You’ll have to be a bit more clear about what you’re referring to.
If that’s possible.
@justonedad I think what they are trying to say is that it is not okay to idolize and put on public display racists and facists
This seems to be plainly untrue:
From the beginning, one of the terms was “No student shall be qualified or disqualified for election to a Scholarship on account of his race or religious opinions”.
Elite != Elitism
Striving to be the best and anti-elitism are not mutually exclusive. Elitism more refers to social structures, power structures, and how one perceives the role of “elite” in society. It is usually associated with exclusivity, power imbalances, overinflated ego’s, and the like.
Elitism is considered to be unfavorable to as bad as destructive when it comes to society. An opposite of it would be Egalitarianism, something detailed well by philosophers such as Rawls who has made large strides in social and political theory.
I have not a clue the point of the above post, as no one ever said or implied Black Americans never won or do not win Rhodes Schloarships. I did inquire if any gave back or refused the scholarship.
Anyway, in light of the Princeton protest, the hypocrisy of the issue is blinding.
So, Black Americans are happy to take money and scholarships from an institution backed by a foreign segregationist and the person who helped create South Africa in its worst incarnation. And more interesting, they are very proud to win it and be associated with it - even though that person killed many a black people in Africa.
But, in contrast, they want to erase a segregationist who helped raise the academics of the American university they attend, which happens to ranked tops on the US. And that domestic segregationist Wilson did not up and just kill black people like Rhodes did in order to take their land and property.
Therefore, a killer foreign segregationist’s money and scholarship are good (so what if he screwed up Africa, which has tons of black people in it), but a domestic segregationist, who did not kill anyone, is bad and requires the need for a safe space and erasure from history.
I think I get it - Black American students will scream and throw a hissy fit about a dead segregationist at home, but if you pay them off with a scholarship they will ignore an infinitely worse dead foreign segregationist and happily take his money and scholarship and run to the bank and be proud of it. Thus, blatant racism can be excused by black people if you pay them off with money and scholarships. Thanks for clearing that up.
Some intellectual consistency is in order - if the Princeton black students are truly about racism, segregation and the like as morally deprived universal ills, none of them should be applying for Rhodes Scholarships, as this scholarship was created by people actually more racist and deadly than Woodrow Wilson. But that may be asking too much in the logic department for I have just learned they can be paid to ignore racism and are proud to do it. Yep, they are lost, but that is obvious from the video.
@awcntdb. Please don’t generalize by saying “Black American students will scream and throw a hissy fit …” It would be just as inaccurate to generalize about “white American students” or “American Latino students.” Within each group there is a wide variety of opinion on issues.
Please see Cobrat’s post 630.
Anyway, maybe - like you - they all think Rhodes is a liberal icon.
@awcntdb your posts seem to show alot of hostility towards black americans in general. I dont think it is appropriate. Where does your DS that you mention in post 596 go to school?
Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School, and one of those whose photograph was marked with black tape, just had an op-ed in the NY Times. I highly recommend it.
Fun fact, Randall Kennedy received his undergraduate degree from Princeton, his law degree from Yale and attended Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. He touches all of the bases…
@Tiger -
This is uncalled for. awcntdb posts have no animus towards black Americans in general, just towards these protesters who, in his/her mind, are acting hypocritically.
@tiger1307 - Trying to understand a race-based affinity group’s position and juxtaposing its position against past and current actions are not hostile actions; it is called thinking it through.
And after thinking it through, if a race-based affinity group’s position on something seems inconsistent, then it is imperative to call the group on it. Why is it imperative to call them on it - because that is what we would do for any other affinity group, e.g., the NRA, which people paint as inconsistent all the time. Being of a non-white race does not make a group immune to hard, serious critical questioning.
Additionally: 1) just because one is a member of an affinity group does not mean one is correct in what one says (you could be wrong), 2) being a member of an affinity group does not garner some special right not to be challenged, 3) being a member of an affinity group does not bestow the right to be abusive and to scream “Shut the F up!” to others who have different opinion than you (e.g., Yale and the one Princeton female screaming at the President), and 4) being a member of a race-based affinity group does not mean one gets treated with kid gloves as compared to other groups for that is frankly, bigoted, as it says one is too weak and not smart enough to stand up to the scrutiny that others would have to endure.
The age old adage applies here - if you cannot stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. Princeton students turned up the heat, so they should expect to get a little hot, especially if what they say is somewhat suspect.
@awcntdb your post 644 was an attack against black americans in general To quote you " blatant racism can be excused by black people if you pay them off" You were made aware of it in post 645 by another poster . I would not call what you are doing thinking it through or critical thinking
I would have liked to see the administration request a scholarly work from the protesters in which they clearly identified the historical roots, whys and wherefores, etc., etc., of what they were seeking.
People form opinions in life about other people on a daily basis, which is their right, even if they are wrong. What is “WRONG” is when people are assaulted verbally or physically for their views. Tolerance requires we respect the rights of others even if we vehemently disagree with them. The Supreme Court has ruled for decades over and over what is acceptable free speech that cannot be abridged by the STATE. And what is not acceptable. One cannot shout fire into a crowded theatre but one is allowed to burn an american flag, march with a nazi flag and to contribute money to politicians willy nilly. Its the law. Nothing in the Constitution requires us to like people. Not one word. If someone hates its on them. And that applies to EVERYONE.
We are not allowed to assault people by yelling, blocking their paths, denigrating them publicly. Those are rules of civil society. You cant spew lies either or you get sued for defamation. Well and good. You can’t occupy offices of university officials as that is criminal trespass. You dont like it there? Leave. Go somewhere else. IF they are a state institution and acting on the behalf of the state, the schools must comply with the free speech rights of individuals in the Constitution, but they are not required to let students occupy spaces, trespass, assault teachers and administrators verbally and be blackmailed about perceived victimization based on really vague allegations. That some liberal faculty align with these students is regrettable, though its their right and being state employees cant be summarily fired except for cause which is well defined in their contracts. Law and Order must prevail. Not anarchy and chaos and incivility leading to violence.
Going to college is a privilege, not a right. Sorry. The state obligation to educate you stops after gade 12.
And these studens better wise up because in this day and age, employers are watching what appears on video or facebook or snapchat or elsewhere. And as Professor Kennedy at Harvard Law points out adroitly, the complaining victims risk losing complete credibility and compassion from the very people they are seeking reforms by overplaying their hands and making ridiculous demands on very flimsy evidence.
Not every slight in life is a racist or sexist or other form of discriminatory comment. People are rude. Life is very competitive. Its not called “WINNING” where everyone gets a prize. Stop whining. Stop blaming others. Be responsible for YOUR actions and YOUR words and do YOUR work. Stop demanding others lay down a red carpet and pave your way to success in life.
Most of these students have never paid a dime in taxes in their lives. Worked for a living. They will find out quickly how the real world works when they leave academia. Legitimate claims of abject discrimination can be handled civilly in the school policies and procedures and if that fails then in the courts. But those are rarer than dinosaurs. Unfortunately we have become a PC nation of whiners and complainers and thin skinned babies. Grow up. Get a life. Stop blaming others. Own your own life and conduct. Thank you.
OK, we have different definitions of payoff then.
When an affinity group accepts money from, using the Princeton’s students own standards, one blatant racist-supported institution (Rhodes Scholar Program) and being proud of it. But then, using the same standards, ask for erasure of another blatant (though less deadly) racist, who just happened not to have supported a scholarship you received, darn sure seems like a payoff to ignore racism to me.
I am going to venture that none of this Wilson erasure quest would be occurring if these protesting Princeton students had publicly received a famous scholarship in high school called the Woodrow Wilson Scholarship in order to attend Princeton. They would have been proud recipients of that scholarship, proud as heck to be going to the now overly racist Princeton, and they would not be asking for erasure of his name.
Basically, follow the money.
And the Princeton students knew (or were advised very well) that they crossed a line because part of the agreement with the school is they asked for immunity for all the protestors. Now, if what you were doing was so kosher, why do you need immunity?
Cite Stanford - that school put students on notice it was not having any of this stuff for they would face disciplinary charges.
Actually, yelling at or denigrating others…especially those in authority like a LEO would not only NOT be considered assault…but also free speech protected by the first Amendment…especially in the context of a protest even if rude or unwise:
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/village-of-arena-wisconsin-police-department/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95325
Also, I don’t know what the laws are in your jurisdiction…but in practice, most LEOs in NYC IME won’t consider someone yelling at or denigrating someone publicly as an assault.
In fact, a few I’ve known growing up would ROTFLOL at that very idea considering they’d be working overtime solely to arrest a ginormous number of New Yorkers for yelling or denigrating others publicly on a daily basis if that was the case.
Also, why are you against others’ right to exercise their right to free speech…however rude or unwise it may be?
You’re sounding very much like some conservative/libertarian-right activists I’ve observed at Columbia U whose claims of censorship and having their “free speech violated” really consisted of them desiring to exercise their free speech as obnoxiously and in-your-face as possible without allowing others to exercise their free speech to call-them-out or otherwise criticize them in response. In short…free speech without consequences or allowing the opposition the right to exercise their free speech to criticize/call them out in response.
For the tenth time, “you sound like … (Insert unrelated person / issue)” is not a valid or compelling argument, cobrat. Why do you repeatedly rely on it?
tiger1307
did you just join CC to post in these current events / political threads?
if you did, there are probably other message boards that might be better for you.
@soccerguy, Perhaps I missed you making the same comment to nomoliberals, whose userid hardly suggests a desire to avoid politics?