All depends on how things are handled moving forward. It certainly can.

(I hope the jocular nature of my last post about Kim Anderson is clear to everyone... just trying to lighten the mood a bit. I WAS serious about Loftin/Wolfe being his biggest supporters, though).

Yes yes yes. Everyone's either bigoted or cisgender or whatever it is that has you so wound up at any given time.

Hey, make hey while the sun's shining, sport. Your mob has the wind at it's back so make all the gains you can while you still have people that are willing to blindly buy into this nonsense and pat themselves on the back for being so open-minded.

You and your ilk are the problem. If someone disagrees with the substance - regardless of how much they've said in support of said disagreement - well they're just racist or transphobic or cisgender or whatever.

Until the next time the N word gets used. I don't disagree with the message and the intent and the football team supporting the protests.

I have noticed, however, that there are really no possible solutions being put forward by said protesters. Other than admit white privilege, hire more black people and stop being silent about Michael Brown.

We're going to need a new football thread, lol

Even you have to admit that demanding Wolfe to fess up to his white privilege cheapens the feel of the entire list of demands, no?

Uh oh, it's the self righteous victim come calling...

Anyone who attempts to defend that is an intellectually dishonest "moran". Period

LMAO

I can't make my point any better than being called a racist for being irritated that the University has capitulated to mob rule.

Substance doesn't matter anymore. Dissenting opinions can't be the result of reasoned disagreement - nope; you're a bigot.

This is the modern progressive movement. It really is some Orwellian shit and somehow folks like Reaper just can't see it.

You have to understand the substance to properly disagree with it (and your use of the word "cisgender" here means either that you don't understand THAT separate issue or you're being snarky). The general, uncritical assumption that what protesters are asking for is "batty" and "fringe" is pretty classically racist. I use that word unemotionally, not in the sense of the everlasting damnation of character that many white people think it is. Racism is whatever holds up, reinforces, or creates imbalances & inequalities of power. The idea that Concerned Student 1950's demands are seen as "fanatical" certainly reinforces the very imbalances that the students are protesting in the first place.

It is BASIC for a leader to admit that certain privileges were creating blind spots, allowing for the campus environment becoming what it is. It is an easy, common sense thing to do. It is not at all batty. That's maybe the least controversial demand on their list of demands.

Like, if this movement's demands are batty then what would a more reasonable change look like to legitimately improve the campus experiences of persons of color?

That's a rhetorical question.

It's not Orwellian. It's pretty simply that white Americans and Americans of color can't even begin conversations at a starting point together because one group wants to begin from the point that certain systemic inequalities exist and the other group wants to begin from the point that they don't. They can't get to the substance with each other. And I'm including myself in this critique.

It's still quite unclear that the campus experiences of persons of color need to be improved (any more so than the general proposition that the university should strive to improve all experiences at all times).

The black students say it does. The queer students say it does. The female students say it does. The trans students say it does. I'm going to listen to them before I listen to the white men who refuse to listen to them.

No, calling something batty is a value judgment and not an earmark of racism. You do this shit all the time. I believe I once used the term militant as it related to something a woman said and you immediately called me a mysoginst. When I pointed out that you were being a dipshit, you blamed me for not directing you to a myriad of posts where I had used similar terminology for situations not involving women.

You just keep looking for buzzwords and ignoring all context or substance around them then you blame others because you're unwilling to do the homework.

How 'bout you stop looking for trigger words and start listening to dialogue? I didn't have a strong opinion on 1950 one way or the other UNTIL item one of their list demanded that the University President check his privilege. What a ****ing caricature; it's honest to god what South Park has spent the last 7 weeks openly satirizing. At that point it was clear we were dealing with amateur hour. You're trying to put nuance to the demand that wasn't there - you're simply backing your horse when in fact it was an obviously tone-deaf overreach. Moreover, they had to know that he wouldn't do it because they put language that carries immediate legal significance to it. They weren't interested in demands being met - they were just looking to shout at the darkness.

I've opened the floor to several around here to show me instances of 'systematic racism' at the University of Missouri. Show me things the University has done to condone racist conduct. Show me policies in place that serve to put minority students at a disadvantage.

You say I need to show you what the University needs to do to make minority student's lives more tolerable - I am saying you need to show me where the University is to blame to begin with. Remedial action can't be imposed until liability is established.

You show me actual systematic racism - policies and procedures in place and supported by the University of Missouri that actively diminish the ability of minority students to succeed - and I'll show you where the University can make changes.