"I think it is far better to hear the speaker. If you don’t want to listen, don’t go. The LACs that are nurturing this violence and hate and fear are teaching the wrong message to the students. "
Can we get off the track of throwing LACs under the bus? We’ve already established that “LACs” aren’t along in dealing with the issues of free speech and all its challenges.
"but you have to acknowledge that there is real violence being perpetrated against people of a particular political bent? "
Are you talking about Muslims or the people at the Trump rallies that Trump said should be beaten up and he would pay any associated legal bills for beating them up?
Ok @doschicos, you forced me to google
Here is USAToday
http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/15/heres-how-universities-are-offering-support-to-students-after-trumps-election/
And the WSJ
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/11/09/colleges-try-to-comfort-students-upset-by-trump-victory/
And in a related vein Huffpo
https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_582ccff5e4b058ce7aa8ff5e/amp
There’s more if you care to look.
And once again I resorted to google and the kid at UMass was triggleypuff. Jiggleypuff is a cartoon character.
I suppose if it is important to you you can use the site’s search function and pull up the threads.
@collegedad13, I respect your right to have a political opinion, but can we discuss this issue without political references or partisan attacks? I’d like this thread to continue as I find it interesting, but it will be shut down if it veers off into politics.
No @collegedad13, I am talking about what happened at Berkeley and Midd.
In short, Murray’s research was funded by the same folks who funded and advocated in favor of old biological and racial deterministic theories which were widely popular in European and American elite and highly educated circles from the mid-late 19th century up until the complete defeat of the Axis powers in the mid-late '40s.
Keep in mind…theories which the Nazis used to justify and perpetuate war crimes and genocides against the Jewish, Roma, and other marginalized populations deemed “racially inferior”.
And also, in the process, the Nazi racial theorists even attempted to carve out an exception for their Japanese ally in the Axis pact by dubbing them “honorary Aryans” and thus, valid allies.
Innovative research adding intellectual diversity…or a rebranding of discredited/debunked ideas which were perpetuated to justify the legitimacy of the prevailing ruling class whether they’d be the local White southern elites or their aristocratic/upper-class European counterparts across the pond?
@Ohiodad51 So, a handful of schools are mentioned and one irate legislator from Iowa. Even the schools mentioned in your links, many of them talk about discussions with professors. Who knows if discussions would have taken place anyway regardless of who won? In fact I do remember reading professors say they did plan discussions for post-election. The only thing that probably changed was the tone and tenor of the discussion.
And, yup. I just searched on your term “triggleypuff” and the only result I got was yours above. (And now mine 
).
Again, my point is you extrapolating from a few instances to make it seem widespread.
Wait, we’re six weeks into this presidency by chaos and there are still people mocking students who experienced grief in November? I suggest you commend them (the grief stricken) on their perceptiveness and move along.
Whatever. I am not sure what your problem is with me @doschicos, I usually find your posts both humorous and substantive. What I said was that In 1984 (when I was in college), the idea of colleges providing grief counselors would have seemed outrageous. It apparently is not today. Do I have proof that every college in America had clinical grief counseling services for Hillary fans after the election? No. But I never said anything like that either. You want to run with that, or with the argument that articles in the huffpo, WaPo, USAToday and WSJ within a week or so of each other is not “widely reported”, and that I am making stuff up, go right ahead.
The Trigglypuff thing is ugly…just another scenario that some parents somewhere are probably cringing about and is caught for the forseeable future in that particular student’s life. That was my thought the other morning…how angry I would be if I saw a journalists photo of one of my kids doing something like this on a campus especially coming out of my family where everyone has a different angle and a different belief about everything…you learn to listen, ask pointed questions and tamp your emotions in that environment.
@Ohiodad51 My point is let us have a discussion without referencing some isolated events in a way that attempts to drag in “what liberals do”. I could bring in all kinds of isolated examples of “what conservatives do” if I wished to go there. I don’t because I don’t lump everyone together based on some isolated events, because it is divisive, and it’s not pertinent to this discussion. Triggleypuff, Jiggleypuff, whatever, has no bearing here and the poor person probably has other issues which have zero to free speech or anything being discussed here. It’s just noise.
Since it’s unclear from your post, would you be angry at the journalist or* your kid?
*I realize it could be both but that’s not a very fun answer.
<That said, I wish universities would stop promoting people who use bad science and misuse statistics. There are certainly debates to be had and they should happen- even testy, controversial debates. But institutions of higher ed need to stop putting up people who have been repeatedly debunked in the interest of “fairness.”
It’s one of the reasons that things like anti-vaxx “debates” still get so much traction. In some debates, there aren’t “two sides to every story,” there are just sides that are right and sides that are wrong based on decades of research. >
What seems like “wrong” to you, may seem very right to me! For example, I do NOT believe in the universal mantra of immunizing newborns against sexually transmitted diseases. Just for the sake of pharma profits. I do have STEM degree. My dad is a renowned MD. He is against immunizations and so do I. So what?
When and why people start deciding for others what is an “appropriate” topic to discuss and what is deplorable? If you don’t want to discuss the very real harm of immunization - do not come to the anti-vaxx forum!
Misuse of statistics?! Common! Half of the humanities “research” that misuses statistics, critical thinking, and common sense. Personally, I do believe that almost all current “political science” research is based on the bad science. Should we get rid of political science departments if they use “bad science”? Theology?
<remember columbia="" university="" inviting="" ahmadinejad="" to="" speak?="">
Yale invites Black Panthers.
Why do you think that students did it? In my experience, (IMHO, only) faculty is far more extremist. Remember, Melissa Click? Remember that faculty (UC Santa Barbara, I believe), who physically attached a prolife student?
I bet it was a righteous, uber-paid, tenured faculty, who attacked Professor Stanger. And I bet this person is very proud of his/ her actions.
Who had invited these “outside agitators”? Where did they got info about the event? Who agitated them?
I bet, some tenured faculty was behind the mayhem.
There would be nothing to discuss about this incident if we must speak of it only in a vacuum. I assume most would agree (not that long ago I would have said all) that attacking a professor and jumping on a car trying to leave the event are bad. We I guess could argue about whether the people who were violent were students or not, or whether they were evil conservatives on a mission to make the college look bad. But that is really not very interesting or productive. I would argue that the familiar “this is an isolated incident/conservatives are worse” argument that gets made every time this issue comes up is equally unproductive.
In my opinion, it is wrong to ignore that there is a pattern of ever escalating attempts to exclude unwanted opinions from campuses across the country. That’s the issue, and that’s the point of the thread. Or at least it was before someone changed it.
Yet, you still haven’t answered the questions I asked previously? Why is that? If someone is attacking the funding source of research, it’s usually because they can’t find any substantive flaws.
"I bet it was a righteous, uber-paid, tenured faculty, who attacked Professor Stanger. And I bet this person is very proud of his/ her actions. " Where did you come up with that?
There are some reports that the police caused the problem. What do you think of that?