A swastika using human feces is drawn on a bathroom wall in MU's Gateway Hall
The vandalism, reported by the Residence Halls Association, was described as "an act of hate." The vandalism was reported immediately to the MU Police Department and an investigation initiated, but no one has been apprehended to date.
Oct. 27: Concerned Student 1950 meets with Wolfe, but no issues are resolved.
Members of the group said Wolfe did not agree to any of the demands they sent to him the previous week. In the meeting, Wolfe said he cared for black students at MU but was "'not completely' aware of systemic racism, sexism, and patriarchy on campus," according to a statement by Concerned Student 1950.
Morning of Nov. 2: Jonathan Butler announces he will go on a hunger strike until Wolfe is removed from office.
Butler said his decision was made a few days after student protesters interrupted the Homecoming Parade in October.
To prepare for the strike, he reduced his food intake and researched how his body would react. He updated his will and spoke to a physician.
As of Friday, Butler had gone five days without food.
Butler said the demand for Wolfe’s removal from office was made because of the president's failure to respond sincerely and actively to student concerns about discrimination on campus. Butler has continued his daily life during the strike, working and attending his classes.
“During this hunger strike, I will not consume any food or nutritional sustenance at the expense of my health until either Tim Wolfe is removed from office or my internal organs fail and my life is lost," Butler wrote in a letter to the UM System Board of Directors.
Evening of Nov. 2: Students camp on Carnahan Quadrangle in support of the hunger strike and Wolfe's removal from office.
One Concerned Student 1950 representative said student activists will stay until the semester ends in December, if that's what it takes.
Nov. 3: Concerned Student 1950 and supporters meet with Wolfe and Loftin near University Hall to discuss race relations and discrimination.
The Forum on Graduate Rights, an activist group dedicated to improving the state of graduate student employees at MU, called for the gathering and made a statement supporting Jonathan Butler and his hunger strike.
“JB (Butler) is our colleague, our fellow activist and our friend,” said Eric Scott, co-chair of the Coalition of Graduate Workers, a part of the Forum on Graduate Rights. “We want him to live a happy and healthy life, and you (Wolfe) have the power to resolve this, and we urge you to use it.”
Wolfe responded to students’ comments by saying racism is unacceptable, he is committed to combating it on campus and his actions will support his words. Student activists were not convinced and continued to press Wolfe for answers. Loftin did not make a statement, but was present for the duration of the meeting.
Evening of Nov. 3: Concerned Student 1950 decides to boycott MU services until Wolfe is removed from office.
The boycott was announced Wednesday and officially began Thursday. The group is using the hashtag #BoycottUM to promote the boycott of merchandise, retail dining services and ticketed events. The group began using a website called Change.org to hold a petition to remove Wolfe from office.
“We are boycotting spending money at the Student Center, we are boycotting football games — anything that brings the university extra money, until everything is resolved. If you can’t listen to our voices, you can’t have our dollars," said Storm Ervin, Concerned Student 1950 representative, in an interview.
Nov. 5: Concerned Student 1950 holds a demonstration on campus before the MU-Mississippi State football game.
About 200 members and supporters of Concerned Student 1950 participated in the demonstration, marching through campus and chanting “Join us in the revolution." Participants were urged to identify themselves only as “Concerned Student.” At Speaker's Circle, the group reiterated its demand for UM System President Tim Wolfe’s removal.
The same day, Payton Head posted on Twitter a slideshow of images of racist comments he said were made by MU students, and Chancellor Loftin responded: "Sad to see more hate speech hiding behind anonymity. Racism, bias, discrimination have no place here."
Evening of Nov. 5: Students reschedule a football game protest for Monday, citing security reasons.
Members of Concerned Student 1950 planned to hold the protest after Missouri’s football game Thursday night. Nearly 100 protesters gathered in the basement of the MU Student Center that night, but decided the circumstances — mixing with “drunk white people” after the Tigers’ loss — could lead to an unsafe protest. Details about Monday's protest have not been announced.
Nov. 6: Wolfe issues an apology for his action and inaction during the Homecoming protest.
In the statement, he said he was very concerned for Jonathan Butler's health and acknowledged that racism at the university exists and is unacceptable.
"I regret my reaction at the MU homecoming parade when the ConcernedStudent1950 group approached my car," the statement read. "I am sorry, and my apology is long overdue. My behavior seemed like I did not care. That was not my intention. I was caught off guard in that moment. Nonetheless, had I gotten out of the car to acknowledge the students and talk with them perhaps we wouldn’t be where we are today."
"I am asking us to move forward in addressing the racism that exists at our university — and it does exist. Together we must rise to the challenge of combatting racism, injustice, and intolerance."
Evening of Nov. 6: Protesters confront Wolfe in Kansas City
Student protesters with the group Concerned Student 1950 from both MU and the University of Missouri Kansas City met Wolfe outside a fundraiser at the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts in Kansas City. One student released a video in which the UM System president responds to the question, "Tim Wolfe, what do you think systematic oppression is?"
Wolfe says, "It's — systematic oppression is because you don't believe that you have the equal opportunity for success — "
The crowd of students reacts negatively, and the chatter is mostly inaudible.
Someone in the crowd yells, "Did you just blame us for systematic oppression, Tim Wolfe? Did you just blame black students —" before the video cuts off.
Nov. 7: Concerned Student 1950 holds demonstration in front of MU prospective students
A group of students holds a "mock tour" of campus featuring a presentation on the recent history of racism on campus. protesters marched through dining halls and campus hubs on Meet Mizzou Day, a large campus recruiting event.
The MU Tour Team was warned about the possibility of protests in the wake of the video that surfaced the previous evening.
Nov. 7: Black MU football players plan to boycott
"We will no longer participate in any football related activities until President Tim Wolfe resigns or is removed due to his negligence toward marginalized students' experiences," the players announced in a tweet sent from the Legion of Black Collegians account.
Sixty of the 124 players on the MU football team are black, but it was unclear as of Saturday night how many of the players agreed to participate in the boycott.
Nov. 8: MU football team unites behind black athletes; officials, others issue statements
Football coach Gary Pinkel tweeted a photograph Sunday morning showing him and nearly 100 players and assistant coaches — black and white — at the team's training complex. "The Mizzou Family stands as one," the tweet read. "We are united. We are behind our players. #ConcernedStudent1950 GP"
UM System President Tim Wolfe issued a statement Sunday morning expressing hope that all sides could get together and resolve the matter. He also said he was dedicated to ongoing dialogue. Jonathan Butler tweeted almost immediately that he was "extremely unsatisfied and (the president) has no true plan for change."
Many of the grad students serve as tutors to the athletes and have convinced some of the athletes to join the cause for the graduate's list of demands.
Grey Templar wrote: Lol whut, I would say maybe 2 of those demands are even approaching reasonable. You want free tuition if you work for the university? Don't let the door hit you on the way out champ.
Well, to be fair, most graduate students with graduate assistantships at other universities (i.e., Teaching Assistants/Instructors, Research Assistants, etc.) don't pay tuition and have health insurance plans through the university. So that's not an unreasonable request at all. Graduate students with assistantships are university employees just as much as they are students, and many universities use them as full-fledged instructors of record for first and second year classes. Quite frankly, if they are having graduate students serve as TAs and research assistants and aren't giving them tuition remission, that's pretty bad.
When I was first considering going to grad school, the best advice one of my professors gave me was, "If the school you want to go to isn't going to give you tuition remission and pay you to go to grad school, you need to find a school that will." That's also the advice I gave to any of my students who were interested in going to grad school as well.
I saw a post about some going on a hunger strike. I always love those. "You mean you're going to 'punish' me by hurting yourself? Go nuts, and enjoy your upcoming Darwin Award".
I find any strike that is designed to make the striker suffer to teach a lesson to the person/people the strike is against an absolutely idiotic thing.
I'm not saying being upset at racist acts is bad. They should be offended. But hunger strikes are asinine.
Then again, thanksgiving is coming. And people like to starve themselves beforehand. Maybe this was an inside job to get people ready for the holiday.
I find any strike that is designed to make the striker suffer to teach a lesson to the person/people the strike is against an absolutely idiotic thing.
Grey Templar wrote: Lol whut, I would say maybe 2 of those demands are even approaching reasonable. You want free tuition if you work for the university? Don't let the door hit you on the way out champ.
Well, to be fair, most graduate students with graduate assistantships as other universities (i.e., Teaching Assistants/Instructors, Research Assistants, etc.) don't pay tuition and have health insurance plans through the university. So that's not an unreasonable request at all. Graduate students with assistantships are university employees just as much as they are students, and many universities use them as full-fledged instructors of record for first and second year classes. Quite frankly, if they are having graduate students serve as TAs and research assistants and aren't giving them tuition remission, that's pretty bad.
When I was first considering going to grad school, the best advice one of my professors gave me was, "If the school you want to go to isn't going to give you tuition remission and pay you to go to grad school, you need to find a school that will." That's also the advice I gave to any of my students who were interested in going to grad school as well.
That tends to be highly dependent on the type of graduate work. If you're a Physics grad student, then you're doing a lot of time setting up lab experiments, operating complex machinery, etc, and then such things make sense. Not for all areas of study however.
There's also often a limited number of assistantships available that doesn't match the number of spots they have for grad students. They may only need 5 people to set up lab experiments, but may have room for 20 grad students.
The answer to this problem comes from gardening. Don't cut off the head, but take out the root. The president isn't doing anything wrong but being in the wrong spot at the wrong time. People need someone to blame.
This whole thing strikes me as a bunch of special snowflakes doing what special snowflakes do and freaking out about being insulted (despite the fact that its something everyone, including heterosexual white males go through. I know, it's so hard to grasp that you aren't being discriminated against, especially when we regularly see average joes getting insulted on a daily basis). They're basically saying "I'm so special that anybody doing anything bad against me or people like me is auto-magically discriminating against every characteristic that I have."
Grey Templar wrote: Lol whut, I would say maybe 2 of those demands are even approaching reasonable. You want free tuition if you work for the university? Don't let the door hit you on the way out champ.
Tuition remittance for graduate employees is standard, child. If that doesn't exist, then Mizzou has devolved.
There's also often a limited number of assistantships available that doesn't match the number of spots they have for grad students. They may only need 5 people to set up lab experiments, but may have room for 20 grad students.
If you aren't working for the school, then you aren't a graduate employee.
If you aren't working for the school, then you aren't a graduate employee.
Right, but my point was in response to the earlier statement "If the school you want to go to isn't going to give you tuition remission and pay you to go to grad school, you need to find a school that will."
I also know that I didn't get my tuition waved while working as a graduate employee, it just meant I could pay rent without having to take on additional loans.
Vaktathi wrote: Right, but my point was in response to the earlier statement "If the school you want to go to isn't going to give you tuition remission and pay you to go to grad school, you need to find a school that will."
I also know that I didn't get my tuition waved while working as a graduate employee, it just meant I could pay rent without having to take on additional loans.
Vaktathi wrote: Right, but my point was in response to the earlier statement "If the school you want to go to isn't going to give you tuition remission and pay you to go to grad school, you need to find a school that will."
A wise statement.
Sure, but beside my point. Expecting to get be able to get paid to go to grad school is a wee bit silly, as these positions are often more limited than the number of seats they have, and typically tend to focused more in STEM programs than other areas of study. It might make sense to pay say, a Physics grad student as an employee because they're setting up labs and operating specialized equipment for a professor to do research for the school who then sells the patent to a company which in turn funds school operations.
On the other hand, art historians & business profs don't need lab assistants to operate specialized machinery that require someone with a couple of years of advanced training to operate.
So you went to a crap school?
Given that it's ranked as one of the top business schools in the country, I'd assume not. They just didn't pay people to go to school. Of all my other pals that have masters degrees or phd's, only one didn't have to pay tuition, and that was because he was qualified to operate equipment like an industrial level cyclotron.
Nor was I, but I got my tuition waved. Didn't even have to fight for it.
Well, that's great, but the overwhelmingly vast majority of grad students don't get paid to go to school. *Expecting* that as a matter of course is rather ridiculous.
Vaktathi wrote: Sure, but beside my point. Expecting to get be able to get paid to go to grad school is a wee bit silly, as these positions are often more limited than the number of seats they have, and typically tend to focused more in STEM programs than other areas of study.
So your argument has now moved towards compensation outside the remission of tuition?
On the other hand, art historians & business profs don't need lab assistants to operate specialized machinery that require someone with a couple of years of advanced training to operate.
What about art labs? Any professor of the history of art will need one, dangerous chemicals and all that.
Vaktathi wrote: Given that it's ranked as one of the top business schools in the country, I'd assume not.
Being ranked as a top business school is like getting a Gold Star in Kindergarten .
Being ranked as a top business school is like getting a Gold Star in Kindergarten .
It's totally true though. It's like saying you got an A in Human Communications. How bad do you have to feth up to not get an A in Human Communications
Grey Templar wrote: Lol whut, I would say maybe 2 of those demands are even approaching reasonable. You want free tuition if you work for the university? Don't let the door hit you on the way out champ.
Advantage of living in Sweden: all universities are free.
Grey Templar wrote: Lol whut, I would say maybe 2 of those demands are even approaching reasonable. You want free tuition if you work for the university? Don't let the door hit you on the way out champ.
Advantage of living in Sweden: all universities are free.
Yeah, but first, that is socialism, and you know that THAT is worse than Mr. Hilter and his friendly chaps, and second: MUUUUUURICA!
Back on topic: What is the disavantage for the school not having black players playing? Losing matches and consequently drop of sponsor contracts?
How much of their yearly budget comes from private sources?
Basically, the black football players at U. of Missouri have announced that they will not play football until university president resigns and school "fixes" racial problems...
Any thoughts on what will happen, how this will play out?
Now we see who has more power, the football team or the President.
While some of these acts shouldn't be classified as free speech but are vandalism, others are, and this is a public school, IIRC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: "A Swastika was drawn on a dorm room wall" And what is the president supposed to do about that? Or about a racially charged attack? All he can do is condemn the stuff. In all likelyhood, the students will likely loose any scholarship they have. The School is not gonna replace a president for this.
I imagine the power of PC will win with ease here.
Grey Templar wrote: So they're angry that the University President didn't immediately comment on some racial heckling? That seems a little extreme, is there more info on why there is some hatred for the administration? A week doesn't seem that long to wait for some official statement. Maybe on the Swastika, but the verbal insult seems pretty minor. I could see it easily taking a week for that even to filter its way onto the presidents desk. Its not like he knows or can control everything that goes on on campus.
Well, when I looked up further info, according to USA Today, the poo-swastika was merely the "most recent" of a number of racial incidents that have happened since school started this year. And that wasn't in a dorm room, but apparently a common/public area of a dorm building.
That should be pursued as a crime.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Lol whut, I would say maybe 2 of those demands are even approaching reasonable. You want free tuition if you work for the university? Don't let the door hit you on the way out champ.
Often grad students (at least doctoral) get free tuition if they are working for the university, at least in certain fields. EDIT: I see there was a whole discussion on that, including insulting schools and areas of scholarship. Way to go Dogma. We can't all get a degree in advanced basket weaving.
Grey Templar wrote: Lol whut, I would say maybe 2 of those demands are even approaching reasonable. You want free tuition if you work for the university? Don't let the door hit you on the way out champ.
Advantage of living in Sweden: all universities are free.
Correction: Someone else is paying for them, not me! Lets party!
Vaktathi wrote: Sure, but beside my point. Expecting to get be able to get paid to go to grad school is a wee bit silly, as these positions are often more limited than the number of seats they have, and typically tend to focused more in STEM programs than other areas of study.
So your argument has now moved towards compensation outside the remission of tuition?
no, my point was that if you are looking to go to grad school, you can't just expect to get both paid and have no tuition to pay as a matter of course.
On the other hand, art historians & business profs don't need lab assistants to operate specialized machinery that require someone with a couple of years of advanced training to operate.
What about art labs? Any professor of the history of art will need one, dangerous chemicals and all that.
I'm sure you can cherry pick a couple examples for anything, but most aren't going to have enough to spread to all grad students.
Vaktathi wrote: Given that it's ranked as one of the top business schools in the country, I'd assume not.
Being ranked as a top business school is like getting a Gold Star in Kindergarten .
ok, well, I'll leave off here then if this is the attitude with which any comments I make will be approached.
Back on topic: What is the disavantage for the school not having black players playing? Losing matches and consequently drop of sponsor contracts?
How much of their yearly budget comes from private sources?
Well, Mizzou (the utterly stupid abbreviation for "University of Missouri") is an SEC (Southeastern Conference) school, which is a conference that views themselves as gods gift to athletics, particularly football.
Many people think that, in order to attract students you need an awesome football program, so they dump millions into it. It's utterly ridiculous.
But, AFAIK, basically none of the annual budget comes from private sources, because a number of facilities are actually donated by local rich folks (as an example, Phil Knight donated several million bucks and built a new, super hi-tech lockeroom for the Oregon Ducks football team)
Now, yes, for many schools, having a good sports team will mean more air-time, which will mean more money in the school's coffer, which means more money for the astronomy program to look at blinky lights in the nigh sky. But, on the whole, college sports is a drain on most school's resources.
Back on topic: What is the disavantage for the school not having black players playing? Losing matches and consequently drop of sponsor contracts?
How much of their yearly budget comes from private sources?
Well, Mizzou (the utterly stupid abbreviation for "University of Missouri") is an SEC (Southeastern Conference) school, which is a conference that views themselves as gods gift to athletics, particularly football.
Many people think that, in order to attract students you need an awesome football program, so they dump millions into it. It's utterly ridiculous.
But, AFAIK, basically none of the annual budget comes from private sources, because a number of facilities are actually donated by local rich folks (as an example, Phil Knight donated several million bucks and built a new, super hi-tech lockeroom for the Oregon Ducks football team)
Now, yes, for many schools, having a good sports team will mean more air-time, which will mean more money in the school's coffer, which means more money for the astronomy program to look at blinky lights in the nigh sky. But, on the whole, college sports is a drain on most school's resources.
As evidenced by all those huge schools with no sports program...
As evidenced by all those huge schools with no sports program...
I'm not saying schools shouldn't have sports. I am pointing out however, that there are numerous articles out there that flat out state that the athletic department of the majority of colleges and universities are a net drain on school resources.
As evidenced by all those huge schools with no sports program...
I'm not saying schools shouldn't have sports. I am pointing out however, that there are numerous articles out there that flat out state that the athletic department of the majority of colleges and universities are a net drain on school resources.
And football and men's basketball at rarely the reasons.
If you aren't working for the school, then you aren't a graduate employee.
Right, but my point was in response to the earlier statement "If the school you want to go to isn't going to give you tuition remission and pay you to go to grad school, you need to find a school that will."
I also know that I didn't get my tuition waved while working as a graduate employee, it just meant I could pay rent without having to take on additional loans.
But I wasn't in STEM either.
I wasn't in a STEM field either, and I got tuition remission, health insurance, and got paid in addition to that. And like Dogma, I didn't have to fight for it.
I'm not sure why you think STEM fields are the only ones that offer benefits. As I mentioned before, in many fields, grad students teach first and second year classes and serve as research assistants as well. All humanities graduate programs that I am aware of (and the only ones that I would considering applying for) offer full funding for graduate assistants. I also realize that at competitive programs, the number of assistantships is smaller than the number of student slots, but that brings me back to my original advice, that if the school you want to go to won't pay you to go to grad school, you need to find one that will. If you can't find a program that will offer you funding, you might want to reconsider whether or not grad school is really the best choice for you (to be clear, I'm not talking about you personally). At the very least, if you're going to grad school unfunded, you should probably have a very clear picture of what the graduate degree is going to do for you.
That said, business programs, law programs, and medical programs might not be as likely to offer assistantships depending on the school. But pretty much anything in the humanities and STEM should have robust programs that offer funding for grad students. And that includes things like art history, in which grad students will often teach first year courses or run undergraduate seminars or discussion sections, among a variety of other incidental duties.
If you're trying to get an MBA, a law degree, or a medical degree, there are still ways to get funding, however, but you might have to look at things not directly related to your field, like working in Residence Life. But in STEM as well as humanities fields, unless you're independently wealthy, if you're not getting funding, you're doing it wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: And football and men's basketball at rarely the reasons.
lol. I'll admit that it depends on the school, but there are many men's football and basketball programs that are drains on university resources.
Well this bodes well for higher education in America.
I wouldn't worry too much about that... Plenty of other schools are fething it up all on their own.
Hell, in my poly-sci class, we were just covering education and it's rising costs... You know that UW has something like 37k students, and 12k administrators? Seriously. Those administrators are not faculty, they don't teach or research or do much of anything. And quite a number of them are severely redundant.
Vaktathi wrote: no, my point was that if you are looking to go to grad school, you can't just expect to get both paid and have no tuition to pay as a matter of course.
So your argument has moved beyond remission, and the word you should have used to begin your statement is "Yes.".
I'm sure you can cherry pick a couple examples for anything, but most aren't going to have enough to spread to all grad students.
The vast majority of the full-time graduate programs I am aware of limit their admissions according to the amount of money they have available. Law and medicine are obvious exceptions, as is business, but for the most part that statement holds true.
My point is we know that Student Athletics are a big fat joke and now that schools should do what they are meant to do, Teach, not throw egg shaped balls around
Even the faculty seemed to want this guy to resign. If you go through the school's news site, it's like a constant barrage of things this guy has bungled going on 2+ years and no one seems to want him around.
hotsauceman1 wrote: My point is we know that Student Athletics are a big fat joke and now that schools should do what they are meant to do, Teach, not throw egg shaped balls around
You mean prepare young people for their professional lives. Which, for athletes, is sometimes that.
Not to mention extracurricular athletics offer of slew of other positives supported by research.
But we can go back to those that never played organized sports a high level and listen to all of their miraculous insight instead.
Even the faculty seemed to want this guy to resign. If you go through the school's news site, it's like a constant barrage of things this guy has bungled going on 2+ years and no one seems to want him around.
So, they use THIS to get him booted? I guess anytime someone uses the N word on university campus, or makes a poostika it is justification to get the university president fired.
Honestly, this sets a scary precedent. If Wolfe did something wrong or failed to do something he was actually responsible for doing, I could see the board of trustees or whatever that school has wanting him to go away, but honestly, I'm still not sure what he was being accused of here. Not setting up 'spaces for healing' after Brown got capped? Really?
hotsauceman1 wrote: My point is we know that Student Athletics are a big fat joke and now that schools should do what they are meant to do, Teach, not throw egg shaped balls around
You mean prepare young people for their professional lives. Which, for athletes, is sometimes that.
Not to mention extracurricular athletics offer of slew of other positives supported by research.
But we can go back to those that never played organized sports a high level and listen to all of their miraculous insight instead.
Alright cool. But Why should My Tuition go to paying for someone elses Hobby? They aint paying for mine.
Like said, Many MANY Handegg players dont go onto NFL. So Im paying to put them through school, while im taking loans out to afford food.
And their tuition and government taxes don't pay for the stadium, the training facilities, any of that right?
I'm with the Californian on this (did I mention UH is 9-0 right now suck it Gina's School for Hair!!!). The NFL is using taxpayers and students to snooker farm teams without the expense.
And their tuition and government taxes don't pay for the stadium, the training facilities, any of that right?
I'm with the Californian on this (did I mention UH is 9-0 right now suck it Gina's School for Hair!!!). The NFL is using taxpayers and students to snooker farm teams without the expense.
I dont know what is more Surprising, Frazz agreeing with a Californian, OR agreeing with me.
Alright cool. But Why should My Tuition go to paying for someone elses Hobby? They aint paying for mine.
Well, firstly, 80,000 people aren't paying $70 a head to watch you play with yourself in an old stained anime t-shirt.
Like said, Many MANY Handegg players dont go onto NFL. So Im paying to put them through school, while im taking loans out to afford food.
When you say nonsense like handegg it makes you look like a fool.
You don't even pay the entirety of your own tuition. So you're sure as gak not paying for someone to play football. Which is erroneous to begin with.
Again, Last year in SC, we voted down a 300$ a quarter increase in tuition because the Basketball/Football players where tired of having to share rooms when they traveled for games. the 300$ was so they can all get their own room when they travel.
And their tuition and government taxes don't pay for the stadium, the training facilities, any of that right?
I'm with the Californian on this (did I mention UH is 9-0 right now suck it Gina's School for Hair!!!). The NFL is using taxpayers and students to snooker farm teams without the expense.
Nope. They don't.
Athletic departments in the NCCA are mostly self financed. While it's true some universities get subsidies, the vast majority of them are comparatively small percentages (the University of Michigan, for example, gets a whopping $250k in subsidy, or .1% of their total revenue) and would be unnecessary if non-revenue sports (see: nearly all women's sports, men's soccer, baseball, track and field) were eliminated.
Football and men's basketball make money. Nothing else does.
Very true. Television rights contracts, bowl game money, ticket sales, merchandising, advertising/naming rights, and alumni donations pay for the football program, plus the athletic facilities, plus the non revenue sports like baseball, soccer, swimming, etc.
Power 5 football programs make money. If they aren't profitable it's due to mismanagement not lack of funds.
Schools outside the Power 5 conferences need to be very careful about whether or not they pursue Div 1/FBS football as chasing the brass ring can easily lead to wasting money in a hopeless chase of competitiveness. Not all 128 Div 1/FBS schools should be spending money keeping up with the Joneses in football.
For lower level schools the football team isn't any different than any other sports team at the school except that winning programs in football tend to generate more money than winning programs in other sports.
Colleges benefit from having good football programs. Colleges suffer from pouring good money after bad into football programs destined to never rise above mediocrity (with some exceptions for Power 5 schools).
And their tuition and government taxes don't pay for the stadium, the training facilities, any of that right?
I'm with the Californian on this (did I mention UH is 9-0 right now suck it Gina's School for Hair!!!). The NFL is using taxpayers and students to snooker farm teams without the expense.
Nope. They don't.
Athletic departments in the NCCA are mostly self financed. While it's true some universities get subsidies, the vast majority of them are comparatively small percentages (the University of Michigan, for example, gets a whopping $250k in subsidy, or .1% of their total revenue) and would be unnecessary if non-revenue sports (see: nearly all women's sports, men's soccer, baseball, track and field) were eliminated.
Football and men's basketball make money. Nothing else does.
WHo pays for the stadiums? The Athletic department can't float hundreds of millions of dollars.
And their tuition and government taxes don't pay for the stadium, the training facilities, any of that right?
I'm with the Californian on this (did I mention UH is 9-0 right now suck it Gina's School for Hair!!!). The NFL is using taxpayers and students to snooker farm teams without the expense.
Nope. They don't.
Athletic departments in the NCCA are mostly self financed. While it's true some universities get subsidies, the vast majority of them are comparatively small percentages (the University of Michigan, for example, gets a whopping $250k in subsidy, or .1% of their total revenue) and would be unnecessary if non-revenue sports (see: nearly all women's sports, men's soccer, baseball, track and field) were eliminated.
Football and men's basketball make money. Nothing else does.
WHo pays for the stadiums? The Athletic department can't float hundreds of millions of dollars.
I know Ohio Stadium was built with public funding in 1920. Renovations have all been a combo of the school and the athletic dept.
The stadium is also used by the university for graduations, convocations, and some intramural sports.
It will also gross nearly $20M in ticket sales alone for next years home game against Michigan. The last renovation was $7M.
And their tuition and government taxes don't pay for the stadium, the training facilities, any of that right?
I'm with the Californian on this (did I mention UH is 9-0 right now suck it Gina's School for Hair!!!). The NFL is using taxpayers and students to snooker farm teams without the expense.
I dont know what is more Surprising, Frazz agreeing with a Californian, OR agreeing with me.
Alright cool. But Why should My Tuition go to paying for someone elses Hobby? They aint paying for mine.
Well, firstly, 80,000 people aren't paying $70 a head to watch you play with yourself in an old stained anime t-shirt.
Like said, Many MANY Handegg players dont go onto NFL. So Im paying to put them through school, while im taking loans out to afford food.
When you say nonsense like handegg it makes you look like a fool.
You don't even pay the entirety of your own tuition. So you're sure as gak not paying for someone to play football. Which is erroneous to begin with.
Again, Last year in SC, we voted down a 300$ a quarter increase in tuition because the Basketball/Football players where tired of having to share rooms when they traveled for games. the 300$ was so they can all get their own room when they travel.
If by SC you mean Southern Cal, the football team generates more than enough money to cover that cost without spreading the cost to other students.
A turbulent 2013 football season that included coaching turnover and a trip to a lower-level bowl game did not prevent USC’s athletic department from breaking the $100-million benchmark for the first time, according to a report that must be filed annually with the U.S. Department of Education as part of Title IX compliance.
USC reported total expenses and revenue of $106.5 million for the period covering July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014. That is an increase of $8.7 million from the previous year.
USC's football expenses increased by about $7 million to $30.3 million. Revenue was $44.8 million, an increase of $1 million.
Former football coach Lane Kiffin was fired in late September 2013, but he and his assistants had multiyear contracts. Steve Sarkisian was hired in December and he hired a mostly new staff.
Some of the increase in football expenses is attributable to the coaching changeover, which requires payments on contracts, said Steve Lopes, chief operating officer for USC’s athletic department.
USC’s home football attendance dropped from about 88,000 per game for six games in 2012 to about 73,000 per game for seven games last season.
But total revenue increased on the strength of “a very good year fundraising,” the Pac-12 Conference’s television contracts and USC’s corporate sponsorships, Lopes said.
And their tuition and government taxes don't pay for the stadium, the training facilities, any of that right?
I'm with the Californian on this (did I mention UH is 9-0 right now suck it Gina's School for Hair!!!). The NFL is using taxpayers and students to snooker farm teams without the expense.
Nope. They don't.
Athletic departments in the NCCA are mostly self financed. While it's true some universities get subsidies, the vast majority of them are comparatively small percentages (the University of Michigan, for example, gets a whopping $250k in subsidy, or .1% of their total revenue) and would be unnecessary if non-revenue sports (see: nearly all women's sports, men's soccer, baseball, track and field) were eliminated.
Football and men's basketball make money. Nothing else does.
WHo pays for the stadiums? The Athletic department can't float hundreds of millions of dollars.
Sure they can.
Texas generated over $161 million in revenue last year. Michigan and Alabama athletics both generated over $150 million last year and Oregon just missed generated $200 million.
And their tuition and government taxes don't pay for the stadium, the training facilities, any of that right?
I'm with the Californian on this (did I mention UH is 9-0 right now suck it Gina's School for Hair!!!). The NFL is using taxpayers and students to snooker farm teams without the expense.
Nope. They don't.
Athletic departments in the NCCA are mostly self financed. While it's true some universities get subsidies, the vast majority of them are comparatively small percentages (the University of Michigan, for example, gets a whopping $250k in subsidy, or .1% of their total revenue) and would be unnecessary if non-revenue sports (see: nearly all women's sports, men's soccer, baseball, track and field) were eliminated.
Football and men's basketball make money. Nothing else does.
WHo pays for the stadiums? The Athletic department can't float hundreds of millions of dollars.
I know Ohio Stadium was built with public funding in 1920. Renovations have all been a combo of the school and the athletic dept.
The stadium is also used by the university for graduations, convocations, and some intramural sports.
It will also gross nearly $20M in ticket sales alone for next years home game against Michigan. The last renovation was $7M.
Aggieville's renovation of Kyle Field cost $450mm. If someone wants to tell me ticket sales will cover that I have a bridge to sell them. Thats $36mm a year in interest assuming 8%, not including principal and maintenance.
And their tuition and government taxes don't pay for the stadium, the training facilities, any of that right?
I'm with the Californian on this (did I mention UH is 9-0 right now suck it Gina's School for Hair!!!). The NFL is using taxpayers and students to snooker farm teams without the expense.
Nope. They don't.
Athletic departments in the NCCA are mostly self financed. While it's true some universities get subsidies, the vast majority of them are comparatively small percentages (the University of Michigan, for example, gets a whopping $250k in subsidy, or .1% of their total revenue) and would be unnecessary if non-revenue sports (see: nearly all women's sports, men's soccer, baseball, track and field) were eliminated.
Football and men's basketball make money. Nothing else does.
WHo pays for the stadiums? The Athletic department can't float hundreds of millions of dollars.
I know Ohio Stadium was built with public funding in 1920. Renovations have all been a combo of the school and the athletic dept.
The stadium is also used by the university for graduations, convocations, and some intramural sports.
It will also gross nearly $20M in ticket sales alone for next years home game against Michigan. The last renovation was $7M.
Aggieville's renovation of Kyle Field cost $450mm. If someone wants to tell me ticket sales will cover that I have a bridge to sell them. Thats $36mm a year in interest assuming 8%, not including principal and maintenance.
Hell Fraz, I just looked it up, they didn't even have to sell bonds. They are funding via donations, ticket fees, licensing and a hotel/rental car tax.
Here we go: "The project will be funded by donations, seat licenses, student fees and ticket revenue, as well as a preferred facilities agreement between the Bryan-College Station convention and visitors bureau that will use hotel and tax revenue for the next 30 years."
Student fees and taxes.Translation: ME.
Awesome just awesome. The Boy doesn't even go to the games, and they suck this year. Not like my UH. 9-0. Billy Bob's School of Auto Repair doesn't have a chance against are awesome "Switchblade Offense" (before the game fans mob the opposing team and shank as many as possible).
CptJake wrote: Frazz, you staying in hotels and renting cars when you go to the games? If not, you are not paying those taxes.
1. I am if I went there.
2. You missed the student fees too.
Again, sucking off the public with their crony capitalism.
Not like UH. We built our stadium the old fashioned way. We stole it. Those Rice Rich Boys just left it out unlocked. Its not our fault it disappeared.
Texas is a bit weird (and often felonious) when it comes to university football financing. There are several documentaries/reports just about them, so I am not sure they are the best example.
Still this seems to have slipped into a "hurr college athletics good/bad hurr" thread.
Ahtman wrote: Texas is a bit weird (and often felonious) when it comes to university football financing. There are several documentaries/reports just about them, so I am not sure they are the best example.
Still this seems to have slipped into a "hurr college athletics good/bad hurr" thread.
Texas A&M, not University of Texas. However agreed on that. Aggieville is reddish purple. UT is reddish orange. DUH!
You're right. This is slipping. not like UH. 9-0. We make a promise to all the fans coming from other schools. We won't steal all your cars during the game. Some we'll just take for a joy ride. Remember that El Paso School for Girls. You're next...
Surprisingly enough, Oklahoma manages to actually be a good example for how to handle this kind of situation better.
The University of Oklahoma had a few pretty high profile race related incidents over the last couple years and the university president handled each one of them with pretty clear resolve.
d-usa wrote: Surprisingly enough, Oklahoma manages to actually be a good example for how to handle this kind of situation better.
The University of Oklahoma had a few pretty high profile race related incidents over the last couple years and the university president handled each one of them with pretty clear resolve.
May I ask how So? Im genuinly curious on what a president can do in these circumstances.
d-usa wrote: Surprisingly enough, Oklahoma manages to actually be a good example for how to handle this kind of situation better.
The University of Oklahoma had a few pretty high profile race related incidents over the last couple years and the university president handled each one of them with pretty clear resolve.
May I ask how So? Im genuinly curious on what a president can do in these circumstances.
Our most high profile one is probably the drunk SAE fraternity video featuring these lovely lyrics:
"There will never be a n***** in SAE. There will never be a n***** in SAE. You can hang him from a tree, but he can never sign with me There will never be a n***** in SAE."
The video was released March 7th and on the 8th the university president told the fraternity that they have three days to move out of the house, and on the 10th they padlocked the gates, barricaded the parking lot, changed the locks, and took the Greek letters off the building. The two chant leaders were identified and kicked out of the university. He was very firm and decisive in his actions.
There are a few smaller incidents, but he is always very prompt and very direct when addressing and condemning these kind of things. You can tell that the university actively tries to promote an atmosphere of inclusiveness based on the programs provided and the culture it promotes.
And even if you don't think that there is much a university president can actually do, sometimes just taking a vocal stand against stuff like that makes a difference. If there is nothing you can do, the last thing you want is to also look like you don't care. That's just basic customer service 101. I get plenty of complaints at my job that I am powerless to fix, but I can defuse situations by listening and validating the concerns that are out of my control. Sometimes caring is just as important as fixing things.
Ball players threatened to strike a week before a major game, and defaulting on that game would have resulted in Mizzou paying $1 million to their opponent school. I have to give the ball players credit for choosing a tactically sound "time" to do this. I'll also GUARANTEE that they were hyped up by the activists and grad students over the last month or so with "You have power, here is now you can use it ....again taking a page from Saul Alinksi's playbook.
If that $1 million price tag weren't hanging on their "strike" then I doubt much would have come of it. Also pretty sure that if there had been an immediate, clear, and honest threat of losing all current sports based scholarships and financial aid for participating in political agitation then things would have gone differently. I genuinely feel sorry for all the students on campus who are simply trying to earn their degree's and advance in life. Political rage over "Mike Brown" + "some redneck in a pickup truck yelled negro at me" = total disruption of the academic milieu.
As for the poop swastika....there have been swastika's and anti-jewish graffittit painted on the jewish frat house twice THIS QUARTER at my school and I have yet to see any administrators resigning. Hell, one guy went through the parking lot and marked up 11 cars owned by jews. All we got was an automated "hate crimes are bad!" email. I just don't understand the lack of moral continuity with activism. I never have, and I never will.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Also pretty sure that if there had been an immediate, clear, and honest threat of losing all current sports based scholarships and financial aid for participating in political agitation then things would have gone differently.
If by "differently" you mean "widespread and massive outrage" then yes, things would have gone differently. A government institution holding financial aid hostage to suppress speech is going to draw a lot more attention than a mere "fire this guy" dispute.
I genuinely feel sorry for all the students on campus who are simply trying to earn their degree's and advance in life. Political rage over "Mike Brown" + "some redneck in a pickup truck yelled negro at me" = total disruption of the academic milieu.
Yeah, those poor students who are forced to be aware of the existence of something outside of their nice sheltered life. I can't imagine how they can get their degrees and advance in life when they have to walk past a protest on the way to class.
hotsauceman1 wrote: My point is we know that Student Athletics are a big fat joke and now that schools should do what they are meant to do, Teach, not throw egg shaped balls around
College ball, especially in SEC, is a huge avenue for social mobility. Those sports scholarships keep the economy of the university systems running, the money that comes in from games helps fund campus construction, and most importantly those programs mean a LOT of young men and women (esp young black dudes in the football programs) get to go to school when they might not otherwise have been able to afford it. To see people jeopardizing that due to politico-emotional manipulation by activists is really horrible, to my mind.
I genuinely feel sorry for all the students on campus who are simply trying to earn their degree's and advance in life. Political rage over "Mike Brown" + "some redneck in a pickup truck yelled negro at me" = total disruption of the academic milieu.
Yeah, those poor students who are forced to be aware of the existence of something outside of their nice sheltered life. I can't imagine how they can get their degrees and advance in life when they have to walk past a protest on the way to class.
Maybe you never made any significant sacrifices to earn your seat in college, but for those of us that had to work incredibly hard just put our butts in said seat, the purposeful disruption of the academic milieu is serious.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Maybe you never made any significant sacrifices to earn your seat in college, but for those of us that had to work incredibly hard just put our butts in said seat, the purposeful disruption of the academic milieu is serious.
If people are such delicate flowers that they can't accomplish their academic goals because someone else somewhere on campus is protesting then really, they have no hope of success in the real world. Overcoming distractions is part of life.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Maybe you never made any significant sacrifices to earn your seat in college, but for those of us that had to work incredibly hard just put our butts in said seat, the purposeful disruption of the academic milieu is serious.
If people are such delicate flowers that they can't accomplish their academic goals because someone else somewhere on campus is protesting then really, they have no hope of success in the real world. Overcoming distractions is part of life.
I'm not talking about a protest. Protests happen damn near every day on campuses, for a variety of reasons.
I'm talking about game cancellations, disruption of everyday student routines, the national media eye focusing on the campus, school president and chancellor forced into resignation (deservedly or undeservedly, I'm not making that distinction here), and the general atmosphere of politicized anger on campus that will come with all of it.
Or are you disagreeing with these points because you see a validity to the stance of some of the issues the activists want to raise and think I'm negating them?
Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm talking about game cancellations, disruption of everyday student routines, the national media eye focusing on the campus, school president and chancellor forced into resignation (deservedly or undeservedly, I'm not making that distinction here), and the general atmosphere of politicized anger on campus that will come with all of it.
None of which are a factor to everyday academic work. In fact, cancelling football should help students focus on their academic work, since they would no longer be tempted to attend or watch the game instead of studying. Again, if you can't cope with that kind of distraction in school then you have no hope of success in the real world.
Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm talking about game cancellations, disruption of everyday student routines, the national media eye focusing on the campus, school president and chancellor forced into resignation (deservedly or undeservedly, I'm not making that distinction here), and the general atmosphere of politicized anger on campus that will come with all of it.
None of which are a factor to everyday academic work. In fact, cancelling football should help students focus on their academic work, since they would no longer be tempted to attend or watch the game instead of studying. Again, if you can't cope with that kind of distraction in school then you have no hope of success in the real world.
Not to mention extracurricular athletics offer of slew of other positives supported by research.
But we can go back to those that never played organized sports a high level and listen to all of their miraculous insight instead.
Lol, Since I generally started the "college sports are too much" thing in this thread, you should know, I DID play high school sports, and have continued to play organized athletics.
I fully realize the value presented by athletics to young, developing people. What I dislike is the amount of money poured into these programs when the numbers simply bear out that the number of people who will make money in that sport is extremely low.
And while I realize that the largest sports in a given school often "pay for" the considered lesser sports, the schools like Texas A&M, Alabama and Oregon (I think) are probably a minority of schools that run sports programs in the black.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Not setting up 'spaces for healing' after Brown got capped? Really?
This is where a bunch of money goes at Mizzou.... Yeah, they have a Lazy river on campus. Which, while cool, is a damn waste of money (IMO). And when I was first shown images of this lazy river, the presenter mentioned that Mizzou specifically built that facility as a "stress free" zone or whatever.
Could the school have done something "better" in the wake of perceived racial issues? Maybe. But I sure as gak don't know what better would look like either.
Sports, or at least football, usually makes money for the school. Which leads to the problem of schools treating it like a cash cow and often overlooking infractions and poor behavior in its athletes. Plus its way over inflated and gives some unreasonable expectations for the athletes as only a tiny portion will actually be able to make it into professional teams where they can actually make money(and even that isn't always the case).
Grey Templar wrote: often overlooking infractions and poor behavior in its athletes.
I've seen numerous and fairly recent articles that would suggest that you are massively understating this
I currently go to a small private college that apparently is very well regarded academically. Due to its size, our sports program offers no scholarships for athletics. There are a number of players who have scholarships for other things, but even I, in my "old man" state can walk onto the football team, or baseball team or whatever I could feel like playing, and they generally speaking, won't cut me.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Maybe you never made any significant sacrifices to earn your seat in college, but for those of us that had to work incredibly hard just put our butts in said seat, the purposeful disruption of the academic milieu is serious.
If people are such delicate flowers that they can't accomplish their academic goals because someone else somewhere on campus is protesting then really, they have no hope of success in the real world. Overcoming distractions is part of life.
I'm not talking about a protest. Protests happen damn near every day on campuses, for a variety of reasons.
I'm talking about game cancellations, disruption of everyday student routines, the national media eye focusing on the campus, school president and chancellor forced into resignation (deservedly or undeservedly, I'm not making that distinction here), and the general atmosphere of politicized anger on campus that will come with all of it.
Or are you disagreeing with these points because you see a validity to the stance of some of the issues the activists want to raise and think I'm negating them?
At my undergrad in Cali there were protest marches every Thursday. Depending on how many were "easy on the eyes" I'd participate, else sit and watch while eating fries. Better than TV.
Had all sports disappeared in a ball of smoke I wouldn't have noticed.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Also pretty sure that if there had been an immediate, clear, and honest threat of losing all current sports based scholarships and financial aid for participating in political agitation then things would have gone differently.
If by "differently" you mean "widespread and massive outrage" then yes, things would have gone differently. A government institution holding financial aid hostage to suppress speech is going to draw a lot more attention than a mere "fire this guy" dispute.
If they are there on a football scholarship and they refuse to play football their scholarship should be yanked because they aren't holding up their end.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Also pretty sure that if there had been an immediate, clear, and honest threat of losing all current sports based scholarships and financial aid for participating in political agitation then things would have gone differently.
If by "differently" you mean "widespread and massive outrage" then yes, things would have gone differently. A government institution holding financial aid hostage to suppress speech is going to draw a lot more attention than a mere "fire this guy" dispute.
If they are there on a football scholarship and they refuse to play football their scholarship should be yanked because they aren't holding up their end.
And NFL scouts and coaches probably want to be pretty damned careful about bringing someone willing to do this onto a pro team. A lot of $$$$ at stake to worry about what happens if the player's get hurt feelings.
So now apparently the protestors and faculty are keeping media out of public spaces . They are using physical force to prevent people from recording the events that are unfolding there.
A public university is also private property. Same as a court house, city hall, military bases, etc etc etc. You can still trespass in a public space. A university has certain leeway when it comes to deciding who is allowed on campus.
Students assaulting reporters is a whole different story. And a faculty member of a very well regarded journalism school doing something this stupid borders on being impressive.
Note the key part. When you say faculty you have to be clear: at least one was a journalism professor.
Thanks. I wasn't intending to say multiple faculty members, but used poor wording. It was one faculty member that I was talking about, not multiple faculty members.
d-usa wrote: A public university is also private property. Same as a court house, city hall, military bases, etc etc etc. You can still trespass in a public space. A university has certain leeway when it comes to deciding who is allowed on campus.
Students assaulting reporters is a whole different story. And a faculty member of a very well regarded journalism school doing something this stupid borders on being impressive.
This was happening in a traditional public forum under a law passed this year in Missouri. Anyone has a right to free speech in that area. And students exercising their free speech rights by gathering there and protesting are utter hypocrites to deny others the same right.
d-usa wrote: A public university is also private property. Same as a court house, city hall, military bases, etc etc etc. You can still trespass in a public space. A university has certain leeway when it comes to deciding who is allowed on campus.
Students assaulting reporters is a whole different story. And a faculty member of a very well regarded journalism school doing something this stupid borders on being impressive.
This was happening in a traditional public forum under a law passed this year in Missouri. Anyone has a right to free speech in that area. And students exercising their free speech rights by gathering there and protesting are utter hypocrites to deny others the same right.
Whenever clumps of people band together to limit free speech, no matter how offensive that speech might be, let Christopher HItchens' lecture to the Canadians be heard.
d-usa wrote: A public university is also private property. Same as a court house, city hall, military bases, etc etc etc. You can still trespass in a public space. A university has certain leeway when it comes to deciding who is allowed on campus.
Students assaulting reporters is a whole different story. And a faculty member of a very well regarded journalism school doing something this stupid borders on being impressive.
This was happening in a traditional public forum under a law passed this year in Missouri. Anyone has a right to free speech in that area. And students exercising their free speech rights by gathering there and protesting are utter hypocrites to deny others the same right.
The law killed free speech zones and as odd as that sounds, it was a good thing. Before you could only speak out in designated zones. Some school had a free speech zone that was so limited it was basically pointless--the zone was a basketball court. Apparently though only Missouri and Virginia have this law regarding speech on campus.
I linked too that in my post though I guess it wasn't super obvious.
d-usa wrote: A public university is also private property. Same as a court house, city hall, military bases, etc etc etc. You can still trespass in a public space. A university has certain leeway when it comes to deciding who is allowed on campus.
Students assaulting reporters is a whole different story. And a faculty member of a very well regarded journalism school doing something this stupid borders on being impressive.
This was happening in a traditional public forum under a law passed this year in Missouri. Anyone has a right to free speech in that area.
Nothing in that bill really prohibits a university from regulating access by news crews though. Reporting news is not covered by "peaceful assembly, protests, speeches, distribution of literature, carrying signs, or circulating petitions. Heck, I know that it is still exempted by fair use but I would hardly call any news today as "non-commercial" either.
And students exercising their free speech rights by gathering there and protesting are utter hypocrites to deny others the same right.
Hence "Students assaulting reporters is a whole different story. And a faculty member of a very well regarded journalism school doing something this stupid borders on being impressive", which you quoted.
Nothing in that bill really prohibits a university from regulating access by news crews though. Reporting news is not covered by "peaceful assembly, protests, speeches, distribution of literature, carrying signs, or circulating petitions. Heck, I know that it is still exempted by fair use but I would hardly call any news today as "non-commercial" either.
It's already protected by the First Amendment and that school journalist has EVERY. RIGHT. to be there.
The student protest at the University of Missouri began as a response to a serious problem — outbursts of vile racism on campus — and quickly devolved into an expression of a renewed left-wing hostility to freedom of expression. At the protest on Missouri’s campus yesterday, on a space that is expressly open to free expression, protesters barred journalists from covering the demonstrations. In one scene, protesters surrounded and harassed Tim Tai, a photographer with the student newspaper, chanting, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, journalists have got to go.” The scene is captured on a video here, which rewards close watching until the end, where Melissa Click, a professor of mass media working with the protest movement, calls out, “Help me get this reporter out of here. I need some muscle over here.”
It is possible — and, for many sympathizers on the left, convenient — to dismiss these sorts of incidents as just so much college high jinks. “College students have been saying stupid things since the invention of college students,” argues Daniel Drezner, in a passage that attracted widespread support on the left. It is probably true that a strange and sudden new hypersensitivity among young people has produced a widespread expectation of a right to be protected from offense. It is also undeniably true that outbursts of political correctness disproportionately take place in campus settings. In recent weeks, UCLA, Wesleyan, and Yale have seen left-wing student activism aimed at shutting down the expression of contrary viewpoints.
Even if it were the case that political correctness was totally confined to campuses, it would not make the phenomenon unimportant. Colleges have disproportionate influence over intellectual life, and political movements centered on campuses can spread well beyond them (anti-Vietnam began as a bunch of wacky kids, too). But to imagine p.c. as simply a thing college kids do relieves us of taking it seriously as a coherent set of beliefs, which it very much is. Political correctness is a system of thought that denies the legitimacy of political pluralism on issues of race and gender. It manifests itself most prominently in campus settings not because it’s a passing phase, like acne, but because the academy is one of the few bastions of American life where the p.c. left can muster the strength to impose its political hegemony upon others. The phenomenon also exists in other nonacademic left-wing communities, many of them virtual ones centered on social media, and its defenders include professional left-wing intellectuals.
The upsurge of political correctness is not just greasy-kid stuff, and it’s not just a bunch of weird, unfortunate events that somehow keep happening over and over. It’s the expression of a political culture with consistent norms, and philosophical premises that happen to be incompatible with liberalism. The reason every Marxist government in the history of the world turned massively repressive is not because they all had the misfortune of being hijacked by murderous thugs. It’s that the ideology itself prioritizes class justice over individual rights and makes no allowance for legitimate disagreement. (For those inclined to defend p.c. on the grounds that racism and sexism are important, bear in mind that the forms of repression Marxist government set out to eradicate were hardly imaginary.)
American political correctness has obviously never perpetrated the brutality of a communist government, but it has also never acquired the powers that come with full control of the machinery of the state. The continuous stream of small-scale outrages it generates is a testament to an illiberalism that runs deep down to its core (a character I tried to explain in my January essay).
The scene in Columbia and the recent scene in New Haven share a similar structure: jeering student mobs expressing incredulity at the idea of political democracy. As far as the students are concerned, they represent the cause of anti-racism, a fact that renders the need for debate irrelevant. Defenses of p.c. tactics simply sweep aside objections to the tactics as self-interested whining. “It’s not about creating an intellectual space,” shouts one Yalie. Notably, the events at Yale have redounded in New Haven to the benefit of the protesters, who have renewed their demands, and Nicholas Christakis, the Yale administrator seen pleading futilely for reason, issuing apologies for his behavior. Likewise, at Wesleyan, the student newspaper that sparked outrage by publishing the op-ed of a student (cautiously) questioning elements of the Black Lives Matter movement has been harshly sanctioned.
That these activists have been able to prevail, even in the face of frequently harsh national publicity highlighting the blunt illiberalism of their methods, confirms that these incidents reflect something deeper than a series of one-off episodes. They are carrying out the ideals of a movement that regards the delegitimization of dissent as a first-order goal. People on the left need to stop evading the question of political correctness — by laughing it off as college goofs, or interrogating the motives of p.c. critics, or ignoring it — and make a decision on whether they agree with it.
The bill says including but not limited to, and uses the broad term expresaive activities before giving the nonexclusive list. People recording, commenting on and reporting the events are engaging in expressive activities. I'm not aware of provisions that allow media to be excluded from traditional public forums which the area is by the terms of the law. Can you point me to relevant law that says media can be excluded from that forum?
The whole issue is a mere distraction anyway since no one with legal authority to do so forced the media people out. It was people who had no authority who were doing it. If the media were kicked out by the authorities, then whether the law protects them out not would be relevant.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Leaders of the National Press Club expressed concern Tuesday about a YouTube video and news reports that appear to document bullying of a student reporter by a crowd of activists on the University of Missouri campus.
The video showed a crowd of protesters trying to intimidate Tim Tai, a student photographer who was reportedly on assignment for ESPN, in an effort to keep him away from an enclave of protesters. The video showed at least two people who were said to be university staff members involved in mistreating Mr. Tai by pushing him or threatening to keep him away from the protest area.
"Mr. Tai was correct when he told the protesters that he has a First Amendment right to photograph in a public space, just as the activists have a First Amendment right to protest there," said John Hughes, president of the National Press Club. "The National Press Club calls upon the University of Missouri to make clear to its students and staff that reporters should not be kept from doing their jobs--and certainly not through physical force or threats. In the home of one of the world's great journalism schools, such behavior cannot be tolerated."
The National Press Club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists. For over 100 years, it has spoken out in favor of press freedom worldwide.
Contact: John M. Donnelly, chairman National Press Club Press Freedom Committee: jdonnelly@cq.com; 202 746 6020.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: The bill says including but not limited to, and uses the broad term expresaive activities before giving the nonexclusive list. People recording, commenting on and reporting the events are engaging in expressive activities. I'm not aware of provisions that allow media to be excluded from traditional public forums which the area is by the terms of the law. Can you point me to relevant law that says media can be excluded from that forum?
Expressive activities doesn't necessarily mean reporting. The law is very concerned about speech happening at the university targeted at the university. Reporting doesn't have that same purpose and it is targeted at a completely different audience. This can further be complicated by trying to distinguish between journalism targeted at the students (writing for a student paper or a blog) and journalism targeting a non-school audience. And it is even more complicated since the journalist is a student, which makes things much more complicated, and if he was paid by ESPN to be there you get the whole non-commercial issue.
I was just responding to the comment that since it's "public" there is no way anybody could be prohibited from being there. I wasn't saying that this action was right, just that even a "public space" can have limited access if it is privately owned by a public body. There is a ton of prior case law and precedent that has given many reasons why many people can be blocked from many public spaces. Not all of those prior cases are good and shouldn't have happened, but they are there. Journalists are routinely removed from protests by police "for their safety" and areas are often cordoned off despite being public.
The whole issue is a mere distraction anyway since no one with legal authority to do so forced the media people out. It was people who had no authority who were doing it. If the media were kicked out by the authorities, then whether the law protects them out not would be relevant.
Again, hence why I said that it was a stupid actions by the students, and an even worse action by the faculty.
Your argument doesn't hold. The people doing the removing weren't police. They were protesters and a journalism professor who should be fired faster than I can spit.
Frazzled wrote: Your argument doesn't hold. The people doing the removing weren't police. They were protesters and a journalism professor who should be fired faster than I can spit.
Click is an associate Media professor... not of Journalism department. Different schools... the J-school professors are spitting mad about Click... but, I doubt she gets fired.
Frazzled wrote: Your argument doesn't hold. The people doing the removing weren't police. They were protesters and a journalism professor who should be fired faster than I can spit.
Students assaulting reporters is a whole different story. And a faculty member of a very well regarded journalism school doing something this stupid borders on being impressive.
Hence "Students assaulting reporters is a whole different story. And a faculty member of a very well regarded journalism school doing something this stupid borders on being impressive", which you quoted.
And again, this seems like people are blow things out of of the water...
It's one assistant professor being a loon and she probably will be fired because she's an assistant professor with a cursory appointment. She's a glorified TA with a fancy title who behaved poorly on camera. She is not keeping her job. I'm not sure how her wackiness automatically translates to "these students are all crazy" or how it has anything to do with 'PC gone crazy.' That's just regular crazy.
It doesn't even make sense. Wouldn't these protesters want the exposure? Isn't that something every protester wants?
While I have no idea what this person would want the press gone, there was an incident at my University where some students were protesting a professor requiring them to attend political rally's for a Poli Sci course. They tried to stop the student news paper from taking their pictures saying they were afraid the school would use the pictures to single out and punish them... Which makes one wonder why they bothered protesting at all. I mean, it's not like everyone can see you when you're standing in the middle of a grass field!
LordofHats wrote: And again, this seems like people are blow things out of of the water...
It's one assistant professor being a loon and she probably will be fired because she's an assistant professor with a cursory appointment. She's a glorified TA with a fancy title who behaved poorly on camera. She is not keeping her job. I'm not sure how her wackiness automatically translates to "these students are all crazy" or how it has anything to do with 'PC gone crazy.' That's just regular crazy.
It doesn't even make sense. Wouldn't these protesters want the exposure? Isn't that something every protester wants?
While I have no idea what this person would want the press gone, there was an incident at my University where some students were protesting a professor requiring them to attend political rally's for a Poli Sci course. They tried to stop the student news paper from taking their pictures saying they were afraid the school would use the pictures to single out and punish them... Which makes one wonder why they bothered protesting at all. I mean, it's not like everyone can see you when you're standing in the middle of a grass field!
Makes sense. Loudly protesting in a public place, and expecting to have privacy. Perfectly reasonable.
Meanwhile, the lovely lady who called for "muscle" to assault the student journalist is appoplogizing now like a big dog, no doubt more out of trying to save her career than any remorse:
I'm sorry the student had his camera smashed to the ground, his livelihood destroyed, protesters marching with him everywhere he goes to make sure that nobody ever does any business with him, had his home destroyed and burned to the ground, and then was beaten, tortured, and killed.
To summarize this thread:
Someone draws an actual real life swastika made out of human gak on a wall: what can you anybody really do about this....
Idiotic protesters push a student-reporter away from the public area and chant that they don't want him there: what a bunch of Nazis...
d-usa wrote: I'm sorry the student had his camera smashed to the ground, his livelihood destroyed, protesters marching with him everywhere he goes to make sure that nobody ever does any business with him, had his home destroyed and burned to the ground, and then was beaten, tortured, and killed.
To summarize this thread:
Someone draws an actual real life swastika made out of human gak on a wall: what can you anybody really do about this....
Idiotic protesters push a student-reporter away from the public area and chant that they don't want him there: what a bunch of Nazis...
I would say they aren't actually too far from that kind of thing, and it really wouldn't take much to get them there.
Obviously he shouldn't have been walking about with a name like Tai. That doesn't sound white, and I'm immediately suspicious why he's in my neighborhood.
LordofHats wrote: Obviously he shouldn't have been walking about with a name like Tai. That doesn't sound white, and I'm immediately suspicious why he's in my neighborhood.
If Obama looked like Tiger Woods, then his imaginary son might look like him.
d-usa wrote: I'm sorry the student had his camera smashed to the ground, his livelihood destroyed, protesters marching with him everywhere he goes to make sure that nobody ever does any business with him, had his home destroyed and burned to the ground, and then was beaten, tortured, and killed.
To summarize this thread:
Someone draws an actual real life swastika made out of human gak on a wall: what can you anybody really do about this....
Idiotic protesters push a student-reporter away from the public area and chant that they don't want him there: what a bunch of Nazis...
The difference being one was recorded on video, so something might actually be done about that one. Plus.... anonymous poop swastikas, as bad as they are - could still fall under freedom of speech and/or artistic expression - we don't ban swastikas.
Whereas the other is quite possibly assault and battery by a university employee committed unto a student for the crime of recording video.
Freedom of Speech allows for the protest of poop swastikas; It isn't like a poop swastika is protected speech but reacting to it isn't; Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom from Consequences.
Ahtman wrote: Freedom of Speech allows for the protest of poop swastikas; It isn't like a poop swastika is protected speech but reacting to it isn't; Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom from Consequences.
Ouze wrote: Shoving a reporter is pretty analogous with orchestrating the holocaust; and I can't imagine why anyone would be offended by that comparison.
What I am saying is that it was a situation that could have easily gone out of control and that reporter gotten badly hurt. I'm not talking holocaust, just that almost any repressive society acts the same way this professor and those kids did in that they threaten the press through speech or action. Let's just agree to call them idiots.
Ah, good. More threats from the idiots on the other side of this coming out of the woodwork:
a) The poopsticka is still unconfirmed. The Police had no reports of it... the Resident assistants had no reports of it... there are no pictures as evidence. Its likely a hoax at this point.
b) The President of the student body "walked back" the claims that there's a KKK presence on campus.
c) That Communication TA who called for the "muscle" is laying low and resigned from the J-school's courtesy position. J-school professors are hopping mad at the SJW types and are in damage-control now.
d) This whole ordeal absurdly shows how powerful Football is at these schools... if the student-athletes are smart, they'd use this opportunity to "strike" for a bigger piece of the football/basketball pie.
I'm curious to see what changes the new leadership will implement to stop drunken students or random people in trucks from using the N word. maybe make a wall of students around every black student to chant and drown out the scary words they might hear?
a) The poopsticka is still unconfirmed. The Police had no reports of it... the Resident assistants had no reports of it... there are no pictures as evidence. Its likely a hoax at this point.
b) The President of the student body "walked back" the claims that there's a KKK presence on campus.
c) That Communication TA who called for the "muscle" is laying low and resigned from the J-school's courtesy position. J-school professors are hopping mad at the SJW types and are in damage-control now.
d) This whole ordeal absurdly shows how powerful Football is at these schools... if the student-athletes are smart, they'd use this opportunity to "strike" for a bigger piece of the football/basketball pie.
I don't think this happened because the football team is powerful on campus I think this happened because of how much media attention is given to college football, especially in Power 5 conferences like the SEC. The involvement of the football team generated a lot of the publicity. National news outlets like ESPN brought the situation at Missouri to the attention of tens of millions of viewers that otherwise would never have known about it. That kind of media attention, in concert with social media, puts a lot of pressure on the university to do something. If the graduate student on the hunger strike hadn't been able to convince some of the black players to join the protest I don't think the university president would have stepped down.
Striking players at a school isn't enough to really change the system. That kind of overhaul needs to happen on a conference and NCAA level. The Power 5 conferences should just break away from the NCAA for football and do their own thing but the schools don't want to give up the advantages of having the NCAA running the system for them.
Frazzled wrote: Your argument doesn't hold. The people doing the removing weren't police. They were protesters and a journalism professor who should be fired faster than I can spit.
Click is an associate Media professor... not of Journalism department. Different schools... the J-school professors are spitting mad about Click... but, I doubt she gets fired.
Oliver Darcy wrote:Professor Caught Bullying Student Journalist Out of ‘Safe Space’ Releases Statement — Read It Here
A University of Missouri professor seen in a viral video bullying a student journalist out of a campus “safe space” apologized in a statement Tuesday.
“Yesterday was an historic day at MU—full of emotion and confusion. I have reviewed and reflected upon the video of me that is circulating, and have written this statement to offer both apology and context for my actions,” Mass communications professor Melissa Click said in a statement forwarded to TheBlaze.
“I have reached out to the journalists involved to offer my sincere apologies and to express regret over my actions,” she added.
Click was captured Monday calling for “muscle” to remove a journalist who was inside a “safe space” photographing demonstrators who had succeeded in ousting the university president.
“I regret the language and strategies I used, and sincerely apologize to the MU campus community, and journalists at large, for my behavior, and also for the way my actions have shifted attention away from the students’ campaign for justice,” she said.
Click said the experience has taught her “humanity and humility” and that she apologized to one of the reporters involved.
“{H]e accepted my apology,” she said. “I believe he is doing a difficult job, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak with him. His dignity also speaks well to the Journalism program at MU.”
Mizzou’s Department of Communication also issued a statement that reiterated its commitment to the First Amendment.
“We applaud student journalists who were working in a very trying atmosphere to report a significant story. Intimidation is never an acceptable form of communication,” the statement said.
The department said it could not elaborate on any disciplinary measures Click would face due to university policy. The School of Journalism was also set to vote Tuesday on whether to revoke Click’s courtesy appointment.
UPDATE: 9:12 p.m. ET: Professor Melissa Click resigned her courtesy appointment to the School of Journalism, according to the dean.
Kurp (via Twitter) wrote:While the J-School faculty were meeting, Dr. Melissa Click resigned her courtesy appointment with the School. #Mizzou @mojonews
whembly wrote: a) The poopsticka is still unconfirmed. The Police had no reports of it... the Resident assistants had no reports of it... there are no pictures as evidence. Its likely a hoax at this point.
Wellllll... I would say no police report doesn't mean anything. I think it's likely however you feel about this issue, you can probably agree that a poostika is quite possibly not even a crime, and if it is, it's not one that the police would take seriously since the chances of someone getting caught are nonexistent. I wouldn't take the lack of a police report to mean it's a hoax.
But no pictures? in 2015, when everyone in the world has a camera in their pocket? That I cannot believe. I know if I saw a poostika or well, very nearly any public communication in the rarely-used medium of human feces, I'd feel obligated; nay, compelled to document it. I might not call the cops, but I'd certainly put it on Facebook at a minimum.
Still... all this looks like is that this person is simply looking to agitate for the sake of agitating... which is a shame because it makes it even harder to have any meaningful discussions on actual racial issues.
By the way, is anyone finding all of this ironic? I mean, when you get down to it... going to a University is a privilege, in itself. Especially since many minors get preferential admission/grants/loans treatment over white students.
And this hunger striker Jon Butler... dude comes from a wealthy family (net worth over 20 million). Not that I'm arguing that he wouldn've had been targeted by racial epithet or things like that. But, I'm having a real hard time believing that there's systemic racism on that that campus.
He's more privileged that I ever was when going thru college....
My understanding is that there is a picture, but it may be one that has been floating around on the internet since before the incident is alleged to have happened. Not certain of the reliability of that though.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: My understanding is that there is a picture, but it may be one that has been floating around on the internet since before the incident is alleged to have happened. Not certain of the reliability of that though.
That's the reddit one from 11 months ago? (I'm not linking it) Just imagine a single 4 x 4 white bathroom tile with a brown swatiska finger-painting...
If that's the image, no one can confirm where that came from.
Still... all this looks like is that this person is simply looking to agitate for the sake of agitating... which is a shame because it makes it even harder to have any meaningful discussions on actual racial issues.
By the way, is anyone finding all of this ironic? I mean, when you get down to it... going to a University is a privilege, in itself. Especially since many minors get preferential admission/grants/loans treatment over white students.
And this hunger striker Jon Butler... dude comes from a wealthy family (net worth over 20 million). Not that I'm arguing that he wouldn've had been targeted by racial epithet or things like that. But, I'm having a real hard time believing that there's systemic racism on that that campus.
He's more privileged that I ever was when going thru college....
Couldn't agree more.
This is the very same campus that welcomed homosexual minority football player Michal Sam with open arms.
Hope they feel good about themselves.
I also am shocked at the Columbia PDs recent release. Staggering, really.
Frazzled wrote: Your argument doesn't hold. The people doing the removing weren't police. They were protesters and a journalism professor who should be fired faster than I can spit.
Click is an associate Media professor... not of Journalism department. Different schools... the J-school professors are spitting mad about Click... but, I doubt she gets fired.
Sorry, my bad on that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
She's a glorified TA with a fancy title!
My Boy's a TA. Dem's fighten words! Honor must be satisfied at dawn. Your choice of weapons-GW whippy sticks or GW dice. There can be only one!
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6971 Mizzou professor resigns following outrage over his refusal to cancel exam
“If you don’t feel safe coming to class, then don’t come to class,” Dr. Brigham told his students. “I will be there, and there will be an exam administered in our class.”
Dr. Dale Brigham, considered one of the most beloved professors at the University of Missouri, has been forced to resign after initially refusing to cancel an exam for students who claimed to feel “unsafe.”
“If you don’t feel safe coming to class, then don’t come to class,” Dr. Brigham told his students. “I will be there, and there will be an exam administered in our class,” he continued, imploring his students to stand up to the bullies on campus. “If you give into bullies, they win. The only way bullies are defeated is by standing up to them.”
Dr. Brigham was sharply criticized in the media for requiring his students to attend class and take their exam. Salon ran a story with the headline “White Missouri professor shames black students for heeding violent threats.”The Washington Post featured similar coverage of “a white professor” who “challenged his students to come to class.”
Those upset with Dr. Brigham’s decision to hold class took to Twitter calling for Brigham to be fired and calling him “a failure as a human being.”
Under intense pressure, Dr. Brigham has both cancelled the exam and resigned from the university, according to screenshots posted online of an email from Dr. Brigham to his students. “The exam is cancelled. Our students will be able to take the exam at an alternate date with no loss of points,” Dr. Brigham told students. “No one will have to come to class today. And, I am resigning my position.
One University of Missouri student told Campus Reform that Dr. Brigham, who he called “one of the most beloved professors at Mizzou,” was forced to resign.
“His class was one of the most popular at Mizzou and he was the friendliest teacher I've ever had. It's a shame that he's leaving while Melissa Click stays,” the student continued. The student also told Campus Reform that campus was open and classes were being held, but “false KKK threats” caused a “panic” among students.
Many Missouri students have taken to Twitter to voice their displeasure at Dr. Brigham’s departure, calling him “ the nicest guy,” and their favorite professor.
Dr. Brigham did not return Campus Reform’s phone call request for confirmation of his resignation.
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6971
Mizzou professor resigns following outrage over his refusal to cancel exam
“If you don’t feel safe coming to class, then don’t come to class,” Dr. Brigham told his students. “I will be there, and there will be an exam administered in our class.”
Dr. Dale Brigham, considered one of the most beloved professors at the University of Missouri, has been forced to resign after initially refusing to cancel an exam for students who claimed to feel “unsafe.”
“If you don’t feel safe coming to class, then don’t come to class,” Dr. Brigham told his students. “I will be there, and there will be an exam administered in our class,” he continued, imploring his students to stand up to the bullies on campus. “If you give into bullies, they win. The only way bullies are defeated is by standing up to them.”
Dr. Brigham was sharply criticized in the media for requiring his students to attend class and take their exam. Salon ran a story with the headline “White Missouri professor shames black students for heeding violent threats.”The Washington Post featured similar coverage of “a white professor” who “challenged his students to come to class.”
Those upset with Dr. Brigham’s decision to hold class took to Twitter calling for Brigham to be fired and calling him “a failure as a human being.”
Under intense pressure, Dr. Brigham has both cancelled the exam and resigned from the university, according to screenshots posted online of an email from Dr. Brigham to his students.
“The exam is cancelled. Our students will be able to take the exam at an alternate date with no loss of points,” Dr. Brigham told students. “No one will have to come to class today. And, I am resigning my position.
One University of Missouri student told Campus Reform that Dr. Brigham, who he called “one of the most beloved professors at Mizzou,” was forced to resign.
“His class was one of the most popular at Mizzou and he was the friendliest teacher I've ever had. It's a shame that he's leaving while Melissa Click stays,” the student continued. The student also told Campus Reform that campus was open and classes were being held, but “false KKK threats” caused a “panic” among students.
Many Missouri students have taken to Twitter to voice their displeasure at Dr. Brigham’s departure, calling him “ the nicest guy,” and their favorite professor.
Dr. Brigham did not return Campus Reform’s phone call request for confirmation of his resignation.
Shaking my head...
The more I see this kind of thing happening, the more I am getting the impression that the students who talk about needing safe spaces and feeling unsafe, don't know what being unsafe actually is.
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6971
Mizzou professor resigns following outrage over his refusal to cancel exam
“If you don’t feel safe coming to class, then don’t come to class,” Dr. Brigham told his students. “I will be there, and there will be an exam administered in our class.”
Dr. Dale Brigham, considered one of the most beloved professors at the University of Missouri, has been forced to resign after initially refusing to cancel an exam for students who claimed to feel “unsafe.”
“If you don’t feel safe coming to class, then don’t come to class,” Dr. Brigham told his students. “I will be there, and there will be an exam administered in our class,” he continued, imploring his students to stand up to the bullies on campus. “If you give into bullies, they win. The only way bullies are defeated is by standing up to them.”
Dr. Brigham was sharply criticized in the media for requiring his students to attend class and take their exam. Salon ran a story with the headline “White Missouri professor shames black students for heeding violent threats.”The Washington Post featured similar coverage of “a white professor” who “challenged his students to come to class.”
Those upset with Dr. Brigham’s decision to hold class took to Twitter calling for Brigham to be fired and calling him “a failure as a human being.”
Under intense pressure, Dr. Brigham has both cancelled the exam and resigned from the university, according to screenshots posted online of an email from Dr. Brigham to his students.
“The exam is cancelled. Our students will be able to take the exam at an alternate date with no loss of points,” Dr. Brigham told students. “No one will have to come to class today. And, I am resigning my position.
One University of Missouri student told Campus Reform that Dr. Brigham, who he called “one of the most beloved professors at Mizzou,” was forced to resign.
“His class was one of the most popular at Mizzou and he was the friendliest teacher I've ever had. It's a shame that he's leaving while Melissa Click stays,” the student continued. The student also told Campus Reform that campus was open and classes were being held, but “false KKK threats” caused a “panic” among students.
Many Missouri students have taken to Twitter to voice their displeasure at Dr. Brigham’s departure, calling him “ the nicest guy,” and their favorite professor.
Dr. Brigham did not return Campus Reform’s phone call request for confirmation of his resignation.
Shaking my head...
The more I see this kind of thing happening, the more I am getting the impression that the students who talk about needing safe spaces and feeling unsafe, don't know what being unsafe actually is.
That university isn't worth a fart in a hurricane.
Chicago buried nine-year-old Tyshawn Lee on Tuesday. Police allege gang members lured the boy into an alley and executed him in a revenge killing aimed at his father.
Father Michael Pfleger, a white minister in a predominantly black Chicago community, eulogized Lee and castigated our society, blaming the boy’s death on our “lost conscience.”
How can we argue?
The execution of an innocent black boy draws the attention of a handful of local dignitaries while the death of a black teenager foolish enough to wrestle a cop for control of a gun helps foment unrest on a nearby college campus seven months after then-attorney general Eric Holder destroyed the fallacy of “Hands Up Don’t Shoot.”
Lies stacked on top of lies create the bs we’re witnessing in Columbia, Missouri. Clever faculty members, in my opinion, baited a small group of misguided black students into stirring a racial shitstorm strong enough to attract Twitter-addicted journalists looking for their next relevancy hit off the Black Lives Matter crack pipe.
The absurdity of the past week at Mizzou couldn’t be duplicated on South Park.
A 25-year-old, “Fresh Prince” black grad student threatened to starve himself to death under the pretense that the school president hadn’t done enough to stop unidentified white men from uttering the N-word when passing by in trucks and carving swastikas with poop.
The white liberal, Ta-Nehisi Coates-quoting mafia declared Mizzou an unsafe space and a hostile killing field for blacks and opened their media platforms to any person willing to share a story about hearing the N-word while in Columbia the past 50 years.
“Cry Wolfe!” is how this entire episode should be remembered. Liberal academics talked black kids into crying wolf over racially tinged rude behavior so an unpopular president would be unseated.
Adult professors who should be educating kids on the continuing damage of institutional racism, instead built a human shield around a tent city set up to host the starvation of an N-word fighter disguised as a freedom fighter.
A redneck showing his ass with verbal garbage while driving a truck isn’t racism. It’s a redneck showing his ass. Racism is a system of exploitation rooted in race. The NCAA amateurism charade is a solid example. Walter Byers, the white conservative modern architect of the NCAA, described the system he created this way in his 1997 memoir:
“Today the NCAA Presidents Commission is preoccupied with tightening a few loose bolts in a worn machine, firmly committed to the neo-plantation belief that the enormous proceeds from the college games belong to the overseers (administrators) and supervisors (coaches). The plantation workers performing in the arena may only receive those benefits authorized by the overseers.”
You’d think if the Missouri football players were going to strike, they’d choose NCAA amateurism as their cause, not the homecoming king’s hurt feelings. And you’d think if the son of a millionaire was going to threaten to end his life over an injustice, he’d choose an inspiration more heart-wrenching than a poop-stained Nazi symbol.
Why not choose Tyshawn Lee?
Ask one of those liberal academics to explain the connection between mass incarceration and gang violence. They go together like peanut butter and jelly. The ruthless, gang-related execution of a black child is a direct outgrowth of mass incarceration and its corrosive impact on morality, decency and humanity.
Concerned Student 1950 needs to ask Mizzou’s liberal academics to carry them to Tyshawn Lee’s neighborhood and create a safe space there. Seriously. Assimilated, spoiled black kids showing up on modern college campuses and pretending they’re standing on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965 is f—ing embarrassing. What’s worse is assimilated, spoiled black journalists selling the righteousness of their cause.
Columbia ain’t our problem. Chicago is.
That’s not a statement vouching for the purity of Columbia. It’s rational, mature acknowledgment that there are not, never have been and never will be any safe spaces on earth free of rude, uncomfortable behavior by humans. We’re flawed. We do dumb gak.
The appropriate questions for the kids, the journalists and their white, liberal enablers/manipulators are: 1) Which area is more in need of a safe space, Mizzou’s campus or Lee’s neighborhood? 2) Why are liberals pouring the most energy and passion into policing the safest space? 3) Why have those same liberals declared war on the very people and profession (police) they call at the first sign of trouble in the most unsafe space?
It’s all enough to make you think they don’t really have the best interest of black folk in mind. Let me remind you again: In general, African-Americans are the most religious people in America. We are traditionally conservative, which does not mean Republican. The black church, where Father Pfleger serves, has always looked first to create safe spaces where black people live.
I’m not evangelizing. I’m trying to show you who’s on your Day 1 team and who’s driving a limousine offering rides to tokens willing to be used as pawns.
I’m also trying to avoid ridiculing millennials. Whatever their shortcomings are, they’re a reflection of previous generations’ failures. We turned the education of our best and brightest kids over to predominantly white schools. We allowed them to abandon the black church. It’s not difficult to understand why they can’t distinguish between rude behavior and racism.
Liberal elites define racism as “code words” and “dog whistles” and the utterance of the N-word by white people. They reduced racism to a language. Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall and our Greatest Generation defined racism as laws and policy.
Teach that in your home, at your church and at school and there won’t be another smokescreen, racial circus the next time faculty decide to overthrow a high-ranking administrator. I’d suggest the media teach it, too, but I can’t reduce the message to a 140-character tweet.
I can agree with tbe statement, but it again goes back to something I hate which is that white people are to blame for everything wrong with the black community.
hotsauceman1 wrote: goes back to something I hate which is that white people are to blame for everything wrong with the black community.
This sounds like something a character from a movie in which they really misunderstands/mischaracterize events and becomes a generic racist or joins the Aryan brotherhood. Is there a remake of American History X or Higher Learning on the way? TO IMDB!
I wonder if there's a trend in what school you go to and what kind of things you end up studying in sociology classes. The one class I took on the subject was all about class inequality and how it perpetuates from one generation to the next (we spent most of the course using Ain't No Makin It as our main text book).
LordofHats wrote: I wonder if there's a trend in what school you go to and what kind of things you end up studying in sociology classes. The one class I took on the subject was all about class inequality and how it perpetuates from one generation to the next (we spent most of the course using Ain't No Makin It as our main text book).
So... what I'm getting here is that in Sociology, X is pretty much going to perpetuate from one generation to the next.
LordofHats wrote: I wonder if there's a trend in what school you go to and what kind of things you end up studying in sociology classes. The one class I took on the subject was all about class inequality and how it perpetuates from one generation to the next (we spent most of the course using Ain't No Makin It as our main text book).
So... what I'm getting here is that in Sociology, X is pretty much going to perpetuate from one generation to the next.
Edit. *Warning*-just in case it is needed. If you click on the link and scroll down you will see an image of a swastika drawn in poo. Fair warning for anyone that will not be able to handle that.
I'm having a hard time really following the whole story, but apparently a racial slur was directed at a white guy while he was arguing with a group of black guys. Then later the poostika happens. Some guy who was involved in the first incident has also made hostile remoarks directed at Jews. His identity and race haven't been revealed. I'm getting the sense that it isn't the white guy, but it isn't real clear. He is potentially the author of the poostika, but they don't really know.
Thats the best I can make out, but certain details aren't really fitting together well or clearly.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Interim president has been appointed. Guess what race he is... Cmon guess!
He must be Chinese, right? Probably hand picked by Xi Jinping.... am I right? even in the same ballpark? No? I thought all these liberal bastions of left leaning commie schools would surely pick someone from our Glorious People's Republic
