The President of Missouri had to go. He has no right to use the n word even if it was 20 years ago. History frowns on that era so we should not elect such people to positions of great power and influence.
I'm pretty sure I'm not. You're right it's tangential. The point here though has nothing to do with some comeuppance or the fairness or legitimacy of their dismissal. It's a recognition that in corporate functions (for profit or nonprofit), the workers are interchangeable cogs. If I'm included in the latest round of layoffs at my job or if I get swapped out for an Indian who will work twice as much for half the pay, it's all cool (I mean it'll be a personal crisis and it'll suck, but in terms of fairness it's cool). I've been compensated as I've gone. Likewise for the president and chancellor. They don't own their jobs. If they become inconvenient to their school, so long and fare thee well. Missouri as an institution might want to think carefully about how they respond to what stimulus, but I'm not concerned for the misfortunes of the leadership who got ousted in the process. It's tangential. The story is about racism, political correctness, and what is the responsibility of university systems to curate their environments for students. It's just that I think the main story is a lot to do about nothing in the end. The university can tinker around the edges, but they won't be able to do much to address the culture and whatever racism they have in their community. Student anger resulted in a leadership change that won't change much else. Maybe the students will be placated, maybe they'll see the action was ineffectual, and maybe I'm wrong and many things get fixed. But, I doubt that either racism in America will end or that free speech and academic freedom will be abolished. The apocalyptic language of the OP is way over the top.
<iframe width="480" height="290" scrolling="no" src="//www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/fde4af3c-87e5-11e5-bd91-d385b244482f" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe> This lady ("communications professor") is going to get fired. Thank god.
Almost every old private high school in the country calls the leader of the school a headmaster, these types of private universities with residential colleges call them master.
It's more than that though. It's about how hostile these kids are to free speech and how sensitive they are to disagreement. They have a need to be coddled. A lot of professors have spoken about this and no, not just right wingers. More and more lefties have opposed this type of stuff as well.
Isn't opposing this just saying people are hostile to those kids' right to free speech? This is what protesting is - it's not meant to be pretty or fair or rational. Do you think all the racial protests in the 50's or 60's were friendly and polite? These kids felt their concerns weren't being heard. They made that known in the ways they know how and the ways that get media attention. The University can decide how they want to respond - they can coddle or reject or negotiate or whatever else. That's the whole purpose of leadership - it's to address the concerns of the people you lead. I have no idea if the Prez was doing a good job or not or if these people are capable of being led, though he's apparently bungled a lot of situations in the lead up to all this. But as JV said, he has no right to his job, and if he was unable to get results, then maybe someone else will. Or maybe they will fail too and they'll be in this situation again. It's just amusing to see people on the right complain about this, but be perfectly content when this happens in a different context. The Black Lives Matter movement is basically the same as the Tea Party movement - lots of chaotic anger and irrational demands and no real ability for anybody to satisfy them. They are both examples of movements cultivated on the margins and now uncontrollable by the establishment forces that encouraged them. They both suck, but both have both been surprisingly effective at enacting change (mostly bad change, but change nevertheless).
I'm not saying they can't protest. I'm saying they are very anti free speech and unusually sensitive to disagreement. They want to shut down any debate or anyone who disagrees. A professor suggests they shouldn't be so strict on Halloween costumes and should feel free to be a bit controversial. What do they claim? This makes them feel unsafe and the profs should be fired. It's not just from the right, a lot on the left are saying the same. Actually not many on the left are defending them at all, except for your usual nut critical theorists
Campuses should embrace debate and disagreement, not institute speech codes and ban speakers. Profs and students shouldn't be afraid or getting fired for disagreeing on something. A newspaper published something critical of the Black Lives Matter movement, and they were shut down or defunded I believe. That's crazy.
I am confused. What started all of this? I was late to the party. I am not talking about The Blaze's or Drudge Report's version of events. I can't seem to find what caused this outside of a poop swastika and someone screaming obscenities at a pedestrian and the school not doing anything about it. As a liberal the videos of the protests I am seeing are embarrassing. They are just hurting their cause.
Again, how is this any different than the Tea Party on the opposite side? They ran Boehner out of town on the same basic premise. The lesson being taught is demanding ideological purity and not accepting compromise is the way to achieve what you want.
Not the same at all. Boehner is an elected leader, not a professor. Students asking the professors and masters to always agree or get fired is insane. Students claiming criticism makes them unsafe is ridiculous.
I'm probably talking out of turn, but when he says "opposed"...I assume he means "opposed" to the method as a means to bring about meaningful change...not the speech itself. So are you not "opposed" to these type of movements? I don't see why you wouldn't be if it brings negative change and just serves to cause more divisiveness.
It's been bubbling up for awhile. There were other issues the students didnt like how the school addressed
Not letting the media take pictures is a strange way to get media attention. Which leads me to believe that these kids are just confused and/or just protesting whatever because, well, it's just fun to protest. It makes you feel like you're a part of something, even if you're not really sure what it is. EDIT: I'm talking about the people blocking access to the protesters in that 2nd video.
They use their methods because they are apparently effective. If you propose stopping their methods, then are you not trying to stifle their speech? I'm opposed in the sense that I think it sucks and wish it were less effective. But it's part of the nature of democracy. My theoretical approach to addressing it would be not caving to their demands, though that's easy to say from the sidelines. In practice, I'm not sure what the appropriate "solution" is.
