You know, I keep seeing stuff like this in the news and I can't help but think there's some nefarious shit going on here. Like, by and large BLM and other protest movements are protesting because members of their community are literally getting murdered by police forces, yet here's all this shit that the media knows is going to get mocked by the majority of the populace. It feels like an active action to discredit the real and valuable work that activists do by manipulating the narrative to conflate this crap with what the bulk of activists are doing.
There's a certain degree of "no one wants to be left out of the campus agitating game" going on. I think people to some degree feel that as a racially conscious black student, they're morally obligated to be protesting. No one wants to be accused, down the road, of sitting by idly during a big moment. And in the interest of developing tangible demands, they feel the need to identify something specific to their campus.
Free speech from a constitutional standpoint does not apply here, mainly because there is no "state action" involved. Like I said during the Donald Sterling controversy when people were yelling "but free speech man!" on social media: The only way that would have violated his right to free speech is if the police showed up at his house and arrested him because of those tapes. If there is no state action, there is NO free speech violation. This cannot be emphasized enough. Here's an extremely abridged version of what they teach in law school regarding free speech as it could possibly apply here (spoiler alert: It doesn't). I'm putting it up just so everyone has a reference point. Spoiler: First Amendment The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment is applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (the Fourteenth Amendment is basically how you get any constitutional protection applied to the states). Basically the government can neither censor all categories of speech nor engage in content-based discrimination among different categories of speech, with some exceptions which don’t apply here, such as passing strict scrutiny (a test that puts the burden on the government to prove that the censorship is necessary to further a compelling interest—this practically never happens), when the government is the “speaker,” etc. Additionally, a regulation that relates to unprotected speech is admissible. Unprotected speech includes 1) speech that advocates violence or unlawful action (i.e. cross-burning on someone’s lawn), 2) “fighting words” (as a practical matter you can’t really make statutes against fighting words since the they are subject to facial invalidity if the conduct proscribed is too vague—such as a law prohibiting “opprobrious words”—or overbroad), 3) hostile audience speech, and obscene speech (i.e. child pornography). Absolutely none of this applies to the Yale situation. Some restrictions, such as time, place and manner restrictions, can be allowed depending on the forum involved. If the forum is a public forum (think streets, sidewalks and parks) then the time place and manner restriction must pass a three part test. The regulation must: · Be content-neutral as to subject matter and viewpoint (i.e. the regulation cannot prefer some messages over others) · Be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest; and · Leave open alternative channels of communication For a non-public forum (think military bases, jails, government workplaces etc.), the test is more lenient. The test is that the regulation must: · Be viewpoint-neutral; and · Reasonably related to a legitimate interest Incidentally, this message board is a private forum, so again NONE of this applies. There is a LOT more to the First Amendment than this (we haven't even gotten to religion yet). Law students typically spend a year studying Constitutional Law (in my law school we had an entire class on just the First Amendment), and it is heavily tested on the Bar Exam. Regarding the "bad ideas need to be minimized" line of thought, they already are. It's referred to as the "marketplace of ideas." Here's an example: Anyone sane admits that the Holocaust actually happened. Yet every so often there comes some nutcase with "proof" that it was all some clever forgery or some other bullshit. This is, to put it mildly, extremely stupid. Yet we don't "censor" them. We allow them to spread their ridiculous ideas (while mocking them accordingly) and eventually they disappear into the ether. You absolutely cannot have a democracy without this. The moment any one group starts censoring the "bad" ideas, no matter how noble their intentions are, you've essentially opened the doorway for it to happen to any other idea.
I will probably be in a minority here (see what I did there?) but I think tattoos, especially the visible neck, face, hand, forearm variety are indicative of bad decision making and might decide that they are not a perfect candidate for a position that leaves them a lot of room to make potentially detrimental decisions to my company. Plus, in the agricultural community (read a lot of very conservative people including Amish) people tend to judge quickly on appearance. I know that having tattoos does not make someone stupid or unable to perform their duties, I just think it shows a tendency to make poor decisions. I know that is not entirely accurate but I'm trying to answer honestly.
There was nothing stopping her from not quitting. In fact there were 50-some-odd faculty members signing a petition rushing to her defense (can't find the link at the moment). People, rightly or wrongly, deal with backlash from their words all the time. This isn't suppressing speech or imposing censorship, this is her taking her ball and going home. When you (or anyone else) says this is a "free speech issue" literally everyone in the US thinks "constitutionally protected" and that is simply not true in this case. As a sidenote, Yale University only started condoning freedom of speech in 1974 (which again has nothing to do with the Constitution). http://www.boston.com/news/educatio...speech-yale/Av9YMx4OZ7Sun90LWeUmPI/story.html
Don't think many people find that to be a good look, but if someone sincerely did, and they weren't intending to insult or mock, I don't see the problem (especially if they actually grew their temple hair versus wearing fakes, because I doubt someone would go through that much effort). Again: context matters. Why is it ignorant? I'm not seeing the connection between wearing something from another culture you think is pretty and endorsing the horrible things that have happened to that culture -- UNLESS, as I mentioned, you're bopping your mouth, stomping your feet going 'hey-oh-oh-oh', or flat out saying, "Look, I'm a missing indigenous girl!", because you think it's funny. What if a girl is fully aware of everything you mentioned and wears it as a mild form of solidarity with yet another segment of her disproportionately abused gender (and also thinks it's pretty)? My point is that cultural appropriation is not a binary thing, as much as these students for some reason want it to be, and I think attempting to make it so is regressive. I'll ask again: does this apply only to clothing? Why or why not? I would argue that appropriating other cultures' music is way more common AND one of the most effective ways of breaking down cultural barriers. Also meant to mention that I find a lot of what these students are doing to be masturbatory -- it's incredibly easy, and feels good in the moment to release their frustration at the calm, docile professors for the crime of pointing out that policing what adults wear is an absurd demand. Apparently, it's much more difficult to whip out their phones to confront and snap their fingers at their fellow students who are ACTUALLY being offensive.
Apparently I am a socially acceptable Cute Little Princess who will never have a job that pays taxes and I also need to visit a clinic...Damn...My Friday just got turned upside down.
Since it's been brought up that we have decent representation from minority groups on this forum, I had a question I was hoping someone could shed some light on. From the different minority communities, what are the adults teaching the younger generations about racism / -ism's in general? By younger generations, I mean 5-10, 10-15 year olds. The reason I ask, although we are nowhere near perfect, I don't think there has been a better time to be a minority in the westernized developed countries then at the current moment. So, what's being done to promote that outlook on life, as opposed to always bringing things back to the negative aspects of the conversation? I've heard a lot of comments in this thread both from male and female that boils down to complaining about what's not right with the world and completely ignoring all progress that has been made so far in a VERY short period of time. Is there anything being done in any of the communities, be it feminist, black, trans, etc, to build upon the positive aspects while continuing to chip away at the remaining negative attitudes? This line of thinking came from reading this article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/12...-they-might-as-well-be-on-another-planet.html
Also, what are peoples thoughts on naming children and, for lack of a better term, ethnic/racial-sounding names? For example, my son's name is clearly a southern name. We wanted to go a little more country than what it ended up being, but at the same time we were aware it might impact him professionally and socially (negatively or positively) as he gets older and attitudes change. You name IS your first impression. So we altered it slightly accordingly. Regardless, if he were ever to apply for a job in the New England area, for example, his application would be mocked and thrown out based upon his name alone. Although they might call him in just for shits and giggles to see if he arrived on horseback.
If you give your kid a stupid name they will be mocked. You've been around here long enough to see the threads that pop up once or so a year so that people can make fun of names. It's not right. But then again most funny things aren't.
This article is somewhat concerning to read. You hear all about the growing threat of domestic terrorism and the thought of sleeper cells but I guess I didn't really expect this: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/us/enrique-marquez-san-bernardino-attacks.html?_r=0 A young man who seems a little lost and easily lead who gets caught up in terrorism. I've had similar discussions with people about the younger generation of Americans today, their attitudes and their outlooks. How do we reach a point where this becomes a viable option in impressionable young American peoples minds? What does this say about our society at large?
I mean, does this even need to be asked? Though if you think that all they do is complain and protest I suppose that explains why you might be dismissive toward them. I mean seriously, you yourself talked about the progress that's been made in the past 50 years; did you just think that happened all on its own?
The problem is, that IS all we hear/read. Take this story of a professor that was detained briefly by the police because he matched the description of a robbery suspect. They continued to detain him after he told them he wasn't the suspect. When they were sure he wasn't the suspect, they apologized and let him go. Suuurrre he's not being dramatic. I've been wrongly detained with a gun pointed at my fucking head. It sucks, but I didn't get all full of righteous victimization afterwards. I mean, what are the cops supposed to do? Unless they personally witness a crime, just shine it on? Believe every suspect that says "I'm not the guy you're looking for" ? It sounds like the cops acted appropriately, and still he still complains it's because he's black. The. Fucking. Suspect. Was. Black. Too. And they were dressed similarly. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...88025e4b009377b236c54?utm_hp_ref=black-voices
I've been detained by the police too, for thinking I was driving a stolen vehicle. I told them I wasn't and get this... they didn't just believe me! The injustice. Then again I'm not crazy, so I didn't automatically think I was probably going to die. Which is interesting because it sounds exactly the same. Between this and people wearing feathers, if you're going to complain about shit like this, then no, the racial profiling and horror will never end. By your standards it's not even remotely possible that it can end. Parker, they're drawing attention to stuff that never even happened. Is that what you're applauding? This is very, very different than just not handling it perfecting. It's being a liar to add legitimacy to your cause, but here's the thing; if it's legitimate in the first place you don't have to lie. You're in some very good company with these Yale students. I can't help it. You do realize Nom had made like 6 pointless posts in a row before Nett finally deleted one, right? The attempts at humor being a spectacular failure aside, it's not like he was adding anything to the discussion. You'll notice that once he wrote something with a drop of substance it wasn't just deleted. You know what seems like real racism to me? How about this guy? He's an associate justice for the supreme court and thinks black people should stay out of quality universities because they're too dumb. That's what racism looks like. Now, why the fuck are we talking about a bunch of spoiled liars instead of real racism like this?
Honestly, yeah I have to ask, and your response to me kind of points to the reason why. I ask a pretty innocuous question that was looking for some insight into what minority groups are teaching the next generations about racism. You don't offer any information about the question I asked, you're dismissive of someone trying to engage in a conversation about a racial issue, and you even go as far as to make up a narrative about my beliefs and my stance on the subject without knowing ANYTHING about what I actually think about the topic. So yeah, I think it's appropriate to ask a question about what type of commentary we are passing along to a younger generation of people.
Alright, here's something right here, for example: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...takes-first-step-to-fighting-isis-recruitment https://www.minnpost.com/politics-p...s-group-fighting-radicalization-muslim-youths For 10 years I worked for a community clinic which primarily served the eastern African immigrant population in Minneapolis & St. Paul. In addition to what I linked above, there was lots of community action toward getting east African immigrants integrated with US society: A community outreach worker would hold discussions against FGM and why it was wrong and illegal, other outreach workers would teach the importance of dental care to the community, there's persistent effort to reduce and eliminate tribalism within the Somali community, and more stuff. So, about me "making up a narrative about my beliefs and stance on the subject without knowing ANYTHING about what I actually think about the topic"; I think you made your beliefs pretty clear when you said this: So, based on this post, it appears to me that you think people should just shut the fuck up about the injustices and inequities they face because we've made some progress so far. I say that because I don't have any idea of what "building upon the positive aspects" means if fighting to eliminate further injustice/inequity doesn't count. What, are black people supposed to have a party every July 2nd celebrating the fact that the Civil Rights act outlawed Jim Crow? Feminists celebrating the right to vote? Besides, what good does it do for marginalized groups to build upon positive aspects (whatever that means) when you have shit like the Dothan police department planting drugs and guns on black suspects in order to send them to jail? (Or the CPD gunning down black guys in the back. Or all the shit the NYPD's done over the years.) I mean do you honestly think that if marginalized groups just had a cheerful attitude people would just stop being prejudiced? And if I'm wrong about this, then tell me: What does building upon positive aspects mean? What does it look like?
Yeah, whenever that question of "but what about all the good things that have happened" comes up, it just seems like whoever's asking it hasn't done much to see for themselves what's actually going on in any of those communities outside of what their critics are portraying them as. (Or Tumblr.) The whole history of any kind of -ism is taught through the lense of progress, and a huge part of those communities is celebrating that progress and the progress that's continuing to be made. To take a less emotionally fraught subject, lately there's been a lot of focus in women-oriented media and groups on the successes women in tech have made, and highlighting all the good work they've done and the adversity they've overcome to get it done. Of course, for any of those conversations, there's always a subtext of "but there's still more adversity to overcome and we could do better." Just like, of course, for any of those conversations, there's always a subtext of "but, hey, at least we're allowed to have careers now." There's just not really a point in acknowledging that all the time because it's implicitly understood, just like there's not really a point of framing any kind of activist action in celebrating that progress. "Thanks for finally making it illegal for husbands to rape their wives 22 years ago and also can we as a country acknowledge that taking an upskirt photo is not the same as taking a photo of a building?"