Cobrat, I have to agree with pizzagirl. You frequently reference personal anecdotes, experiences, hearsay etc. as if they are proof of something, throwing them in among factual discussions as if they are of the same value. You did it when you opined that Princeton was much less hospitable to URMs in the early-mid 90s - as you put it
and
And you did it in your discussion of Rhodes Scholars -
The point about the Princeton students, in my opinion, was not their right to exercise free speech. It was whether they had the right to occupy the office of Princeton’s President. Obviously, non violent protest is a civil right, but these rights are not unfettered. Protests do not have to be allowed in private spaces and Eisgruber’s office is a private space. The University has laid out rules for spaces where protests are allowed that are extremely reasonable and would, according to all the precedent I am aware of, be upheld. The members of the Black Justice League who stayed overnight were violating Princeton’s own rules and regulations and obviously could have been disciplined for such violations. The fact that one of them was extremely rude is probably not a violation of anything.
I agree that “rude” is not a violation of “anything”, however the statements might shed some light on what the long term objectives of the Black Justice League might be.
Why don’t they leave and attend a less offensive school? All the info about Wilson must be newly discovered and released because clearly they wouldn’t have chosen to attend had they been aware of it. I’m sure there are other schools they can attend that won’t be so traumatizing.
What was going on at Princeton is called a sit in Sit ins have along history in America going back almost 100 years. They were first used by auto and steel workers in the 1930s. Sit ins are primarily responsible for ending segregation in the US. Sit ins also helped to end the Vietnam war. They are seen by the people using them as a way to prevent and rectify acts of injustice. Many people dont like them because it disturbs the status quo. However half of the people in this country currently believe racism is a big problem and over 80 per cent believe it is a problem. The students at Princeton were prepared to accept the consequences of their action to help solve the problem of racism which according to all polls is becoming worse not better. To everyone on this thread quick to criticize the protesters at Princeton what do you think should be done to address racism which by virtually all accounts is becoming worse not better
What Kim Davis did in Kentucky is called civil disobedience. Civil disobedience has a long history in America going back more than 150 years. It was first employed during the Antebellum period by opponents of the Fugitive Slave Act. Civil disobedience was primarily responsible for ending segregation in the US. Civil disobedience also helped to end the Vietnam war. It is seen by the people using them as a way to prevent and rectify acts of injustice.
Many people don’t like it. because it disturbs the status quo. However 40% of this country opposes same-sex marriage. Kim Davis was prepared to accept the consequences of her action to help solve the problem of same-sex marriage which has spread to the entire country.
Kim Davis engaged in civil disobedience. So have many people fighting for good causes. Ergo Kim Davis’ stances are justified.
Tiger1307 - I agree that racism is a large problem in this country. However, I don’t think that members of the BLJ were necessarily prepared to accept the consequences of their actions. One of their main concerns, and it was an important factor in the final agreement, was that they NOT be disciplined for their actions.
It took a heck of a lot more than some college “sit ins” to end segregation. While 58,000+ US deaths played a much more significant role in ending the Vietnam war. Lets not make a bigger deal (pro or anti) out of some students irritating college administrations, than we should.
Please, limit the discussion to something close to Princeton and the recent “unrest” on college campuses. We’re barely staying civil now in this thread, if we pull same sex marriage into the thread, it’s days are numbered.
The students did not lose credibility because of their behavior (sure did not help though); they lost credibility because people do not get the logic of their positions. And your quote illustrates this well.
You state that segregation was ended with the help of sit-ins. Sure, no doubt they were useful in moving the ball. But, now the descendants of those same sit-in pioneers are doing sit-ins to ask for re-segregation via segregated safe spaces and segregated housing. Illogical on its face, and an illogical way to go about demonstrating you are against segregation and racism.
They also make it worse for themselves in that they want it to be a one-way street - the “what is good enough for me is not good enough for thee” approach. What if some white and asian students want no part of any of this and just want to study and mind their own business and asked for safe space not to shouted at and taunted by black students? Can there be a safe non-black space to study in the library and to eat without worrying about being disturbed by black students? If students asked for that safe space, the black students would shout to high heaven, even though it is exactly what they are asking for. It is kind of scary they cannot see the absolute dysfunctional logic of their position.
Interesting you are comparing something as historical as the Vietnam protests to students who say they get anxiety attacks just from seeing the statue of a dead white guy - a guy who was prominently displayed and heralded in all the Princeton catalogs. What they missed that in the Princeton college literature and only figured it out when they got there and saw his statue?
And thus the major credibility problem - the Vietnam War is not equivalent to a dead white guy statue and students’ anxiety problems upon seeing his likeness - the students’ position comes of as 100% faux outrage. In contrast, no one doubts the sincerity of the Vietnam War protests. And as for the want of segregated spaces and housing - why stop there if they are so uncomfortable - why not give them their own segregated campus and race-based affinity professors and the like?
Simply, the students have a problem that will never go away - people have figured out that they are not making logical sense. Princeton may placate them, but they will take a huge hit after school. I personally know 27 companies who already said no more hiring of these students, as there are more than enough foreign students and foreign workers to take their place. Too much drama and they have no respect for other people’s space, time, or money yet they want you to respect theirs. They are going to be on a lonely one-way street and they do not even know it, but I am sure they will find a way to protest the situation they got themselves into and blame others.
Major difference is Kim Davis is in a position of power as the County Clerk in Rowan county and is engaging in a protest to maintain her right to deny others marriage rights which has been upheld by higher level Federal courts…including the Supreme Court and in so doing…shove her own religious/personal beliefs down the throats of others while being a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE ON THE TAXPAYER’S DIME.
Not only is she violating the rights of others…she’s also behaving in a high-handed unconstitutional manner in the process.
Very different from the civil disobedience protesters protesting for Civil Rights or the Princeton protesters as they are coming at it from a more marginalized position in relation to those whom they are protesting against…namely local governments/institutions/businesses or university administrations.
Well, when you define something downwards it is easy to find more it and and say it is getting worse. But, the danger is you lose credibility.
For example, in the video, I believed one Princeton student complained that walking into the dining hall and seeing all white students was uncomfortable. (If i got this wrong I am sure someone will correct me). My reaction was “Huh?” None of the white students had even done anything negative to her, but she cited that as a some sort of race issue event. That is just simply trying to find a problem, as none of the white students probably even cared she was there.
When you say no more hiring of these students by 27 companies could you name the companies. Also did you mean specifically black students. If so that would make a great class action law suit. Discrimination in America in hiring is prohibited based on race or national origin. If the company is big enough this could be a huge law suit. You may want to alert your friends who appear to be actively engaged in discriminatory practices based on federal law.
What do you think should be done to address racism? The Princeton students have an opinion. I would love to hear yours
"But, now the descendants of those same sit-in pioneers are doing sit-ins to ask for re-segregation via segregated safe spaces and segregated housing. "
As much as I typically disagree with awcntb politically, I have to agree with him on this. This is bothersome to me.
The students at Princeton didnt ask for segregated housing. They asked for housing where students could celebrate black culture. It is called affinity housing Lots of colleges have affinity housing. awctnb are you against affinity housing?
Despite many posts pointing out that they’re not asking for segregated housing and that such housing not only already exists at many colleges, but are also open to all interested students* who demonstrate a serious interest and willingness to be a respectful of the community involved…some highly biased posters insist on perceiving them as such.
There were Caucasian students who were admitted and lived happily in my LAC's AA and other affinity dorms.
That leads to some new questions, however. At what point do we decide that AA culture has received sufficient exposure and the need for affinity housing is no longer there? When do we stop considering AA’s a group suffering discrimination that needs affinity housing? Is it in 50 years? 100? 2015? Hard to say.
The Irish, for instance, face less discrimination now than they did upon arriving here in the States at first. It took somewhere between 100 and 150 years.
I personally don’t find that a university’s meddling in culture is always the best use of its resources. At least, not when it focuses on a handful of cultures, while consigning others to the dustbin of irrelevance. Asian culture has a long, rich history that could provide fodder for the senior thesis of every Princeton grad for the next century, but it’s rare to see demands for Asian-American affinity housing or increased numbers of Asian faculty, despite the considerable diversity of stereotypes that exist - and recur often - with regards to Asians. How does a university justify this disparity when they build an AA cultural center?
There is no law against not hiring students with poor logic skills and a disregard for the rules.
I am sure many companies would like a list of the protesters that occupied the President’s office, so they will know which resumes belong in the round file.
However, Princeton does not offer such housing and has spent several years trying to strengthen its house system, which places freshman randomly in various named colleges (similar to Yale). I personally think that there are better ways to foster understanding among various ethnicities than offering relatively segregated housing, and I think, given Princeton’s lack of such housing in general, it would not be a good use of funds, but I can understand the other point of view.
Yep, for some reason some people think that if someone has an “other than white” skin color that others must hen accept behavior and positions with which they disagree. Ah, no.
Every company has a philosophy and mission statement (even if not written down) and if what an applicant has done or does is against that company’s philosophy and mission statement then that person does not need to be hired, regardless of skin color.
And more importantly, it is the duty of a company not to hire anyone that it believes reduces the capability of the company to function smoothly. That is a waste of investor dollars and it is not the mission of a company to babysit. Princeton may be into that, but companies are the real deal. i.e., you start messing with people’s money as an employee, i guarantee you that you will not be an employee for long. But some make it easy in that they do stupid stuff before you make the mistake of hiring them.
An issue can’t be hypocritical. Only people can be hypocritical. We do not know whether any of the protestors at Princeton applied for or would accept Rhodes scholarships. There is no basis for calling anybody hypocritical without that information.
hebegebe you may want to crack open the law books and reread post 667where it is said that 27 companies will only hire foreign applicants.
"I personally know 27 companies who already said no more hiring of these students, as there are more than enough foreign students and foreign workers to take their place. "
You can start with Title 29 section 1606 et seq CFR, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 USCS 2000 et seq. I hope this helps
It would be very instructive if we knew the names of those 27 companies with those policies