San Diego students storm offices after noose found

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-02-27-san-diego-racial-tensions_N.htm

San Diego students storm offices after noose found
Posted 2d 6h ago | Comments 140 | Recommend 8 E-mail | Save | Print |

ShareYahoo! Buzz Add to Mixx Facebook TwitterMore Fark Digg Reddit MySpace StumbleUpon Propeller LinkedInSubscribe myYahoo iGoogleMore Netvibes myAOL
SAN DIEGO (AP) — Anger boiled over on the University of California San Diego campus Friday, where students took over the chancellor's office for several hours to protest the hanging of a noose in a campus library.
Students wearing red handkerchiefs over their faces blocked the doors to Chancellor Marye Anne Fox's offices for hours, while more students inside chanted "Real pain, real change."

They left the office peacefully at sundown, about the same time that leaders of the university's Black Student Union ended talks with administrators in a nearby conference room over demands that include more boosting the African-American curriculum and campus activities. A university spokesman, Jeff Gattas, said there were no arrests and no property was damaged during the takeover.

The noose found dangling from a light fixture on the seventh floor of Geisel Library on Thursday night was the latest in a string of racially charged incidents in the university community, authorities said Friday. Less than two weeks ago, an off-campus party mocking Black History Month ignited racial tensions.

A University of California statement said a student admitted she and two other people were responsible. The statement did not identify the students or their race or include a motive.

In a news conference Friday afternoon, Fox said the student has been suspended but declined to discuss her motive or other students involved.

"This person admitted her involvement in what we consider to be an abhorrent act," said Fox.

Hundreds of students rallied for several hours outside the university administration building Friday, where speakers denounced the noose as an example of intolerance on a campus where less than 2% of students are black.

UC and campus authorities did not indicate whether the students would be charged with a hate crime. Under state law, hanging a noose to terrorize is punishable by up to a year in jail.

"Whatever the intent of the authors of this act, it was a despicable expression of racial hatred, and we are outraged," the UC statement said. "It has no place in civilized society, and it will not be tolerated."

To blacks, a noose recalls the days of widespread racism and lynchings.

"How am I supposed to walk into that building? How am I ever going to be safe there?" said ethnic studies major Cheyenne Stevens, who is black.

Mustafa Shahryar, 21, said he had seen the noose as he left the library.

Shahryar, who is from Afghanistan, told the crowd he grew accustomed to racial slurs while growing up in Southern California but was stunned to see the noose.

"Nothing phased me until last night," he said. "I just took that noose as an attack on all of us."

Leaders of the Black Student Union said they were disappointed with the administration's response to their list of 32 demands. The school agreed to many, such as funding a vacant position for program coordinator for an African American Studies minor.

But the administration said requiring undergraduates to take courses in African-American, ethnic and gender studies was beyond its scope of authority. Funding the Black Student Union, it said, depended on state funding and decisions of the student government.

The administration plans to resume talks with the students Monday, said Danny Widener, a history professor who supports the Black Student Union and participated in Friday's discussions.

The school — where about 2% students are black — has been in turmoil over an off-campus "Compton Cookout" party organized by some students that urged people to dress as ghetto stereotypes and promised there would be chicken, watermelon and malt liquor.

Fox condemned the party, and the school began an investigation to determine if any students might face discipline. The school also initiated a campus-wide "Battle Hate" campaign.

Campus administrators held a "teach-in" against intolerance on Wednesday. The same day, hundreds of students from UCSD and other universities staged a campus protest, demanding that officials make more efforts to combat racism.

Some students countered that the reaction to the party had been overblown.

Last week, the Associated Students president pulled funding from a student-run TV station after The Koala — a campus media outlet with a reputation for being offensive — came out in support of the party, called black students ungrateful and used a derogatory term for African-Americans during a program.

**Mr. Burning**

"Leaders of the Black Student Union said they were disappointed with the administration's response to their list of 32 demands. The school agreed to many, such as funding a vacant position for program coordinator for an African American Studies minor.

But the administration said requiring undergraduates to take courses in African-American, ethnic and gender studies was beyond its scope of authority. Funding the Black Student Union, it said, depended on state funding and decisions of the student government."

Instead of looking at uniting students go off and make impractical demands, I guess that if they are not all met, however unreasonable, they can cry foul.

Still, who on earth puts a noose up and expects to get away with it in such a racially charged environment?

**SilverMK2**

I am with Mr Burning for the most part. Unions should be about equality and unity, rather than turning the order upside down.

Although given the way pretty much everything is blown out of all proportions by the media, who knows what really happened and for what reasons?

**Ketara**

Sounds like a bit of an over-reaction to me. Then again, I live in the UK, where everyone considers racist if you DON'T have a Black History Month, half a dozen courses in African-American, ethnic and gender studies, and hold half a dozen black awareness events a year.

**avantgarde**

Frazzled wrote:"How am I supposed to walk into that building? How am I ever going to be safe there?" said ethnic studies major Cheyenne Stevens, who is black.

By far the best quote.

Last week, the Associated Students president pulled funding from a student-run TV station after The Koala — a campus media outlet with a reputation for being offensive — came out in support of the party, called black students ungrateful and used a derogatory term for African-Americans during a program.

Classy.

**Kilkrazy**

SilverMK2 wrote:

Although given the way pretty much everything is blown out of all proportions by the media, who knows what really happened and for what reasons?

^^This.

The majority power group often find it hard to understand that the default version of history/culture/social issues taught is their version.

From that perspective, black students are forced to take white oriented courses and it is not unreasonable maybe for them to want the favour to be returned. It isn't possible as the law stands now.

It would be better to have a unbiased course which includes the perspective of all racial groups.

**SilverMK2**

Kilkrazy wrote:It would be better to have a unbiased course which includes the perspective of all racial groups.

Indeed. It would also be nice to leave white guilt, and ethnic empowerment out of the learning environment.

And regards the issue of being forced to learn "black history"... no thanks. I have no interest in it, and I think it would have clashed with my degree and masters in biomedical engineering... what with the two fields having absolutely nothing to do with one another.

Even if everyone were forced to take "history", an all encompassing subject that gave an international,impartial overview to known history (ie recorded history), I would still object. It would be like forcing everyone to take a language, or to take any other subject that they had no interest, aptitude, or relationship with their core area of study. I am aware that the American system has a major and minor subject area, but hobbling everyone with history (epecially such a narrow area of history as "black history") would be a horrific waste of everyones time and resources, not to mention being incredibly unfair on the students.

**Frazzled**

Like math, science, business, geology, all that hard sciency stuff?

On the positive, good to see California schools still having protests. I used to plan lunches and hang out time around which protest was going to occur for my entertainment.

**squilverine**

Kilkrazy wrote:

It would be better to have a unbiased course which includes the perspective of all racial groups.

Agreed, but with so many different veiwpoints on most events in history and belief systems I don't know how practical this would be. It could potentialy cause more upset and confusion than it solved.

What concerns me the most is that the college gave in to demands (regardless of what they were) from a group acting in a violent and threatening manner. Not a good precident to set.

**Frazzled**

Its not a precedent. Thats SOP for a UC school.

**SilverMK2**

Frazzled wrote:Like math, science, business, geology, all that hard sciency stuff?

I assume here that you are talking to me?

I don't know the exact mechanics of the US system, but generally here in the UK you will pick a single subject, or two subjects which are generally closely related (although I have seen courses drawn together from 2 different study areas, similar to how I believe the US system works). All of these choices are offered by the university and as far as I am aware, you cannot just go in and ask to do subjects x and y, even if they are both offered as individual courses by the university. They have to be offered as a single degree choice.

So if you wanted to do "maths and German", you have to check the university offered a degree which was "maths with German" (or "German with maths"), rather than being able to pick the two subjects and just make your own degree..

Do American universities allow you to just pick a single subject? Or do you have to pick two different ones?

I personally believe that it is best to be the master of one subject, rather than the jack of several.

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Like math, science, business, geology, all that hard sciency stuff?

I assume here that you are talking to me?

I don't know the exact mechanics of the US system, but generally here in the UK you will pick a single subject, or two subjects which are generally closely related (although I have seen courses drawn together from 2 different study areas, similar to how I believe the US system works). All of these choices are offered by the university and as far as I am aware, you cannot just go in and ask to do subjects x and y, even if they are both offered as individual courses by the university. They have to be offered as a single degree choice.

So if you wanted to do "maths and German", you have to check the university offered a degree which was "maths with German" (or "German with maths"), rather than being able to pick the two subjects and just make your own degree..

Do American universities allow you to just pick a single subject? Or do you have to pick two different ones?

I personally believe that it is best to be the master of one subject, rather than the jack of several.

Talking to KK actually. No, my point is, if you want nonbiased, go for a nonbiased degree (which usually are more employable as well). Keeps the hippy tree hugger (or right wing fascist goosestepper depending on your point of view) nonsense to a minimum. Also it helps if you believe nothing anyone tells you unless you research it yourself. In the words of the immortal bard: "Everything you have been told is a lie."

**Kilkrazy**

squilverine wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

It would be better to have a unbiased course which includes the perspective of all racial groups.

Agreed, but with so many different veiwpoints on most events in history and belief systems I don't know how practical this would be. It could potentialy cause more upset and confusion than it solved.

What concerns me the most is that the college gave in to demands (regardless of what they were) from a group acting in a violent and threatening manner. Not a good precident to set.

Part of the purpose of academia is to objectify bodies of knowledge by studying them from different perspectives and avoiding the biases caused by known cognitive psychological mechanisms. (Such as categorisation and group formation.)

Obviously this is hard to do because we all have our biases, and it's harder in humanities than in science. It should still be striven for in order to educate people well.

**SilverMK2**

Frazzled wrote:Talking to KK actually. No, my point is, if you want nonbiased, go for a nonbiased degree (which usually are more employable as well). Keeps the hippy tree hugger (or right wing fascist goosestepper depending on your point of view) nonsense to a minimum. Also it helps if you believe nothing anyone tells you unless you research it yourself. In the words of the immortal bard: :Everything you have been told is a lie."

Ah, gotcha.

Yes, I was thinking of posting something similar to that, but could not think how to phrase it.

And it is my belief that universities only offer such... fluffy courses (I mean really, WTH is "ethnic studies"?) to pay for the important, resource hungry subjects that we actually need... maths, science, computing, engineering, medicine, etc.

After all, you only need 1 teacher and a couple of books to teach 120 English students, but you need a teacher (or even several teachers), a lab, chemicals, lab techs, etc to teach about 20 science strudents.

Hell, in my degree/masters I used about 7 or 8 different labs (including 1 which dealt with live human tissue and 3 electronics labs), about 4 different computer networks, a super computer, a morgue/dissection room and enough specialised equipment to beat a badger to death.

**Cane**

Seems like racism is more than alive in the younger generation. The noose hanging in the library, the ghetto party featuring chicken and watermelon, and the student-run campus media outlet "came out in support of the party, called black students ungrateful and used a derogatory term for African-Americans during a program"...all in Black History month to boot?

Good to see that the administrators and some students have made efforts to protest and condemn such behavior; kinda crazy that even in the year 2010 with a black man as president that there are still protests combating racism on college campuses. Then again, just spend 20 minutes online in a video game and it won't be long before you find racist trolling idiots.

Also good to see that the protesters acted peacefully and didn't exacerbate the situation; and that the administrators suspended one of the racist idiots. They didn't get everything they asked for but thats what negotiations usually are about anyway; compromise - the campus is now more than aware of the racial tensions and hate-crimes/acts of terror, helping combat these issues, and funded "a vacant position for program coordinator for an African American Studies minor."

If that kind of stuff was happening in my campus I'd probably be raging. Seeing blatant hate crimes in a month that symbolizes a minority's heritage and struggles, campus/student sponsored racism, etc. would make my blood boil. Those perpetrators have no business of exercising the privilege of upper level education and deserve a negative reputation to their name.

**sebster**

I love student politics, everyone is so serious about the completely trivial. There's real problems in the world, and then there's students inventing their own outrages.

SilverMK2 wrote:Do American universities allow you to just pick a single subject? Or do you have to pick two different ones?

I personally believe that it is best to be the master of one subject, rather than the jack of several.

In the US you have one general year of study before choosing your major. I really like the idea of kids doing a year of the liberal arts before going on to their major, I'm pleased my own university will be instituting a similar teaching plan from 2012. But then I'm one of those guys that likes the idea of university teaching kids to think, not just teaching them a job.

**Frazzled**

sebster wrote:I love student politics, everyone is so serious about the completely trivial. There's real problems in the world, and then there's students inventing their own outrages.

Yep. Much like teenagers.

In the US you have one general year of study before choosing your major. I really like the idea of kids doing a year of the liberal arts before going on to their major, I'm pleased my own university will be instituting a similar teaching plan from 2012. But then I'm one of those guys that likes the idea of university teaching kids to think, not just teaching them a job.

Not necessarily. I had to pick my major going in.

**jbunny**

When I went to school, I had to take X amount of electives, and so many had to come from the Sciences, maths, histories, englishes, as well as foriegn language/computer science.

I was lucky that I started out as engineering, and switched to business so that took care of a lot of electives for me.

**Cane**

sebster wrote:I love student politics, everyone is so serious about the completely trivial. There's real problems in the world, and then there's students inventing their own outrages.

That generalization does hold true but not so much here. The protesters definitely had stuff worth getting resolved since the campus had a streak of racist bs going on such as the noose, that party, and the campus/student-sponsored media outlet that supported the party and then took a gak on and discriminated against the rightly offended black students.

Those kind of asshats that are more than willing to stir up racist bs and commit hate crimes deserve administrative and legal consequences.

**Kilkrazy**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Talking to KK actually. No, my point is, if you want nonbiased, go for a nonbiased degree (which usually are more employable as well). Keeps the hippy tree hugger (or right wing fascist goosestepper depending on your point of view) nonsense to a minimum. Also it helps if you believe nothing anyone tells you unless you research it yourself. In the words of the immortal bard: :Everything you have been told is a lie."

Ah, gotcha.

Yes, I was thinking of posting something similar to that, but could not think how to phrase it.

And it is my belief that universities only offer such... fluffy courses (I mean really, WTH is "ethnic studies"?) to pay for the important, resource hungry subjects that we actually need... maths, science, computing, engineering, medicine, etc.

After all, you only need 1 teacher and a couple of books to teach 120 English students, but you need a teacher (or even several teachers), a lab, chemicals, lab techs, etc to teach about 20 science strudents.

Hell, in my degree/masters I used about 7 or 8 different labs (including 1 which dealt with live human tissue and 3 electronics labs), about 4 different computer networks, a super computer, a morgue/dissection room and enough specialised equipment to beat a badger to death.

You might be surprised how much science there is in a business degree, ranging from quantitative methods to social and cognitive psychology.

**Ahtman**

I think we all know the Black Student Union put the noose in the library. It is all a conspiracy. Nothing is what it seems. The BSU is actually asain (Red China influence?!?!) and the faculty is actually black, except for Norad, the token white professor. This is all a power struggle over the menu of the student union.

**dogma**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Do American universities allow you to just pick a single subject? Or do you have to pick two different ones?

Depends on the school. Most large, public universities begin by forcing the student to take basic courses in multiple disciplines called Gen Ends; though its possible to test out of them. Once those are complete, you move into a defined major, but like Fraz said, some schools force you to choose going in (or at least force you to enroll in a specific college). Smaller schools, like the one I went to, will allow you to take just about anything you want (assuming you meet all the relevant prerequisites) provided that you eventually complete a major as define by the department (or apply to define your own). It wasn't uncommon to see people double major in things like Math and American studies, Math and Spanish, Physics and Philosophy, or some other unusual pair (or triplet, for the motivated). Still, the most common doubles were Political Science, or Economics paired with a foreign language.

SilverMK2 wrote:
I personally believe that it is best to be the master of one subject, rather than the jack of several.

I think that's true if you're involved in a hard science. I had a few friends that majored in chemistry, physics, and math; watching them suffer through life was painful, and I was a triple major myself.

**SilverMK2**

Kilkrazy wrote:You might be surprised how much science there is in a business degree, ranging from quantitative methods to social and cognitive psychology.

Oh, I am not talking about the content of a degree course, simply the resources required to teach it. Something like English will require very little, while something like engineering or science will require significantly more.

Hence, if all the students are paying the same kind of fees, the students on less resource hungry subjects will help fund those who are doing courses which require a lot of equipment, etc.

**JEB_Stuart**

Kilkrazy wrote:The majority power group often find it hard to understand that the default version of history/culture/social issues taught is their version.

From that perspective, black students are forced to take white oriented courses and it is not unreasonable maybe for them to want the favor to be returned. It isn't possible as the law stands now.

It would be better to have a unbiased course which includes the perspective of all racial groups.

No that would be incredibly slowed. I took an immense amount of history classes in college, surprise surprise, and the amount of information that was taught was incredible. Trying to teach it from multiple perspectives is both impossible but stupid. Then there is no standard on what history actually took place. Do you realize how much more history would be complicated by such a thing? Its hard enough to agree on major events now, Lets not make it any worse.

I was arguing with a friend of mine who goes to UCSD last month while she was home. She is black, and was outraged at this ghetto party. I am part of a minority, and I find the constant whining and crying by others to be disgusting and annoying. I mean it almost made me hate my own ethnic group for how much they complain! Anyway, I asked her: Would you be mad if this was a Redneck Party? And she responded, "No, cuz that isn't racist." I then explained to her that neither was this ghetto party. It doesn't say anything about being black or making fun of blacks, it was just a party poking fun at ghetto people. If it is considered racist, then you have to consider a redneck party racist.

**Commissar Molotov**

The other stuff - the insensitive party and the media in support of it - is indeed trivial and not worth mentioning...

But the noose is serious business. That's definitely a hate crime, and was most certainly placed to "send a message." Not as flamboyant as the old burning cross, admittedly, but just as chilling.

They definitely had a right to be pissed.

**dogma**

JEB_Stuart wrote:Its hard enough to agree on major events now, Lets not make it any worse.

In my experience the presence of multiple perspectives is the driving force behind all significant historical disputes. It isn't really that teaching in that fashion would make matters worse, so much as the situation is already difficult because that methodology is applied.

Its not really that difficult in any case. All you really need to do is apply some judicious qualification, which really should be at the forefront of any academic's mind; ie. according to author X, group Y took action Z, as opposed to group Y took action Z

**JEB_Stuart**

dogma wrote:Its not really that difficult in any case. All you really need to do is apply some judicious qualification, which really should be at the forefront of any academic's mind; ie. according to author X, group Y took action Z, as opposed to group Y took action Z

That really is the methodology being used, at least it was in our history department. But really the problem isn't a matter of misrepresentation, but quite simply a lack of resources. Since the academic standard for historical research is the use of primary sources, how are we going to be able to uphold that standard if you try and teach something from multiple perspectives? Sure some empires, the Ottomans, Mughals, etc were educated, cultured and have sources for us to use, but other areas such as the colonization of Africa and the Americas is based solely on Western observers. Personally I don't think that history for example is taught from a particularly white perspective. I read sources from a wide perspective for any class that I took in college, especially for Medieval and Classical history. This whole idea of a racial perspective on history is a very recent phenomena, ie past 150 years. Pre-Victorian era historians merely recorded what they saw, with very little being racially motivated. In fact if you read things from explorers like Marco Polo you find Europeans who marvel at and admire the cultures they travel in, and not vice-versa.

**dogma**

JEB_Stuart wrote:That really is the methodology being used, at least it was in our history department. But really the problem isn't a matter of misrepresentation, but quite simply a lack of resources. Since the academic standard for historical research is the use of primary sources, how are we going to be able to uphold that standard if you try and teach something from multiple perspectives? Sure some empires, the Ottomans, Mughals, etc were educated, cultured and have sources for us to use, but other areas such as the colonization of Africa and the Americas is based solely on Western observers.

Generally you would just point out the holes in your source material, and generate speculation along the various lines of logical possibility. A glorious victory, can also be a terrible defeat, and other such things.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Personally I don't think that history for example is taught from a particularly white perspective. I read sources from a wide perspective for any class that I took in college, especially for Medieval and Classical history. This whole idea of a racial perspective on history is a very recent phenomena, ie past 150 years.Pre-Victorian era historians merely recorded what they saw, with very little being racially motivated. In fact if you read things from explorers like Marco Polo you find Europeans who marvel at and admire the cultures they travel in, and not vice-versa.

It goes back, at the very least, to the Mongol conquests. Though that would've been the first time Western Europe made significant contact with a truly alien culture, and given the hostility of that event the results are understandable.

That said, the vast majority of 'racially neutral history' is the direct result of Said's Orientalism critique. Now, while I'm no fan of that particular argument as presented, the man certainly had a valid point. You can see similar issues today when people accept worst case scenarios involving a nuclear Iran as being the most likely to be true.

**JEB_Stuart**

dogma wrote:Generally you would just point out the holes in your source material, and generate speculation along the various lines of logical possibility. A glorious victory, can also be a terrible defeat, and other such things.

You can't do that and hope to gain any reasonable credibility. History is full of illogical people, so you can't expect logic to apply to it. Logic says Britain should have crushed the American Revolution, Germany wouldn't have declared war on the US, etc, etc. Simply put, we can only make points if they are based on credible history. Trust me, I applied logic in just one paper in college, and it went poorly for me. My professor had a long chat with me on how logic is great in other fields, but it doesn't work in History.

dogma wrote:It goes back, at the very least, to the Mongol conquests. Though that would've been the first time Western Europe made significant contact with a truly alien culture, and given the hostility of that event the results are understandable.

The Mongol conquests against Rome? Or the later incursions?

dogma wrote:That said, the vast majority of 'racially neutral history' is the direct result of Said's Orientalism critique. Now, while I'm no fan of that particular argument as presented, the man certainly had a valid point. You can see similar issues today when people accept worst case scenarios involving a nuclear Iran as being the most likely to be true.

That is why you don't mix politics and conjecture into this branch of academia. It is a very dangerous path to take, and one that I am not willing to try and take.

**Mannahnin**

Commissar Molotov wrote:The other stuff - the insensitive party and the media in support of it - is indeed trivial and not worth mentioning...

But the noose is serious business. That's definitely a hate crime, and was most certainly placed to "send a message." Not as flamboyant as the old burning cross, admittedly, but just as chilling.

They definitely had a right to be pissed.

QFT.