@AsleepAtTheWheel Thank you, these are right on.
Speaking of new outrages:
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26764/
Scripps college is even worse than Emory. That garbage is hard to believe.
In general, what Wagner did, significantly damages Emory. He should be fired and the board should issue a clear commitment to the Chicago principles or U of Minnesota statement. Even people who don’t care about all this free speech brouhaha should be concerned about the damage to the Emory brand.
@thecoolboy1234 : Well, I think Wagner is in a position where he’ll pretty much say or claim anything to leave on a good note whether he means it or not.
Also to those who complain about damage: For one, Wagner is already in the process of being replace. And two, No it does not significantly damage Emory as other gaffs of his. The departmental closures and the 3/5 comment definitely brought much worse press to Emory. This “damage” is no different than what has happened at the other elites. One would like to believe it does do damage out of principle, but that is just not reality because only a certain segment (typically not those considering attending an elite private) consider this an embarrassment or even abnormal. This is the status quo at schools like this and Emory is clearly no exception. The brand is simply a function of effective marketing. Selective privates have traditionally gotten around bad press (even Emory) by their aggressive marketing and highlighting of things that students of course care about (whether they should or not). I could name several examples of such schools that do not belong to the top 10 or so that continue to receive higher app. numbers even after something horrible happens (like an actual sexual assault scandal, or D-1 sport course fixing scandal, giant cheating scandals, I find none of these more acceptable). Do not over-estimate the effect of this one moment in time. Emory and others have gotten around bad press before and will continue to do so. This is relatively petty compared to some of those incidents.
bernie12 Emory has a problem. You seem to think that branding is the result of marketing expenditure, but there are different ways of achieving exposure and building a brand: Earned media, for one. Just look at Trump. Actually, forget Trump, look at Emory and the Ebola story. It was all over the news and lo and behold, applications jumped substantially. The sad thing is that Emory has just earned a tremendous amount of media exposure. Pretty much all of it mocking. What do you think the impact on the Emory brand will be when even Gawker says don’t go to Emory? What do you think Emory associations are now? Ironically, at the very time when Emory is about to pitch a bunch of students from RD to pick Emory over other schools.
You mention department closures and 3/5 controversy, but these were local stories without much resonance. In other words, they were irrelevant for the brand.
You seem to also think that some other scandals were as grave, but you are very mistaken. We don’t have to argue about, what should be the obvious thing, free speech here as a fundamental value of a university. You might disagree. The point is the practicalities involved. If I am supposed to pay the full ride to an expensive college, and yet I have to fear that my kid might get suspended, expelled or whatever, because he says something stupid (or not so stupid), then I will think hard where my money should go, no matter what my kid thinks.
Finally, just because others do the same, doesn’t mean that Emory will not be punished for it. Just, pour encourager les autres.
As to Wagner, the point is not to punish him as such. The point is to make a dramatic statement to break the narrative.
University presidents today must “show concern” and “show action” every time a tiny campus group has their feelings hurt or risk losing their job. “Emergency funds” must now be set aside in case students have different views to show great concern on the part of the university. These small subsets of college campuses have tremendous power and are feared by university presidents. So no support for candidates is allowed as it may offend someone, no right or left speakers, no comedians, no Mexican night in the cafeteria, no offensive mascots, for the love of God no theme parties, and no discussion of different ideas.
Disclosure: I’m an anyone but Trump voter.
You’d think this story would die out by now, but it’s low-lying fruit for anyone who wants to make their point about the whole college PC culture thing. Now, even more exposure in USA Today (which at our house we call News McNuggets):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYpgRqVixCg
When even Bill Maher is laughing at you, you should know that you really screwed up.
My HS kid happened to be on a campus tour of Emory last Monday. Kid was surprised to see the Trump 2016 stuff since on most campus tours these days it is pretty much 100% Feel the Bern.
When I told the kid about the protests, the kid’s exact quote was “Hmm, I thought smart kids went to Emory. Guess not.”
Here is an alumni reaction to the whole thing.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/emory-alumni-speak.php
@Zinhead – Thanks for posting the link. At least these alumni got a real education at Emory.
@AsleepAtTheWheel
@krzysmis
@kaukauna
Much ado about nothing. Trump’s Emory supporters can continue to chalk as long as they abide by the same chalking rules as everyone else. It’s comical that a self-described classical liberal like @krzysmis would support out right vandalism of private property. They can also express themselves politically on campus any number of other ways.
Post #23 @krzysmis (“However, Nobody prevented the little babies from expressing themselves.”)
@krzysmis By “little babies,” you must be referring to the Emory Trump supporters who chose to ignore Emory’s rules regarding chalkings and instead engaged in what amounted to surreptitious vandalism of private property under cover of dark.
Emory chose to enforce its anti-vandalism rules in an even-handed way; Trump and Clinton supporters alike have to comply with the same rules. Trump supporters like yourself need to stop crying about it.
Emory Trump supporters could have followed those rules and chalked in a pro-Trump fashion, worn Trump buttons, put on Trump T-shirts or Trump caps. They were in no way censored despite the shrill and uninformed outbursts of individuals like yourself.
If everyone behaved as these pro-Trump supporters did, then campus walls and buildings would be filled with political sloganeering of all kinds. Who in the world wants to see that? There’s a reason why criminal laws prohibit graffiti.
Post #24 ("MrOdyssey–Do you not see the unfortunate irony of starting a post on free speech with the order to, “be quiet”?)
I see irony in @krzysmis decrying purported “censorship” based on the Emory protestors’ decision to protest speech they found offensive while at the same time @krzysmis vilifies the Emory protestors for complaining.
Principles of free speech does not insulate the speaker from being called out and criticized for ill-informed blather.
I also see hypocrisy in Trump supporters like @krzysmis defending free speech even as their candidate throws out participants at Trump rallies for looking too Muslim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0YBt_6HfbM
Post #23 (“I’m a paying (and donating ) customer…”)
@krzysmis You may be a paying customer of Emory’s. That doesn’t entitle you to use Emory’s assets as you please anymore than your buying an iphone gives you license to Apple’s assets. Well versed in accounting you are not.
@MyOdyssey Hmm, apart from not understanding free speech, political philosophy etc., you seem not even able to understand what accounting is about. I guess your Emory education didn’t take.
Either way, given your great concern about vandalism on Emory property, i’ll make you a deal. Going forward I’ll refuse to donate to funds for disadvantaged students at Emory, and instead direct Emory to use the money in the cleaning fund.
That way the Monday cleaning fund protesters will see their dreams of social justice fulfilled. Everybody wins.
@MyOdyssey – I don’t even know where to start. You seem particularly hung up on what you see as the vandalism aspect of this affair. But the protests and Wagner’s statement had everything to do with political speech, and were only parenthetically about the chalking/vandalism. Do you think that the protesters would have been any less strident if some Emory students had organized a pro-Trump rally on campus? If pro-Trump students had handed out pro-Trump leaflets? The claim would be that by allowing a rally or leaflets the university had caused fear and pain to be felt by their most vulnerable students. Etc., etc. It’s not about the chalkings. It’s about the expression of opinions.
Free speech means that the university shouldn’t regulate political speech based on the content. The protesters want certain forms of political speech to be banned. Speakers who think that ‘rape culture’ is baloney and that men should get due process in ‘rape’ accusations should be banned because their speech causes pain to ‘victims.’ Pro-Israel speakers must be banned because their speech threatens Palestinian students. It goes on and on. They ARE trying to censor speech. In this case @krzysmis (and I) think that the protesters are a bunch of idiots and babies, but we’re not saying they don’t have the right to protest. We’re saying that their protests should be ignored by the administration. We’re not denying their right to protest, although I’m not sure what gives them the right to storm into the president’s office like a bunch of unhappy two-year olds.
As many of the articles I’ve posted point out, lots of folks on the left side of the political spectrum have ridiculed Wagner for his position in this fiasco. This one is pretty clear.
@kryzsmis
@AsleepAtTheWheel
The article posted earlier by the Emory professor critical of Wagner made it clear that Wagner refused the protestors’ demand that he circulate an email denouncing Trump. Presumably, we’re all on the same page that Wagner was correct in this decision.
You’re missing something. Criticizing someone else’s speech isn’t censorship; it’s also political speech.
No one at Emory said that Emory students can’t speak in favor of Trump.
Wagner said he’d enforce Emory’s anti-vandalism rules; he didn’t say he’d do so selectively against Trump supporters.
Here’s a right wing news source that understands the vandalism issue:
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26708/
"The university said it will examine security footage to see if it can determine who was responsible for the graffiti. If they are students, “they will go through the conduct violation process.”
Hopefully any misconduct will be regarding the vandalism and not the political message."
More on the extent of the Trump graffiti and violation of chalking rules:
“Many of those criticizing the Emory students said the messages were par for the course in a campaign year and that if students can chalk their support for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, they should be able to chalk support for Trump. Emory is now stressing that it has no plans to take action against anyone for chalking, and that concerns were not because of the views of the person who chalked but because some of the pro-Trump statements were not made in places where chalking is permitted.”
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/25/debate-grows-over-pro-trump-chalkings-emory
“In a statement sent to Inside Higher Ed, the university said it “has not identified the individual(s) responsible for placing chalking graffiti in various campus locations earlier this week, and no follow-up action is planned related to the incident. It’s important to note that chalkings by students are allowed as a form of expression on the Emory campus but must be limited to certain areas and must not deface campus property – these chalkings did not follow guidelines – that’s the issue regarding violation of policy, not the content.”
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/25/debate-grows-over-pro-trump-chalkings-emory
Feel free to Google Scholar search the first amendment doctrines of limited public forum (which Trump relies on in ejecting protestors) and nonpublic forum (which prevents me from installing Feel the Bern signs on @kryzsmis front lawn.
Emory has made it clear that chalkings on behalf/against all political candidates (and regarding other issues) will be allowed as long as there’s no defacement and it’s limited to certain areas. This applies to everyone equally.
Trump supporters need to stop playing the victim.
@MyOdyssey – Maybe you missed that in my original post starting this thread I stated that I think that Trump is a total horse’s ass who’s not qualified to be a dog catcher, much less president.
I’m a Brandeis alumnus who had donated significant money to the school on an annual basis over the first (almost) forty years after I graduated. I stopped donating a couple of years ago when the university withdrew their invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree at commencement. I now donate that money every year to F.I.R.E. – the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. I’m very concerned about the perpetually aggrieved victims on college campuses making certain points of view verboten. It’s not at all about Trump for me. All about the ability to speak and exchange ideas freely on a college campus without threats being leveled that such speech and expression is causing fear and pain, and thus needs to be limited.
@MyOdyssey
You shouldn’t use concepts you seem to have a tenuous grasp of. If you want to understand how free speech should work at a university, do read the University of Minnesota statement. The point of a University is not to protect people from speech, but expose them to all kinds of speech be it offensive, or even hateful.
Aside from this free piece of advice, your insistence that it’s all about concerned students for chalk-free environment is risible. The initial email from Wagner mentioned nothing about the vandalism, but was all about the need to baby the oppressed communities so their heads don’t explode. If the crybabies wanted simply to criticize speech, they strangely chose an audience of one. They did not want an open exchange. They wanted power.
By the way, chalking outside the designated areas is not vandalism per se and is properly cured by the cleaning fee imposed on the perpetrators. Nothing to do with conduct violation.
The moment the story got big, the administration got really scared and backpedalled furiously but showed more concern about covering their behinds, then the reputation of Emory. Now, thanks to their efforts , Emory is considered a joke. Let’s hope that the country’s attention will be soon distracted, so Emory’s reputation does not get set in the public eye.
I happen to agree that university administrations and some university students have gotten heavy handed in recent years in enforcing codes of conduct especially regarding speech on campus. I don’t think Emory’s situation comes anywhere close to anything that’s been reported at other campuses.
Too many “reporters” have criticized what happened without pretending to do any actual reporting - interviewing students or administration, and considering whether speech in the form of graffiti scrawled all over private property might be a different issue.
You don’t know what Wagner initially intended - certainly not from the many internet reports that comprised of nothing more than the author’s opinion arrived at after no first hand investigation and zero understanding of applicable first amendment free speech doctrines. What’s beyond dispute is that Wagner never punished or threatened to punish students for the mere fact of expressing pro-Trump views.
None of the universities I’ve attended and none of the university campuses that I’ve visited even allow writings on university property - certainly not as a tradition. I don’t recall ever seeing such a thing on any other campus. Students expressed themselves politically on campus in many other ways - express political affiliations (e.g. College Republicans, College Democrats, campus voter registration drives, op eds, debates, participating in actual political campaigns, etc.). Limiting chalking to certain areas of campus in a non-viewpoint specific way is hardly oppressive.
One of the earlier posts from an Emory student indicated that the placement of the graffiti seemed directed at centers where Latino and African American students sometimes meet:
(post #18 - No one had a problem with the fact that it said “Trump”. It was weird though that most had thought it was strange that the markings were on every single step (around 58 steps on each staircase) to the DUC, which leads to Centro Latino and EBSU. Usually, markings are in a more visible area of campus like Asbury Circle. Also, just to be clear, it wasn’t like it was just a few markings on campus stating Trump. It was legit everywhere (outside of a sophomore dorm, Asbury Circle, outside of White Hall and Cox. We got the message. The main comment that affected people was “Build A Wall” as there are some undocumented students who attend Emory and found that somewhat offensive. It’s not about freedom of speech because I’m pretty sure people have acknowledged that; it’s the manner in which it was carried out.")
Yes, using Trump to taunt Latino students is a thing; it’s happened at high school basketball games, for example,
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/us/midwest-trump-school-chants/
It’s unclear what the Trump chalkers intended but they did it all over campus in the dead of night and anonymously. They obviously weren’t proud of what they did.
Wagner’s statement about inclusivity, etc. was probably directed at that possibility. I don’t see a problem with that. I don’t see a problem with saying that no one has the right to chalk all over the school. Does any university allow that in an unfettered way?
^^Carnegie Mellon has its “fence” in the middle of campus where student groups paint messages, and have done so for decades. It has a set of rules for use. Seems like Emory could use something similar. Disclosure: I am a parent of an Emory grad.
@MyOdyssey
Again, the vandalism framing is simply B.S. It’s not about the press reports. My son sent me the original email of Wagner right away and there was no mention of vandalism or anything of that nature. It was specifically about the content of the message and how the University has to compensate those “in pain” for their “suffering”.
Additionally, the later mentions of the need to pursue those responsible and bring them up on conduct policy violation sent a very specific message. Especially, as per Emory policy, chalking outside the designated areas is not vandalism, and the punishment involves only the cleaning fee.
The administration started talking about vandalism only later, once the media shitstorm hit.
As a more general point, it is not in the slightest relevant whether the messages were directed at Latino community or not. Taunting or whatever the message was supposed to be is also free speech and the university cannot impose any content based restrictions (save for the standard caveats of performative speech).
When I say cannot it does not mean it’s incompatible with the ethos of a university although it surely is. It means that because the University has explicitly incorporated the bill of rights into its bylaws, it is legally bound by free speech protections and risks legal liability if it tries to suppress speech.
I’m not taking sides, but this is true.
Let’s not pretend like the vandalism angle is anything but an excuse.
The original Emory Wheel article had nothing about Emory’s chalking policies… because they were irrelevant.
I used to draw on Asbury Circle all the time… nobody was trying to fry me.