@ahl re: your post #1553. I concur that “calling out” racism, the “rape culture” or any other social ill can be valuable in effectuating change, and that what these protestors are saying is no less important than what women are saying. Despite making some progress women still face plenty of challenges in the workplace, and I certainly do not believe that “calling out the rape culture” has made any significant dent in the problem. Cultural change in any context takes time. Protests bring awareness but are by no means a magic bullet. It’s an excruciatingly slow process.
You seem to take issue with posters pointing out that protestors (who are of various ethnic backgrounds), may want to re-think some of their methods of airing grievances - especially once they are beyond the confines of the campus. If the goal is to facilitate these students into positions that will give them access to power, then that advice can only help them in the long run. Once employed they will ultimately be evaluated and promoted based upon the value they add to the organization. They will be expected to resolve conflict and grievances through established procedures, and if unsuccessful they will have the same legal remedies as everyone else.
With a few exceptions, college graduates entering the workforce have little power within the organizations that hire them. Entry level positions are just that. My observation is that those who succeed and ultimately gain access to power, are most often those with an exceptional work ethic, a well developed skill set and an ability to get along with colleagues and clients. The fact that this group is currently disproportionately represented by white males is not particularly surprising to me - they have been at it much longer than women and minorities. Our access to higher education and the acquisition of equal legal rights came much later for us. That’s the way history unfolded.
It’s one thing to recognize the reality of what has occurred in the past, and make attempts to remediate the effects of that injustice. But I see little value in heaping the blame for the “sins of our fathers” onto the shoulders of the current generation. Each generation, and each individual has their own responsibility to bear.
My information comes from reading the notice on various taxis, private car service cars, and yes…charter buses hired by organizations whose activities I took part in.
I’m betting it’s also in the fine print of the contracts considering how widespread this notice posted on the vehicles themselves has been.
Didn’t everyone read the fine print on the front of charter buses when one went on fun school excursions 15 years ago? I know I certainly didn’t waste time talking to my friends or enjoying the scenery. I wanted to read the fine print over by the driver in case I wanted to make an argument 20 years later that fraternity members can be recorded and their conversations considered my personal property to release to the public.
I’ve also seen (and signed) loads of notices and documents releasing various organizations from liability in the event of death and serious injury. It is my understanding that such notifications are often worth little more than the paper they are printed on. I think I’ll wait for an actual legal answer rather than relying on the little sign in the taxi.
“A private bus is a private vehicle; if a company can film you in its private store or office when you walk in, then a private bus can film you in its private place of business as well, on its property. As stated above, there is no expectation of privacy in any of these places.”
Cool! So my company can go film in the restrooms in our office, right? No expectation of privacy?
Back on that thread, some posters argued that the frat guys were not engaging in protected speech, but were actually making serious threats towards AA students. Others argued that it was just the idiocy of some racist frat boys having a private conversation amongst themselves and not even remotely meaning it as a serious threat as might be construed if they shouted those statements on the public quad as AA students walked by them. Then Cobrat made up the part about bus companies owning the conversations of paying customers, ergo it was a public conversation = equivalent of making these statements in a public space on campus in order to create a hostile/threatening educational environment.
However, some have argued that the fact the chant included references to lynching AAs means it should be regarded more as a threatening attitude towards AAs which shouldn’t be considered “free speech”.
An attitude which if exhibited by a student or a member of the campus community is likely to create an unwelcoming threatening environment for AAs or any other marginalized minority group targeted for such chants.
Greg Lukianoff is against so-called PC culture. He knew exactly what he was doing and what result to expect. He also understood private universities have rules against filming, because filming at universities is something he does. He did not need someone to explain that to him. If he did need an explanation, it should have come from Nicholas and Erica Christakis, his long time friends who had invited him to Silliman for a Master’s Tea. And yes, I believe they should have intervened.
Like many others, you seem to be reacting to headlines and video with no information at all about what actually happened. I’m not expecting you to agree with me. I would expect you to support Lukianoff. But you might want to read what happened so you can present an informed opinion. Or not. It’s up to you, of course.
We have some teachers who post here. Teachers, have you ever had angry students yell at you? Do you think some of those students were politically conservative, or were they all seemingly liberal? Are students nowadays more likely to yell and scream now than ten years ago, or twenty? Do you know of screaming arguments between faculty members?
I’m bemused by the idea that screaming arguments are either new or confined to the political left. I wonder, in a casual way, whether this particular screaming argument was more perceptually salient because the screamer was a woman, when loud arguing is stereotypically male.
I think the perception is that, regardless of topic, campus protesters have historically been to the left and that political protests have leaned that way since the Vietnam War. As well, I think it’s perceived that the safe spaces movement is also a left-leaning movement. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to see a relationship between the young woman’s gender and the outrage. It’s more likely that the up-close-and-personalness of the location and video made it seem more inappropriate than it would have if it had been news footage.
If I was part of a marginalized group which has historically suffered from being lynched and the chant referencing lynching took place in a geographic region notorious historically for such violent murderous crimes, it would not be unreasonable for such an individual to feel that chanter is acting in a threatening manner to him/her and his/her group even if it doesn’t meet the technical legal definition.
And as this thread shows, someone who is not part of that marginalized group and/or doesn’t know the history to the point they can empathize to an extent would fail to understand and sometimes even make arguments which could reasonably be interpreted as quite tone-deaf at best to many in that marginalized group.
YOU were making that argument, but according to lawyers who actually have experience in the field of constitutional law, they WERE engaging in protected speech and very few people discussing that believed one iota that they had any intentions of actually lynching anyone and were just singing their stupid fraternity song and unknowingly exposing themselves as racists. “Attitudes” are not illegal. There was no credible threat to anyone. They were singing in the confines of a bus, not screaming outside an AA associated sorority house.
Certain attitudes, however, can conflict with an institution’s mission to create a safe conducive environment for all students…including those from marginalized groups who have been historically discriminated against and lynched in that region and other parts of the US by virtue of being part of said marginalized group.
One of the problems is that oftentimes the experiences of said marginalized groups are often ignored in the creation and passage of such laws because…most of those laws are created and reflect the feelings/perspectives by and for the dominant majority.
After all, slavery and lynchings were for a good portion of our nation’s history considered not only legal, but also considered a moral good for the society by many establishment figures/ruling elite influenced mainstream of the day*…especially in certain regions of the country of which Oklahoma is included.
Even well into the 20th century....many politicians, local elites, and local LEOs...especially southern ones encouraged lynchings of AAs and other groups.
“* Even well into the 20th century…many politicians, local elites, and local LEOs…especially southern ones encouraged lynchings of AAs and other groups.”
Thank you for footnoting this. None of us would have ever known that there was lynching, esp in the south, if it weren’t for these careful footnotes.
Partially because the comments emphasizing “free speech” rights keep eliding over the issue that due to such historical factors which stretch into recent historical memory for many AAs still alive and their families, speech which references lynching in general would be viewed as highly threatening to many in such groups.
Doesn’t matter that it doesn’t meet the legal definition because it’s “too generalized”…many in such groups can and do feel threatened if a White student or a White group long associated with the local/regional establishment institutions like SAE make such chants.
And not too surprisingly, it’s a factor in why institutions which allow such behaviors in this or other situational contexts* end up wondering “why is it that we aren’t attracting many folks from marginalized group?”
I don’t know…threatening speech or institutions/prominent individuals which are perceived as condoning such…even if it doesn’t meet the legal definitions of such can be seriously off putting to many who will reasonably take it as a sign they’re not welcome in that particular environment.
There was a similar controversy in the computer technology and videogaming industries where the same folks who defend "free speech rights" of male participants/leads to make casual sexist remarks then wonder why is it there aren't too many women interested in entering the computer technology/videogaming industries. Some of those defenses included what most reasonable people including LEOs working on such cases consider bona-fide threats against specific women: