A couple of quotes from the Aggie.
“Street theater is a common technique used to propel a dialogue,” said Allison Daley, DCR chair and a sophomore political science major. “Our First Amendment rights were seriously violated.”
Daley said she has received over 50 “threatening” e-mails since the DCR event and does not feel safe on campus.
Several students said DCR members were unfairly being stereotyped as “racist,” “white” and “upper-middle class.”
Aaron Saltzman, a senior international relations major, said DCR harbors no racism.
“We’re very concerned, we’re very troubled, because we don’t hate someone of a different skin color,” Saltzman said. “I’m Jewish. And I, too, am also concerned about racism and prejudice … so I can empathize. But when we’re accused of being racists as a group, unconditionally, simply because we think illegal immigration is bad, that turns legal and political dispute into a matter of … hatred that demonizes ourselves.”
As I have previously expressed with this issue, I agree that their first amendment rights were violated by an angry mob and that was not right. Nor is it right that members of the group have received threats.
I also think Jorge Jimenez a UC Davis alumnus quoted in the paper is exactly right.
“While you have a right to express racism, based on ignorance, then I have the right to call you what you are. And I have the right to say that this society is hurt by those ideas and those views… The problem is not my perception of your racism, the problem is your racism, and I will do whatever it takes to defend the defenseless.”
People have the right to free speech, they also have the right to be criticized based on what they say. In short, the DCR has opened themselves up to the charge of racism. Is that really what the DCR was hoping to accomplish?
Here are my thoughts on the incident.
First, the question about racism has been raised. My thought is that word has been largely overused in society. It is not that racism doesn’t exist, it is simply that racism is not the only driving force in people’s views. It is possible to oppose illegal immigration without being a racist. It is also possible to be completely insensitive without being a racist. It is possible to be demeaning to people without being a racist. There is nothing inherently racist about the game. You do not have to hate Latinos to perform all of the actions and statements made by the DCR regarding illegal immigration. Therefore, I find that label unuseful.
That said, that doesn’t mean there are not racist and xenophobic undertones that have underlied this debate. There has been a long history of nativism in this country and at least some of that has been fueled by xenophobia which is in short, a form of racism. By turning the debate into a game of capture the illegal immigrants, the DCR has handed their opposition the r-word and given it some legitimacy.
Second, the game itself was inappropriate for the college setting. It makes light of a very serious situation and it trivializes the actions of others.
Third, one must question the wisdom behind the game. It was unlikely to change anyone’s mind. It was much more likely to anger people and polarize opinions. The only people likely to have sympathy for the game itself were people likely to be in their corner to begin with. Therefore, from a political standpoint it was not likely to succeed at its most basic intended goal to draw attention to what the DCR perceived was an important problem in a meaningful way that might be able to sway people.
Fourth, as many have suggested, the Republican party severely damaged itself in the pushing of Proposition 187 despite the fact that it passed in 1994 by wide margins. If anything, games like this are likely to harm the Republican cause by making them look like a bunch of extremists.
There was a good letter to the Davis Enterprise yesterday from Cristina Gonzalez.
“A conversation about immigration issues would have been appropriate and welcome. A game that dehumanized undocumented immigrants and made light of their troubles was not, particularly when this game was scheduled to coincide with the campus’ Hispanic celebrations. This was not a comment on immigration, but a provocation against Latinos.
It appears that the College Republicans who participated in this event were not interested in substantive debate. Rather, they wanted to play a game that wasn’t funny to many members of the community.
Whatever our political convictions, I think we all would like to see members of the younger generation learn to use their freedom of expression with respect and consideration. The College Republicans who caused this painful disruption made an unfortunate mistake. They should reflect on it and find more mature and professional ways of interacting with the campus community in the future.”
The DCR has defended their actions through the veil of free speech. Unfortunately the mob has unwittingly played into that defense by denying them their lawful right to free expression. The lesson that the DCR has learned from that is the wrong lesson. What they need to learn is that there are proper ways to exercise free speech and then there are ways that will get them ridiculed, ostracized, and get their message misconstrued. This played right into the hands of those who believe that anyone opposing illegal immigration is indeed a racist.
In short, this game may play well to the base that is angry already about the issue of illegal immigration, but when you are a small minority both on campus and in the community, it is more likely to anger people than it is to convince people. It leaves open the charge of racism, even if the charge is not completely warranted and it plays into the negative stereotypes that students have about the Republican party. In other words, there was probably a no more damaging thing that the DCR could have done to harm their cause short of having a lynching party and dressing up in sheets.
People may have the right to free speech, but that does not mean they should say everything that pops into your head. When you insult people’s sensibilities, it does not bring people to an understanding of your position. Rather it makes people angry and makes people stop listening. I don’t think one person’s mind was changed based on this game. Moreover, while you did not get to play this game, you probably got more publicity having had your rally shut down than you would have had if people simply ignored you. In this case however, I don’t think that helped you either.
There are likely three reactions to this game. The right probably agrees with it, but they agreed with it before. The left thinks the organizers are a bunch of racists. And the vast moderate middle thinks the group are a bunch of kooks.
If the goal is to change people’s minds, this was an utter failure. If the goal was to polarize opinions and anger people, then this was a success. I just don’t think in the end, this decision helped anyone’s cause.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
I do not believe DCR’s lawful right to free speech was stopped. DCR attempted to have their event in the middle of another planned event. DCR can’t complain about getting kicked out of the party they crashed.
They should have reserved space.
In these types of protest-counter protest situations the police should keep the two groups separate. However, by DCR labeling their counter-protest a game I don’t think the police were prepared.
I do not believe DCR’s lawful right to free speech was stopped. DCR attempted to have their event in the middle of another planned event. DCR can’t complain about getting kicked out of the party they crashed.
They should have reserved space.
In these types of protest-counter protest situations the police should keep the two groups separate. However, by DCR labeling their counter-protest a game I don’t think the police were prepared.
I do not believe DCR’s lawful right to free speech was stopped. DCR attempted to have their event in the middle of another planned event. DCR can’t complain about getting kicked out of the party they crashed.
They should have reserved space.
In these types of protest-counter protest situations the police should keep the two groups separate. However, by DCR labeling their counter-protest a game I don’t think the police were prepared.
I do not believe DCR’s lawful right to free speech was stopped. DCR attempted to have their event in the middle of another planned event. DCR can’t complain about getting kicked out of the party they crashed.
They should have reserved space.
In these types of protest-counter protest situations the police should keep the two groups separate. However, by DCR labeling their counter-protest a game I don’t think the police were prepared.
As with lots of other political demonstrations and protests, it sounds like the DCR kids were in this for themselves more than they were there in a sincere attempt to sway opinion. Sort of a “Hey guys, wouldn’t it be funny if…”. I’m sure they read about other colleges doing it and thought it was hilarious.
And as with many political protestors, these people more or less marginalized their message before anyone could have been impressed. But, I would also say the best response would have been to ignore the “counter-protest”. If no one pays attention, they get no credibility, and this whole storm never erupts. As it is, they now have an opportunity to both claim their opposition is trying to silence them, and to further their own agenda. I’m not opposed to confronting people spouting this kind of ridiculous nonsense, but you have to pick your battles. Sometimes the best way to counter an arguement is to ignore it.
But, as always, a well done post, particuarly concerning the distinction between complaining about immigration, and racism. The two do correspond frequently, but as you suggest, it is not an exclusive relationship. Thanks.
As with lots of other political demonstrations and protests, it sounds like the DCR kids were in this for themselves more than they were there in a sincere attempt to sway opinion. Sort of a “Hey guys, wouldn’t it be funny if…”. I’m sure they read about other colleges doing it and thought it was hilarious.
And as with many political protestors, these people more or less marginalized their message before anyone could have been impressed. But, I would also say the best response would have been to ignore the “counter-protest”. If no one pays attention, they get no credibility, and this whole storm never erupts. As it is, they now have an opportunity to both claim their opposition is trying to silence them, and to further their own agenda. I’m not opposed to confronting people spouting this kind of ridiculous nonsense, but you have to pick your battles. Sometimes the best way to counter an arguement is to ignore it.
But, as always, a well done post, particuarly concerning the distinction between complaining about immigration, and racism. The two do correspond frequently, but as you suggest, it is not an exclusive relationship. Thanks.
As with lots of other political demonstrations and protests, it sounds like the DCR kids were in this for themselves more than they were there in a sincere attempt to sway opinion. Sort of a “Hey guys, wouldn’t it be funny if…”. I’m sure they read about other colleges doing it and thought it was hilarious.
And as with many political protestors, these people more or less marginalized their message before anyone could have been impressed. But, I would also say the best response would have been to ignore the “counter-protest”. If no one pays attention, they get no credibility, and this whole storm never erupts. As it is, they now have an opportunity to both claim their opposition is trying to silence them, and to further their own agenda. I’m not opposed to confronting people spouting this kind of ridiculous nonsense, but you have to pick your battles. Sometimes the best way to counter an arguement is to ignore it.
But, as always, a well done post, particuarly concerning the distinction between complaining about immigration, and racism. The two do correspond frequently, but as you suggest, it is not an exclusive relationship. Thanks.
As with lots of other political demonstrations and protests, it sounds like the DCR kids were in this for themselves more than they were there in a sincere attempt to sway opinion. Sort of a “Hey guys, wouldn’t it be funny if…”. I’m sure they read about other colleges doing it and thought it was hilarious.
And as with many political protestors, these people more or less marginalized their message before anyone could have been impressed. But, I would also say the best response would have been to ignore the “counter-protest”. If no one pays attention, they get no credibility, and this whole storm never erupts. As it is, they now have an opportunity to both claim their opposition is trying to silence them, and to further their own agenda. I’m not opposed to confronting people spouting this kind of ridiculous nonsense, but you have to pick your battles. Sometimes the best way to counter an arguement is to ignore it.
But, as always, a well done post, particuarly concerning the distinction between complaining about immigration, and racism. The two do correspond frequently, but as you suggest, it is not an exclusive relationship. Thanks.
What do you expect? Their feeble little minds can’t think and don’t have a lot of leadership in the Grand Ol’ Political party, so, they resort to what they see on the Fox News time and time again, the Minute Men going after those “illegal aliens.”
It’s a shame that members of the DCR get away from discussion and debate of the issues and instead resort to ignorant actions. It’s the “dumbing of Generation X.”
What do you expect? Their feeble little minds can’t think and don’t have a lot of leadership in the Grand Ol’ Political party, so, they resort to what they see on the Fox News time and time again, the Minute Men going after those “illegal aliens.”
It’s a shame that members of the DCR get away from discussion and debate of the issues and instead resort to ignorant actions. It’s the “dumbing of Generation X.”
What do you expect? Their feeble little minds can’t think and don’t have a lot of leadership in the Grand Ol’ Political party, so, they resort to what they see on the Fox News time and time again, the Minute Men going after those “illegal aliens.”
It’s a shame that members of the DCR get away from discussion and debate of the issues and instead resort to ignorant actions. It’s the “dumbing of Generation X.”
What do you expect? Their feeble little minds can’t think and don’t have a lot of leadership in the Grand Ol’ Political party, so, they resort to what they see on the Fox News time and time again, the Minute Men going after those “illegal aliens.”
It’s a shame that members of the DCR get away from discussion and debate of the issues and instead resort to ignorant actions. It’s the “dumbing of Generation X.”
I agree with Cristina Gonzales – the community needs to have an honest discussion about immigration issues – on a day other than Cinco de Mayo.
Instead you have one side playing games to make a point and the other side using the R word simply because they disagree. Both sides are acting very immature.
The sad thing is, I do not think you could have an honest discussion about immigration in Davis because the majority view (my view) would not allow the other side to speak. There appears to be very little interest in free speech and zero interest in truly following the so called Principles of Community.SAH
I agree with Cristina Gonzales – the community needs to have an honest discussion about immigration issues – on a day other than Cinco de Mayo.
Instead you have one side playing games to make a point and the other side using the R word simply because they disagree. Both sides are acting very immature.
The sad thing is, I do not think you could have an honest discussion about immigration in Davis because the majority view (my view) would not allow the other side to speak. There appears to be very little interest in free speech and zero interest in truly following the so called Principles of Community.SAH
I agree with Cristina Gonzales – the community needs to have an honest discussion about immigration issues – on a day other than Cinco de Mayo.
Instead you have one side playing games to make a point and the other side using the R word simply because they disagree. Both sides are acting very immature.
The sad thing is, I do not think you could have an honest discussion about immigration in Davis because the majority view (my view) would not allow the other side to speak. There appears to be very little interest in free speech and zero interest in truly following the so called Principles of Community.SAH
I agree with Cristina Gonzales – the community needs to have an honest discussion about immigration issues – on a day other than Cinco de Mayo.
Instead you have one side playing games to make a point and the other side using the R word simply because they disagree. Both sides are acting very immature.
The sad thing is, I do not think you could have an honest discussion about immigration in Davis because the majority view (my view) would not allow the other side to speak. There appears to be very little interest in free speech and zero interest in truly following the so called Principles of Community.SAH
SAH ~
Free speech, by its name is the freedom to express a point of view and then subject yourself (in this case the DCR) to criticism for your views. Free speech does not mean that one is free from criticism.
That is what makes our country so great!
SAH ~
Free speech, by its name is the freedom to express a point of view and then subject yourself (in this case the DCR) to criticism for your views. Free speech does not mean that one is free from criticism.
That is what makes our country so great!
SAH ~
Free speech, by its name is the freedom to express a point of view and then subject yourself (in this case the DCR) to criticism for your views. Free speech does not mean that one is free from criticism.
That is what makes our country so great!
SAH ~
Free speech, by its name is the freedom to express a point of view and then subject yourself (in this case the DCR) to criticism for your views. Free speech does not mean that one is free from criticism.
That is what makes our country so great!
It’s splitting hairs, but these students are not generation X, they’re Millenials or Y’s (neither name seems to be sticking).
Gen Xers, in California at least, came of age in the late 80’s and nineties and would have wrestled with issues of immigration and race when voting on Props 187 and 209. I think (and maybe it’s just some sense of generational distinction getting in the way) there’s significant difference in the California political environment. Namely, Latinos have a larger institutional voice in California politics.
David’s assertion that immigration and race are two distinct issues is an important one, but if you’re a California Latino, particularly a recent immigrant how could you not view them as emotionally linked? I think the fear and anger expressed as a result is completely understandable.
A final question – (and this is undoubtedly the result of one too many American Studies classes) – is further fuel added to this fire becasue our notion of “play” and the exuberance we associate with play upended when something that was as competitive and fun as capture the flag is retooled with adult themes for political purposes that clearly had some intention to hurt or send a message to a specific group?
I can remember when my dorm played capture the flag late night on the quad – it was a bonding moment, not a hurtful one. The “theater” of protest seemingly has little to do with debate these days and more to do with emotional grenade lobbing in hopes of inciting further emotional reaction.
It’s splitting hairs, but these students are not generation X, they’re Millenials or Y’s (neither name seems to be sticking).
Gen Xers, in California at least, came of age in the late 80’s and nineties and would have wrestled with issues of immigration and race when voting on Props 187 and 209. I think (and maybe it’s just some sense of generational distinction getting in the way) there’s significant difference in the California political environment. Namely, Latinos have a larger institutional voice in California politics.
David’s assertion that immigration and race are two distinct issues is an important one, but if you’re a California Latino, particularly a recent immigrant how could you not view them as emotionally linked? I think the fear and anger expressed as a result is completely understandable.
A final question – (and this is undoubtedly the result of one too many American Studies classes) – is further fuel added to this fire becasue our notion of “play” and the exuberance we associate with play upended when something that was as competitive and fun as capture the flag is retooled with adult themes for political purposes that clearly had some intention to hurt or send a message to a specific group?
I can remember when my dorm played capture the flag late night on the quad – it was a bonding moment, not a hurtful one. The “theater” of protest seemingly has little to do with debate these days and more to do with emotional grenade lobbing in hopes of inciting further emotional reaction.
It’s splitting hairs, but these students are not generation X, they’re Millenials or Y’s (neither name seems to be sticking).
Gen Xers, in California at least, came of age in the late 80’s and nineties and would have wrestled with issues of immigration and race when voting on Props 187 and 209. I think (and maybe it’s just some sense of generational distinction getting in the way) there’s significant difference in the California political environment. Namely, Latinos have a larger institutional voice in California politics.
David’s assertion that immigration and race are two distinct issues is an important one, but if you’re a California Latino, particularly a recent immigrant how could you not view them as emotionally linked? I think the fear and anger expressed as a result is completely understandable.
A final question – (and this is undoubtedly the result of one too many American Studies classes) – is further fuel added to this fire becasue our notion of “play” and the exuberance we associate with play upended when something that was as competitive and fun as capture the flag is retooled with adult themes for political purposes that clearly had some intention to hurt or send a message to a specific group?
I can remember when my dorm played capture the flag late night on the quad – it was a bonding moment, not a hurtful one. The “theater” of protest seemingly has little to do with debate these days and more to do with emotional grenade lobbing in hopes of inciting further emotional reaction.
It’s splitting hairs, but these students are not generation X, they’re Millenials or Y’s (neither name seems to be sticking).
Gen Xers, in California at least, came of age in the late 80’s and nineties and would have wrestled with issues of immigration and race when voting on Props 187 and 209. I think (and maybe it’s just some sense of generational distinction getting in the way) there’s significant difference in the California political environment. Namely, Latinos have a larger institutional voice in California politics.
David’s assertion that immigration and race are two distinct issues is an important one, but if you’re a California Latino, particularly a recent immigrant how could you not view them as emotionally linked? I think the fear and anger expressed as a result is completely understandable.
A final question – (and this is undoubtedly the result of one too many American Studies classes) – is further fuel added to this fire becasue our notion of “play” and the exuberance we associate with play upended when something that was as competitive and fun as capture the flag is retooled with adult themes for political purposes that clearly had some intention to hurt or send a message to a specific group?
I can remember when my dorm played capture the flag late night on the quad – it was a bonding moment, not a hurtful one. The “theater” of protest seemingly has little to do with debate these days and more to do with emotional grenade lobbing in hopes of inciting further emotional reaction.
Jessica-
I agree, but I think the point SAH was trying to make is that people on one side of the debate are sometimes too quick to play the race-/prejudice card when confronted by opposing view points. By all means, let the debate commence, it’s just a shame when the “tolerant” side shouts down any opposing view as “racist” (except when they actually are), rather than refuting the substance of the arguement.
Jessica-
I agree, but I think the point SAH was trying to make is that people on one side of the debate are sometimes too quick to play the race-/prejudice card when confronted by opposing view points. By all means, let the debate commence, it’s just a shame when the “tolerant” side shouts down any opposing view as “racist” (except when they actually are), rather than refuting the substance of the arguement.
Jessica-
I agree, but I think the point SAH was trying to make is that people on one side of the debate are sometimes too quick to play the race-/prejudice card when confronted by opposing view points. By all means, let the debate commence, it’s just a shame when the “tolerant” side shouts down any opposing view as “racist” (except when they actually are), rather than refuting the substance of the arguement.
Jessica-
I agree, but I think the point SAH was trying to make is that people on one side of the debate are sometimes too quick to play the race-/prejudice card when confronted by opposing view points. By all means, let the debate commence, it’s just a shame when the “tolerant” side shouts down any opposing view as “racist” (except when they actually are), rather than refuting the substance of the arguement.
as someone who attended both UCD undergraduate school and law school, I have never been particularly enthusiastic about the campus’ “Principles of Community”
free speech rights are just that, and if people want to engage in speech activities that others find offensive, they should be allowed to do so, regardless of how the campus community perceives it
at this point, the “Principles” just create confusion, because, really, they are toothless, as other campuses around the country have discovered when they have tried to enforce them, but they create the impression for others that they provide some means of recourse when they object to the speech of others
in other words, when I respond to a political protest or action, the last thing I care about are the “Principles”
essentially, I view the “Principles” as a typical form of paternalistic campus oversight, part of a larger effort to circumscribe the bounds of protest on campus, something that has been happening in response to the eruptions of the 1960s and 1970s
–Richard Estes
as someone who attended both UCD undergraduate school and law school, I have never been particularly enthusiastic about the campus’ “Principles of Community”
free speech rights are just that, and if people want to engage in speech activities that others find offensive, they should be allowed to do so, regardless of how the campus community perceives it
at this point, the “Principles” just create confusion, because, really, they are toothless, as other campuses around the country have discovered when they have tried to enforce them, but they create the impression for others that they provide some means of recourse when they object to the speech of others
in other words, when I respond to a political protest or action, the last thing I care about are the “Principles”
essentially, I view the “Principles” as a typical form of paternalistic campus oversight, part of a larger effort to circumscribe the bounds of protest on campus, something that has been happening in response to the eruptions of the 1960s and 1970s
–Richard Estes
as someone who attended both UCD undergraduate school and law school, I have never been particularly enthusiastic about the campus’ “Principles of Community”
free speech rights are just that, and if people want to engage in speech activities that others find offensive, they should be allowed to do so, regardless of how the campus community perceives it
at this point, the “Principles” just create confusion, because, really, they are toothless, as other campuses around the country have discovered when they have tried to enforce them, but they create the impression for others that they provide some means of recourse when they object to the speech of others
in other words, when I respond to a political protest or action, the last thing I care about are the “Principles”
essentially, I view the “Principles” as a typical form of paternalistic campus oversight, part of a larger effort to circumscribe the bounds of protest on campus, something that has been happening in response to the eruptions of the 1960s and 1970s
–Richard Estes
as someone who attended both UCD undergraduate school and law school, I have never been particularly enthusiastic about the campus’ “Principles of Community”
free speech rights are just that, and if people want to engage in speech activities that others find offensive, they should be allowed to do so, regardless of how the campus community perceives it
at this point, the “Principles” just create confusion, because, really, they are toothless, as other campuses around the country have discovered when they have tried to enforce them, but they create the impression for others that they provide some means of recourse when they object to the speech of others
in other words, when I respond to a political protest or action, the last thing I care about are the “Principles”
essentially, I view the “Principles” as a typical form of paternalistic campus oversight, part of a larger effort to circumscribe the bounds of protest on campus, something that has been happening in response to the eruptions of the 1960s and 1970s
–Richard Estes
The Right offers “games”, not ethical/moral principles to keep its young base energized. The Word is also circulated that the Young Republican ranks offer greater opportunities to “score”. Are they winning the Sex Gap?
The Right offers “games”, not ethical/moral principles to keep its young base energized. The Word is also circulated that the Young Republican ranks offer greater opportunities to “score”. Are they winning the Sex Gap?
The Right offers “games”, not ethical/moral principles to keep its young base energized. The Word is also circulated that the Young Republican ranks offer greater opportunities to “score”. Are they winning the Sex Gap?
The Right offers “games”, not ethical/moral principles to keep its young base energized. The Word is also circulated that the Young Republican ranks offer greater opportunities to “score”. Are they winning the Sex Gap?
Hey, I recently added a news widget from http://www.widgetmate.com to my blog. It shows the latest news, and just took a copy and paste to implement. Might interest you too.
Hey, I recently added a news widget from http://www.widgetmate.com to my blog. It shows the latest news, and just took a copy and paste to implement. Might interest you too.
Hey, I recently added a news widget from http://www.widgetmate.com to my blog. It shows the latest news, and just took a copy and paste to implement. Might interest you too.
Hey, I recently added a news widget from http://www.widgetmate.com to my blog. It shows the latest news, and just took a copy and paste to implement. Might interest you too.
DPD, I would probably take issue with some of your points about the game, but I will let them slide.
I have heard this stuff about “Campus community principles” several times now. It is not those principles I object to, it is the politically selective application of those principles.
Today, (Nov 27) Ward Churchill is coming to speak on Campus, and anyone who knows of him knows he called the 911 victims little Eichmann’s, all but saying they deserved what they got. A black Panther party spokesperson was also invited to speak, and anyone who knows them knows they are no stranger to inflammatory rhetoric.
Yet these people are invited under the guise of “free speech” despite the hateful language they use repeatedly. Yet when DCR puts on an “insensitive” game, it is a violation of “campus community principles” and is not to be tolerated.
I find it amazing when groups like mecha, the muslim student association, and Students for Justice in palestine think Campus community principles are important only when it suits their own political ends.
Something wrong with this picture DPD?
DPD, I would probably take issue with some of your points about the game, but I will let them slide.
I have heard this stuff about “Campus community principles” several times now. It is not those principles I object to, it is the politically selective application of those principles.
Today, (Nov 27) Ward Churchill is coming to speak on Campus, and anyone who knows of him knows he called the 911 victims little Eichmann’s, all but saying they deserved what they got. A black Panther party spokesperson was also invited to speak, and anyone who knows them knows they are no stranger to inflammatory rhetoric.
Yet these people are invited under the guise of “free speech” despite the hateful language they use repeatedly. Yet when DCR puts on an “insensitive” game, it is a violation of “campus community principles” and is not to be tolerated.
I find it amazing when groups like mecha, the muslim student association, and Students for Justice in palestine think Campus community principles are important only when it suits their own political ends.
Something wrong with this picture DPD?
DPD, I would probably take issue with some of your points about the game, but I will let them slide.
I have heard this stuff about “Campus community principles” several times now. It is not those principles I object to, it is the politically selective application of those principles.
Today, (Nov 27) Ward Churchill is coming to speak on Campus, and anyone who knows of him knows he called the 911 victims little Eichmann’s, all but saying they deserved what they got. A black Panther party spokesperson was also invited to speak, and anyone who knows them knows they are no stranger to inflammatory rhetoric.
Yet these people are invited under the guise of “free speech” despite the hateful language they use repeatedly. Yet when DCR puts on an “insensitive” game, it is a violation of “campus community principles” and is not to be tolerated.
I find it amazing when groups like mecha, the muslim student association, and Students for Justice in palestine think Campus community principles are important only when it suits their own political ends.
Something wrong with this picture DPD?
DPD, I would probably take issue with some of your points about the game, but I will let them slide.
I have heard this stuff about “Campus community principles” several times now. It is not those principles I object to, it is the politically selective application of those principles.
Today, (Nov 27) Ward Churchill is coming to speak on Campus, and anyone who knows of him knows he called the 911 victims little Eichmann’s, all but saying they deserved what they got. A black Panther party spokesperson was also invited to speak, and anyone who knows them knows they are no stranger to inflammatory rhetoric.
Yet these people are invited under the guise of “free speech” despite the hateful language they use repeatedly. Yet when DCR puts on an “insensitive” game, it is a violation of “campus community principles” and is not to be tolerated.
I find it amazing when groups like mecha, the muslim student association, and Students for Justice in palestine think Campus community principles are important only when it suits their own political ends.
Something wrong with this picture DPD?