Recapping the Different "Micro-Aggression" Protests

You’ve read the thousand or so posts on six different threads, covering college protests that threatened to ripple across the nation like a bad stomach virus… So, come here for your one-stop college protest tournament “micro-aggression edition”. How did they stack up? Who emerged as winners? Who set back the cause of equal rights fifty years?

Here is my completely biased analysis, starting with the most successful and working my way down:

Mizzou - Until about three weeks ago, this was not a college, but, the name of a spicy soup. Then, their football team landed them on the front page of the NYT for something few sports teams ever do: risking their scholarships for a cause. The initial gale wind of the commentariat was against them until the day after their president and chancellor stepped down, two white students were arrested for making violent threats over the internet, thus proving the old adage that “occasionally, even paranoids have enemies.”

Princeton - Say what you will, these kids single-handedly lifted the lid on one of the best kept secrets in American history: Woodrow Wilson wasn’t merely a casual racist, he was an intentional segregationist who used all the powers of his office to overturn the results of civil service exams in order to keep blacks in their place. To paraphrase the Editorial Board of the New York Times: “Who knew?”

Amherst - After seeing Princeton take on Woodrow Wilson, it was heartening to see Amherst answer back with a resounding kick in the pants to a genocidal mascot that should have been retired years ago.

Wesleyan - What initially began as a protest against a badly written student op-ed about Black Lives Matter (which apparently could not be answered by an equally badly written op-ed, supporting BLM), gradually devolved into a tussle over the student newspaper budget. In fact, we would probably still be debating whether censorship is really censorship if nothing has actually been censored - if Mizzou hadn’t blown it off the commentariat radar.

Claremont McKenna College - A dean resigned after a letter surfaced wherein she referred to certain students as “not fitting the mold .” I guess the question here is, “Do you really want to fit the mold?”

Ithaca College - A prominent alumnus carelessly referred to a student panelist as a “savage”. Query: how do you make an alumnus resign? Oh, you ask the college president to step down instead.

Williams College - Though this was not technically about race, the rescinding of an invitation to a controversial anti-feminist speaker was enough to get Williams thrown in with the whole “We’re Coddling Our Children With Anti-Free Speech Trigger Warnings” target zone.

Yale - This was about Halloween costumes.

I’d say Mizzou was very successful but the protesters lost significant advancement when they attempted to deny others their First Amendment rights. Big mistake. Huge.

Vanderbilts protests were also dealt a set back when students jumped way too quickly to a conclusion and ended up unjustly accusing a student of a hate crime ( involving feces left on the Black Student Center porch) only to be smacked down by the student who turned to be a blind student who couldn’t find a trash can for her service dogs droppings. . She practically accused them of micro aggressions against the disabled.

You left out the ugly scene at Dartmouth. The protesters lost all credibility when they went into the library and shouted racial epithets at the students studying in there.

You probably missed a few:
http://www.thedemands.org/

^Interesting that the only Harvard component with an official set of demands is the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health:
http://www.chanschooljustice.org/blackout-action-nov-19/.

Seems like some of the protesters would have done better if they had consulted with the political science and rhetoric majors among them to figure out how to best market their viewpoints to gain political support rather than alienating it.

@ucbalumnus I think there is a tendency for protesters to think their actions are far more “popular” and supported by the general public, than is truly the case. It makes me think of how Ronald Reagan targeted the UC Berkeley’s student peace activists, and professors, during his successful campaign for governor.

Ronald Reagan launched political career using the Berkeley campus as a target

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/06/08_reagan.shtml

@zapfino, Wow, who knew…

like many protests they start out with legitimate complaints. Once the organizers get the feel for power they devolve into the ludicrous demands we have seen at some schools or are hijacked by that bipolar prof at Mizzou.

@Gator88NE - I think it’s only fair to point out that when Reagan was inveighing against the protesters at Berkeley, the threshold issue was whether students - ANY students - had the right to free speech. Reagan’s position was “no” they don’t.

@circuitrider Reagan wasn’t attacking “free speech” but the perceived “rioting and anarchy”.

Of course we could argue if the Gipper went to far or over-reacted. That’s not my point. My point is that these campus movements are not as popular as the students believe, and politicians can take advantage of them, if they start to cross a line (whatever that line is…). These things can go too far and lead to a fairly strong blowback.

@Gator88NE - Reagan conflated any use of Sproul Plaza for staging protests with rioting; as far as he was concerned the students were breaking the law by even assembling there. This is from the very same article you cited upstream:

I think there was a lot more to the Claremont McKenna situation. That dean of students had ignored many ugly incidents spanning several years. The letter that you refer to was just the trigger for the protests, not the reason she resigned. She basically resigned before she could be fired for being a lousy dean.

From today’s column by David Brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/opinion/the-year-of-unearthed-memories.html?_r=0