Per twitter no student section for this game

[EastCoast2]

This validates nothing. Now I hope he has no free pizza, not from Jim Boeheim, and not from anyone!
No free pizza!

The whole system has you both hardwired to be defensive about these things! It's quite literally in your DNA!

When Kent steps out the door after his tire is slashed, the power dynamic will always lie in his favor. He can never understand the complexities inherent in being a POC. Donald Sterling dates POC, on an individual level he may have some insight into something, but who doesn't, and who cares if they do? We all do. Someone will tell you they were profiled, they dated a black woman or man and got stared at, they lived in another country and people were rude to them - whoopity-damned-dooooo! They still go home, turn on an old episode of Friends, and bask in the glow of their whiteness. The safety and security of that surrounds them like a LL Bean Microplush electric blanket! The really good one, with 10 temperature settings instead of 5. That one isn't nearly worth the $115 price tag...5 temperature settings??? Really?

When he calls the police, when he confronts someone over the action, he does so from a position of power - he is able to leverage his whiteness, not consciously, but in every interaction when he steps out the door - he does, and he can. He has his whole life. That doesn't position him to understand or have any sort of special knowledge. He can't have that.

He does not.

He should be fired.

 

[OrangeDW]

not in the last 8 days. That’s for sure!

Its like the Seinfeld episode “The contest” when George and Jerry were so backed up, they were snapping at each other over socks or something.

 

[OttoMets]

the university was very pleased with how the Jewish community handles this which made it easier. They were looked at as more like suggestions and not demands. Without the hysterics also.

Plus in an academic-friendly format, which is nice.

(Actually, it's hilariously stereotypical, but I think the humor ship has sailed on the whole situation.)

 

[OttoinGrotto]

 

[orange79]

Its like the Seinfeld episode “The contest” when George and Jerry were so backed up, they were snapping at each other over socks or something.

SU protesters:

 

[OttoMets]

I have a feeling Casey is going to be disappointed.

The only accurate thing out of her mouth was "thank you and good night."

She's got a future as ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

 

[EastCoast2]

I think the worst part about this entire situation is that there are many people that are unhappy that it didn’t turn out to be KKK/neo-nazi terrorists goose stepping around Euclid Ave. The increasing likelihood that this was a combination of a prank gone wrong, drunk frat bros, and antagonistic opportunists forces some (posters here included) to come down from their uber woke moral pedestal.

Syracuse University does not have an existential racism threat. That should be the end of this story.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

This validates nothing. Now I hope he has no free pizza, not from Jim Boeheim, and not from anyone!
No free pizza!

The whole system has you both hardwired to be defensive about these things! It's quite literally in your DNA!

When Kent steps out the door after his tire is slashed, the power dynamic will always lie in his favor. He can never understand the complexities inherent in being a POC. Donald Sterling dates POC, on an individual level he may have some insight into something, but who doesn't, and who cares if they do? We all do. Someone will tell you they were profiled, they dated a black woman or man and got stared at, they lived in another country and people were rude to them - whoopity-damned-dooooo! They still go home, turn on an old episode of Friends, and bask in the glow of their whiteness. The safety and security of that surrounds them like a LL Bean Microplush electric blanket! The really good one, with 10 temperature settings instead of 5. That one isn't nearly worth the $115 price tag...5 temperature settings??? Really?

When he calls the police, when he confronts someone over the action, he does so from a position of power - he is able to leverage his whiteness, not consciously, but in every interaction when he steps out the door - he does, and he can. He has his whole life. That doesn't position him to understand or have any sort of special knowledge. He can't have that.

He does not.

He should be fired.

So, he should be fired because he is white. That is what you just said. He should be fired based upon his race.
Dumbest thing ever on this site.
I think, based solely upon this post, you would be happier living someplace with few to no white people. You should make that happen, for your own happiness.

 

[Alsacs]

So, he should be fired because he is white. That is what you just said. He should be fired based upon his race.
Dumbest thing ever on this site.
I think, based solely upon this post, you would be happier living someplace with few to no white people. You should make that happen, for your own happiness.

I think the post was a troll job. I don’t believe he means what he posted or it’s basically an Equal Protection Clause violation if Syverud is fired strictly because he is white.

 

[NineOneSeven]

So, he should be fired because he is white. That is what you just said. He should be fired based upon his race.
Dumbest thing ever on this site.
I think, based solely upon this post, you would be happier living someplace with few to no white people. You should make that happen, for your own happiness.

He’s trolling and doing an incredible job. Amazing satire.

 

[shandeezy7]

I think the worst part about this entire situation is that there are many people that are unhappy that it didn’t turn out to be KKK/neo-nazi terrorists goose stepping around Euclid Ave. The increasing likelihood that this was a combination of a prank gone wrong, drunk frat bros, and antagonistic opportunists forces some (posters here included) to come down from their uber woke moral pedestal.

Syracuse University does not have an existential racism threat. That should be the end of this story.

Who here is unhappy about that? Please call them out by name.

 

[Bayside44]

So, he should be fired because he is white. That is what you just said. He should be fired based upon his race.
Dumbest thing ever on this site.
I think, based solely upon this post, you would be happier living someplace with few to no white people. You should make that happen, for your own happiness.

He’s not serious

 

[orange79]

He’s not serious

Hope you're right.

 

[cuse522]

Lots of bad takes here. Let's start here: the chancellor is a professional at/near the top of his field, making around $1,000,000 a year to do his job, with about 20 years in major leadership positions at various major universities. He's got a law degree and clerked for a Supreme Court Justice. He's 63 years old. He should be comfortable/used to handling public high pressure situations.

The students protesting are 18-22, so they have very little experience at this sort of thing, little/no experience at being in the limelight, and are more likely to be more emotionally invested in this whole thing and to act on that emotion for any number of reasons. Even the leaders are trying to keep the positions of the entire group in mind, and they're all also more likely to get caught up in the emotion/excitement of being part of a big group. They don't have much life experience in terms of overcoming that.

Meanwhile, it's part of the chancellor's job to know all of that and act accordingly.

So let's keep that in mind while evaluating the performances and positions of everyone involved.

So, for example, when the students make a demand with regard to student housing that's literally illegal, it's a stupid demand - but I don't consider them stupid for making it. I can see what their *goal* was - to create a more comfortable situation for freshman students of color in an environment where there has been some recent high profile racism. That's a very reasonable goal. Asking for something illegal in order to accomplish it was not productive, but they're not lawyers. There are also plenty of reasons why this is a bad idea that might not have been productive even if it was legal, given that it's leading toward a form of self-selecting segregation. Now, I could argue either side of it in the context of choosing roommates or characteristics for your roommate, but that's a separate conversation.

But if you ask me who has the most blame in terms of the process and how it's played out in regard to that demand, to me it's on Syverud. He should have sat down one-on-one or in a small group with some of the leaders of the protest and said, "Look, this is literally illegal, so we can't do it... But I think I know what your goal is, and I'd like to discuss with you ways that we can work toward that end within the law so that I can help you in this regard and we can do so legally. First I want to make sure - what are your goals with this request?"

Now we can get somewhere. To my knowledge, that never happened. He may have tried to do so when addressing the protesters or in the forum, but those are emotionally charged environments where that's not going to be a realistic thing that's going to happen. He knows that (or he should). It's his job to create an opportunity for that discussion to take place, and it's the protesters job to take it and go in with a game plan and then it's on both of them to be understanding and reasonable. He should definitely give something in that area, and should do his best to make them happy. They should give him the benefit of the doubt going in, including ignoring his past mistakes on these issues for the purposes of having a frank and beneficial discussion. They have every right to try to hold him accountable for past mistakes, but they should still represent their movement on that issue during that meeting.

Now, as far as I know, this conversation never happened nor did Syverud give it the opportunity to happen. That's on him, if you ask me.

So that's one example, I'll go through and address some specific posts that were bad and/or interesting.

Thanks. I was also thinking that if there were cameras especially outside of a new development, that the person would be caught.

You'd be amazed at how little some cameras can pick up in regard to facial detail. I dated someone who worked in casino surveillance and they had a shooting in a garage caught on several cameras, plus the suspects were on camera entering and leaving the casino. None had a clear enough image of the suspect's face to make any sort of positive identification. Their best lead was off a camera that picked up the license plate when they were entering/exiting the property.

Yeah this is ridiculous. It's a good way to lose support from others when you turn "negotiations" into "demands."

There's nothing wrong with making demands in regard to matters of equality. We shouldn't negotiate on important things like that. If Syverud handled this better, there could have been a discussion that led to progress on all of these issues with great input from the students. It never should have been a negotiation in any form, but rather a cooperative effort to achieve the goals of the students in the most effective and realistic ways. In some cases I think their demands won't be very effective, but he signed off on them because they're fine. Even in those cases I consider his work to be insufficient as chancellor because he could have sat down with them and offered to do more or to do something a little different that would have been more productive.

He should have never give in to any of their demands. Only thing worth saying is that whoever did it will be dealt with via any avenues the University has available. You give an inch and a mile will always be taken. The list of demands made no sense and you could see where this was going.

Hold up. Like which of these 16 that he agreed to are bad? Have you read the list? There are plenty of good ideas on there that he should have been happy to sign off on.

Also, "You give an inch and a mile will always be taken," is a really stupid and offensive thing to say about matters of racial inequality.

As an aside the admin handled this terribly too...but at this moment on time the kids are the ones refusing to talk

Is that the case? Am I unaware of Syverud attempting to sit down privately (or publicly) with a small group of them in a setting and context where their concerns will be heard and a cooperative effort to solve problems through open discussion and exchange of ideas can take place?

Go get a worse degree at an HBCU

This is stupid and offensive, and I'm saying that as a white guy. There are plenty of very good HBCU's, and while I'm proud of my degree at SU, we're not the creme de la creme.

Sorry, man, I'm all about whatever makes SU a more inclusive place, but I really have no patience for college students who do public stuff that's detrimental to the institution. And they're getting nearly everything wrong this week. Loudly.

You have no patience for college kids making mistakes? That's silly. The idea that we should all put the institution's reputation over the people who are studying and teaching there is also pretty ridiculous. Institutions of all kinds often protect privileged groups and protect systems that are in place to preserve power for the powerful, wealth for the wealth, and racial/gender/etc privilege. I'm not accusing SU of all of that, but there's certainly some of it, and we should be more concerned with making SU the best place it can be for everyone who attends than protecting its reputation.

Doing that over and over is how you get and keep a tremendous reputation.

Anyone on the kids side here explain to me how man could STOP the actions of one or even ten racists?

there is clearly a diverse ideology on the Hill. I feel like I see it just as a fan.

He couldn't stop it in advance, but he could have handled the response with more urgency and transparency initially. He didn't read the room well, he didn't speak out publicly enough, he didn't understand the fear gripping campus/students/faculty after the manifesto came into play, he didn't give enough public support to people who felt threatened, and for those concerned with the university's reputation he would have done well to ask a freshman PR major what he should do at pretty much any point in the process.

Again if you aren't willing to compromise you won't accomplish anything in life. These "protesters" will show what they truly are today.
If they don't want to accept the deal from Syverud let them finish the semester and move onto another academic institution.

They're not negotiating a salary and benefits package here, or a political deal over the federal budget. He's also not refusing to give them all 19 out of any sort of principle, but because he views the other three as impossible as requested. Why can't he be the leader in the situation and work with them on that by being the one to reach out? Isn't that sort of what SU pays him almost $1,000,000 for? To be a leader?

To be honest, I think that most of these are pretty well-thought out and not very difficult to accomplish. The edits are required and very reasonable. Hopefully the students will see this.

I agree with this, but I also think accomplishing the goals of the three that had to be edited is relatively simple and something Syverud should be trying to do.

Hypothetical question: so let’s say it turns out that these have been false flags perpetrated by some of the protesting organizations - do they still get those demands met, or does the chancellor reverse it?

Why in the world would/should he reverse course on stuff that is good for the student body at large, good for the university and common sense? It's not like he's giving them compensation or damages due to their emotional distress.

And, for the record, so far we know of no false flags.

BTW the same race checkbox is akin to separate but equal mindset. Everyone fought against segregation and these protestors want it back in a demand. Your freshman first semester roommate is the only semester its not in your control. This demand is just ridiculous.

They're kids. Imagine being an 18 year old person of color going away to college. You're nervous, as anyone is going away to college. Maybe a little more so if you're middle class or poor, I can speak to this as a middle class kid who attended SU. I was a little nervous about being around a lot of upper class kids and I didn't know how I'd be treated or how I'd relate - it worked out totally fine, but it was something to be nervous about as I realized how rich some of these kids and their families were. Meanwhile, it's a mostly white school and you're a person of color, so that's on your mind.

Now, all that's going on and like two months into your first semester, there are like seven racist incidents in a two-week period. Most students are probably like, "Yeah, whatever, not a big deal," up until the manifesto... So you're kind of wondering. Do they not get it? Do they not care about me? Do they not see why this is hurtful/scary? Do they actually agree with some of the racist stuff?

I think those are reasonable thoughts for an 18 year old kid to have. Now, imagine sharing a room with someone and wondering that about them. I can imagine where the mind might go by trying to put myself in their shoes. So wanting to be able to choose a roommate who looks like you makes sense to me in that context.

Now, I personally think it's a bad idea for a number of reasons and I don't think it would be productive overall. However, I support those kids right to *ask* for it. I think that Syverud should have attempted to discuss what they wanted to accomplish with that request, and then discussed whether there were other, better, legal ways to do it.

So to call the demand ridiculous is out of line in my opinion. At the very least try to put yourself in their shoes and consider what they're thinking and feeling right now before you decide that the request is ridiculous.

Reports of racist manifesto at Syracuse University likely a hoax, chancellor says

University's chancellor admits it's come up short responding to recent string of racist incidents; student protesters storm out of meeting on the incidents

www.cbsnews.com

Yeah - its a hoax.

This has been covered but I want to be really clear. The manifesto WAS posted on the Syracuse forum of that Greek Rank site. There are screenshots of the posting on Twitter, they're easy enough to find. There was a line in some article that people think someone tried to airdrop it but that nobody received the file. I don't know how Airdrop works because I don't have an iPhone, but I would imagine you have to accept the transfer. It's possible that students just declined the transfer and nobody received it... Or it's possible that someone saw it on the site, lied about the Airdrop thing, etc... We don't know based on publicly available information.

But be careful about calling it a hoax, given that the manifesto WAS posted on a Syracuse forum on that website. That in and of itself is scary/threatening.

I think the parents and university were more concerned with the "airdrop." Once that news hit the kids on campus started calling home. They probably assumed, which they shouldn't have, that rationale folks would discount a post to a national website that was obviously a copy cat or a prankster.

Again, the "airdrop" is what really made people freak out that this may not just be a graffiti issue.

I don't think rational people should discount a post to a national website, nor do I think it's immediately obvious that it's a copycat or prankster. Plus, plenty of mass shooters have been "copycats" in terms of their manifestos. Given how frequently we see a manifesto drop on an Internet forum, followed minutes/hours/days later by a mass shooting by the person who posted the screed, I think we should take ALL of them extremely seriously until we know all of the facts.

Problem is...she has done tremendous damage to the validity of the entire slew of allegations. I dont think she did them all, but she has.

Kudos to the guys including TexanMark who called out the almost seeming inevitability of false flags

She didn't carry out a false flag, she spray painted pro-protest graffiti in separate incidents. I don't condone it or support that sort of thing in this situation, but she did nothing to any of the other allegations, nor is what she did anything remotely akin to a false flag.

Her graffiti was racist. I don't care what her intent was. Being a moron is not a defense.

Public Safety Informational Notice: Reports of New Bias Incidents & Arrest in Vandalism Investigation - Department of Public Safety – Syracuse University

dps.syr.edu

How in the world can you say her graffiti was racist if you don't know what it said?

The student who challenged Syverud, said she has a screenshot of the manifesto, looking through twitter this isn't her first time protesting.

There are screenshots of the posting of the manifesto on Twitter.

And so what that this isn't her first time protesting? What does that have to do with anything? Good for her, I say, for standing up for what she believes in and being willing to spend time and effort trying to enact positive change in the world.

Just to clear up your timeline a little bit - the first instance of graffiti that was found was derogatory towards Asians and African-Americans, including calling out specific names of minority students. Was told this by someone with first-hand knowledge of it.

The fact that it had specific names makes it extremely unlikely that it was a prank or a false flag, and it makes it far more offensive and threatening. It also makes it extremely likely that the person who did it is a student living in the dorm where the first couple instances of graffiti were found.

I have a feeling Casey is going to be disappointed.

I'm pretty sure Casey is the editor of the DO, so I don't think he's personally going to be disappointed in the context you're suggesting.

I’ve joked a bit in this thread because I knew it was a circus from the start, but I have a serious question for the protestors or the supporters of them.

What exactly, in details, is your grievance with Syverud? What should he have done differently? Again, give specific actionable items and cite details in which you think he “failed”.

I've laid out a lot here. The biggest thing is that he didn't do a good enough job early on, based on the coverage I've read, of speaking up, addressing the student body and the university, and making three things clear:

1. He'd do everything possible to protect students.

2. Racism was intolerable and the people who did this would get far more than a slap on the wrist.

3. He'd do everything possible to make students feel safe (which goes beyond #1) and to hear their concerns.

He didn't get ahead of it from the jump, and doing so is a huge part of his job. If you think the whole thing got blown out of proportion (I would disagree with you, but everyone gets to have an opinion), I think you should be mostly blaming him for that for the PR crisis and the mishandling in that regard.

Unreal they’re trying to ruin Syverud’s life over a fantasy they have of holding power.

Syverud is 63 years old, makes ~$1M a year in this job and likely made at least mid six figures in his last couple of jobs. Even if he was forced to resign, it'd be a pretty big reach to say his life would be ruined.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Lots of bad takes here. Let's start here: the chancellor is a professional at/near the top of his field, making around $1,000,000 a year to do his job, with about 20 years in major leadership positions at various major universities. He's got a law degree and clerked for a Supreme Court Justice. He's 63 years old. He should be comfortable/used to handling public high pressure situations.

The students protesting are 18-22, so they have very little experience at this sort of thing, little/no experience at being in the limelight, and are more likely to be more emotionally invested in this whole thing and to act on that emotion for any number of reasons. Even the leaders are trying to keep the positions of the entire group in mind, and they're all also more likely to get caught up in the emotion/excitement of being part of a big group. They don't have much life experience in terms of overcoming that.

Meanwhile, it's part of the chancellor's job to know all of that and act accordingly.

So let's keep that in mind while evaluating the performances and positions of everyone involved.

So, for example, when the students make a demand with regard to student housing that's literally illegal, it's a stupid demand - but I don't consider them stupid for making it. I can see what their *goal* was - to create a more comfortable situation for freshman students of color in an environment where there has been some recent high profile racism. That's a very reasonable goal. Asking for something illegal in order to accomplish it was not productive, but they're not lawyers. There are also plenty of reasons why this is a bad idea that might not have been productive even if it was legal, given that it's leading toward a form of self-selecting segregation. Now, I could argue either side of it in the context of choosing roommates or characteristics for your roommate, but that's a separate conversation.

But if you ask me who has the most blame in terms of the process and how it's played out in regard to that demand, to me it's on Syverud. He should have sat down one-on-one or in a small group with some of the leaders of the protest and said, "Look, this is literally illegal, so we can't do it... But I think I know what your goal is, and I'd like to discuss with you ways that we can work toward that end within the law so that I can help you in this regard and we can do so legally. First I want to make sure - what are your goals with this request?"

Now we can get somewhere. To my knowledge, that never happened. He may have tried to do so when addressing the protesters or in the forum, but those are emotionally charged environments where that's not going to be a realistic thing that's going to happen. He knows that (or he should). It's his job to create an opportunity for that discussion to take place, and it's the protesters job to take it and go in with a game plan and then it's on both of them to be understanding and reasonable. He should definitely give something in that area, and should do his best to make them happy. They should give him the benefit of the doubt going in, including ignoring his past mistakes on these issues for the purposes of having a frank and beneficial discussion. They have every right to try to hold him accountable for past mistakes, but they should still represent their movement on that issue during that meeting.

Now, as far as I know, this conversation never happened nor did Syverud give it the opportunity to happen. That's on him, if you ask me.

So that's one example, I'll go through and address some specific posts that were bad and/or interesting.



You'd be amazed at how little some cameras can pick up in regard to facial detail. I dated someone who worked in casino surveillance and they had a shooting in a garage caught on several cameras, plus the suspects were on camera entering and leaving the casino. None had a clear enough image of the suspect's face to make any sort of positive identification. Their best lead was off a camera that picked up the license plate when they were entering/exiting the property.



There's nothing wrong with making demands in regard to matters of equality. We shouldn't negotiate on important things like that. If Syverud handled this better, there could have been a discussion that led to progress on all of these issues with great input from the students. It never should have been a negotiation in any form, but rather a cooperative effort to achieve the goals of the students in the most effective and realistic ways. In some cases I think their demands won't be very effective, but he signed off on them because they're fine. Even in those cases I consider his work to be insufficient as chancellor because he could have sat down with them and offered to do more or to do something a little different that would have been more productive.



Hold up. Like which of these 16 that he agreed to are bad? Have you read the list? There are plenty of good ideas on there that he should have been happy to sign off on.

Also, "You give an inch and a mile will always be taken," is a really stupid and offensive thing to say about matters of racial inequality.



Is that the case? Am I unaware of Syverud attempting to sit down privately (or publicly) with a small group of them in a setting and context where their concerns will be heard and a cooperative effort to solve problems through open discussion and exchange of ideas can take place?



This is stupid and offensive, and I'm saying that as a white guy. There are plenty of very good HBCU's, and while I'm proud of my degree at SU, we're not the creme de la creme.



You have no patience for college kids making mistakes? That's silly. The idea that we should all put the institution's reputation over the people who are studying and teaching there is also pretty ridiculous. Institutions of all kinds often protect privileged groups and protect systems that are in place to preserve power for the powerful, wealth for the wealth, and racial/gender/etc privilege. I'm not accusing SU of all of that, but there's certainly some of it, and we should be more concerned with making SU the best place it can be for everyone who attends than protecting its reputation.

Doing that over and over is how you get and keep a tremendous reputation.



He couldn't stop it in advance, but he could have handled the response with more urgency and transparency initially. He didn't read the room well, he didn't speak out publicly enough, he didn't understand the fear gripping campus/students/faculty after the manifesto came into play, he didn't give enough public support to people who felt threatened, and for those concerned with the university's reputation he would have done well to ask a freshman PR major what he should do at pretty much any point in the process.



They're not negotiating a salary and benefits package here, or a political deal over the federal budget. He's also not refusing to give them all 19 out of any sort of principle, but because he views the other three as impossible as requested. Why can't he be the leader in the situation and work with them on that by being the one to reach out? Isn't that sort of what SU pays him almost $1,000,000 for? To be a leader?



I agree with this, but I also think accomplishing the goals of the three that had to be edited is relatively simple and something Syverud should be trying to do.



Why in the world would/should he reverse course on stuff that is good for the student body at large, good for the university and common sense? It's not like he's giving them compensation or damages due to their emotional distress.

And, for the record, so far we know of no false flags.



They're kids. Imagine being an 18 year old person of color going away to college. You're nervous, as anyone is going away to college. Maybe a little more so if you're middle class or poor, I can speak to this as a middle class kid who attended SU. I was a little nervous about being around a lot of upper class kids and I didn't know how I'd be treated or how I'd relate - it worked out totally fine, but it was something to be nervous about as I realized how rich some of these kids and their families were. Meanwhile, it's a mostly white school and you're a person of color, so that's on your mind.

Now, all that's going on and like two months into your first semester, there are like seven racist incidents in a two-week period. Most students are probably like, "Yeah, whatever, not a big deal," up until the manifesto... So you're kind of wondering. Do they not get it? Do they not care about me? Do they not see why this is hurtful/scary? Do they actually agree with some of the racist stuff?

I think those are reasonable thoughts for an 18 year old kid to have. Now, imagine sharing a room with someone and wondering that about them. I can imagine where the mind might go by trying to put myself in their shoes. So wanting to be able to choose a roommate who looks like you makes sense to me in that context.

Now, I personally think it's a bad idea for a number of reasons and I don't think it would be productive overall. However, I support those kids right to *ask* for it. I think that Syverud should have attempted to discuss what they wanted to accomplish with that request, and then discussed whether there were other, better, legal ways to do it.

So to call the demand ridiculous is out of line in my opinion. At the very least try to put yourself in their shoes and consider what they're thinking and feeling right now before you decide that the request is ridiculous.



This has been covered but I want to be really clear. The manifesto WAS posted on the Syracuse forum of that Greek Rank site. There are screenshots of the posting on Twitter, they're easy enough to find. There was a line in some article that people think someone tried to airdrop it but that nobody received the file. I don't know how Airdrop works because I don't have an iPhone, but I would imagine you have to accept the transfer. It's possible that students just declined the transfer and nobody received it... Or it's possible that someone saw it on the site, lied about the Airdrop thing, etc... We don't know based on publicly available information.

But be careful about calling it a hoax, given that the manifesto WAS posted on a Syracuse forum on that website. That in and of itself is scary/threatening.



I don't think rational people should discount a post to a national website, nor do I think it's immediately obvious that it's a copycat or prankster. Plus, plenty of mass shooters have been "copycats" in terms of their manifestos. Given how frequently we see a manifesto drop on an Internet forum, followed minutes/hours/days later by a mass shooting by the person who posted the screed, I think we should take ALL of them extremely seriously until we know all of the facts.



She didn't carry out a false flag, she spray painted pro-protest graffiti in separate incidents. I don't condone it or support that sort of thing in this situation, but she did nothing to any of the other allegations, nor is what she did anything remotely akin to a false flag.



How in the world can you say her graffiti was racist if you don't know what it said?



There are screenshots of the posting of the manifesto on Twitter.

And so what that this isn't her first time protesting? What does that have to do with anything? Good for her, I say, for standing up for what she believes in and being willing to spend time and effort trying to enact positive change in the world.



The fact that it had specific names makes it extremely unlikely that it was a prank or a false flag, and it makes it far more offensive and threatening. It also makes it extremely likely that the person who did it is a student living in the dorm where the first couple instances of graffiti were found.



I'm pretty sure Casey is the editor of the DO, so I don't think he's personally going to be disappointed in the context you're suggesting.



I've laid out a lot here. The biggest thing is that he didn't do a good enough job early on, based on the coverage I've read, of speaking up, addressing the student body and the university, and making three things clear:

1. He'd do everything possible to protect students.

2. Racism was intolerable and the people who did this would get far more than a slap on the wrist.

3. He'd do everything possible to make students feel safe (which goes beyond #1) and to hear their concerns.

He didn't get ahead of it from the jump, and doing so is a huge part of his job. If you think the whole thing got blown out of proportion (I would disagree with you, but everyone gets to have an opinion), I think you should be mostly blaming him for that for the PR crisis and the mishandling in that regard.



Syverud is 63 years old, makes ~$1M a year in this job and likely made at least mid six figures in his last couple of jobs. Even if he was forced to resign, it'd be a pretty big reach to say his life would be ruined.

TL;DR

 

[orangenauburn]

My frat (not SU, though partied there) was a mix of white privilege, white trash, blacks, Pakistani, Jewish, Egyptian. We busted on each other, all of us. We also defended each other from external BS. We knew things were derogatory, and we also knew that, for the most part it was said in a joking manner in the way that 17-23 year old guys behave. Guys could give as well as take, and if we went too far we acknowledged, apologized, and moved on.

For the most part, a lot of kids who partied at the school that I met, were similar. We acknowledged when things went too far and worked to correct it. We also realized when actions were being taken, and appreciated it.

Kids today for some reason, are unable to compute this. Everything is literal and life / death. There's no compromise, no understanding things get taken out of context, that people in the real world are dumbasses, much like college kids themselves.

I understand their fear and frustrations.

I also believe they need to understand that adults are trying to make the situation better. That sometimes it takes time and we are not happy with solutions.

I hope they come back from break to a better campus community, and comeback ready to listen and compromise.

 

[Day2]

Lots of bad takes here. Let's start here: the chancellor is a professional at/near the top of his field, making around $1,000,000 a year to do his job, with about 20 years in major leadership positions at various major universities. He's got a law degree and clerked for a Supreme Court Justice. He's 63 years old. He should be comfortable/used to handling public high pressure situations.

The students protesting are 18-22, so they have very little experience at this sort of thing, little/no experience at being in the limelight, and are more likely to be more emotionally invested in this whole thing and to act on that emotion for any number of reasons. Even the leaders are trying to keep the positions of the entire group in mind, and they're all also more likely to get caught up in the emotion/excitement of being part of a big group. They don't have much life experience in terms of overcoming that.

Meanwhile, it's part of the chancellor's job to know all of that and act accordingly.

So let's keep that in mind while evaluating the performances and positions of everyone involved.

So, for example, when the students make a demand with regard to student housing that's literally illegal, it's a stupid demand - but I don't consider them stupid for making it. I can see what their *goal* was - to create a more comfortable situation for freshman students of color in an environment where there has been some recent high profile racism. That's a very reasonable goal. Asking for something illegal in order to accomplish it was not productive, but they're not lawyers. There are also plenty of reasons why this is a bad idea that might not have been productive even if it was legal, given that it's leading toward a form of self-selecting segregation. Now, I could argue either side of it in the context of choosing roommates or characteristics for your roommate, but that's a separate conversation.

But if you ask me who has the most blame in terms of the process and how it's played out in regard to that demand, to me it's on Syverud. He should have sat down one-on-one or in a small group with some of the leaders of the protest and said, "Look, this is literally illegal, so we can't do it... But I think I know what your goal is, and I'd like to discuss with you ways that we can work toward that end within the law so that I can help you in this regard and we can do so legally. First I want to make sure - what are your goals with this request?"

Now we can get somewhere. To my knowledge, that never happened. He may have tried to do so when addressing the protesters or in the forum, but those are emotionally charged environments where that's not going to be a realistic thing that's going to happen. He knows that (or he should). It's his job to create an opportunity for that discussion to take place, and it's the protesters job to take it and go in with a game plan and then it's on both of them to be understanding and reasonable. He should definitely give something in that area, and should do his best to make them happy. They should give him the benefit of the doubt going in, including ignoring his past mistakes on these issues for the purposes of having a frank and beneficial discussion. They have every right to try to hold him accountable for past mistakes, but they should still represent their movement on that issue during that meeting.

Now, as far as I know, this conversation never happened nor did Syverud give it the opportunity to happen. That's on him, if you ask me.

So that's one example, I'll go through and address some specific posts that were bad and/or interesting.



You'd be amazed at how little some cameras can pick up in regard to facial detail. I dated someone who worked in casino surveillance and they had a shooting in a garage caught on several cameras, plus the suspects were on camera entering and leaving the casino. None had a clear enough image of the suspect's face to make any sort of positive identification. Their best lead was off a camera that picked up the license plate when they were entering/exiting the property.



There's nothing wrong with making demands in regard to matters of equality. We shouldn't negotiate on important things like that. If Syverud handled this better, there could have been a discussion that led to progress on all of these issues with great input from the students. It never should have been a negotiation in any form, but rather a cooperative effort to achieve the goals of the students in the most effective and realistic ways. In some cases I think their demands won't be very effective, but he signed off on them because they're fine. Even in those cases I consider his work to be insufficient as chancellor because he could have sat down with them and offered to do more or to do something a little different that would have been more productive.



Hold up. Like which of these 16 that he agreed to are bad? Have you read the list? There are plenty of good ideas on there that he should have been happy to sign off on.

Also, "You give an inch and a mile will always be taken," is a really stupid and offensive thing to say about matters of racial inequality.



Is that the case? Am I unaware of Syverud attempting to sit down privately (or publicly) with a small group of them in a setting and context where their concerns will be heard and a cooperative effort to solve problems through open discussion and exchange of ideas can take place?



This is stupid and offensive, and I'm saying that as a white guy. There are plenty of very good HBCU's, and while I'm proud of my degree at SU, we're not the creme de la creme.



You have no patience for college kids making mistakes? That's silly. The idea that we should all put the institution's reputation over the people who are studying and teaching there is also pretty ridiculous. Institutions of all kinds often protect privileged groups and protect systems that are in place to preserve power for the powerful, wealth for the wealth, and racial/gender/etc privilege. I'm not accusing SU of all of that, but there's certainly some of it, and we should be more concerned with making SU the best place it can be for everyone who attends than protecting its reputation.

Doing that over and over is how you get and keep a tremendous reputation.



He couldn't stop it in advance, but he could have handled the response with more urgency and transparency initially. He didn't read the room well, he didn't speak out publicly enough, he didn't understand the fear gripping campus/students/faculty after the manifesto came into play, he didn't give enough public support to people who felt threatened, and for those concerned with the university's reputation he would have done well to ask a freshman PR major what he should do at pretty much any point in the process.



They're not negotiating a salary and benefits package here, or a political deal over the federal budget. He's also not refusing to give them all 19 out of any sort of principle, but because he views the other three as impossible as requested. Why can't he be the leader in the situation and work with them on that by being the one to reach out? Isn't that sort of what SU pays him almost $1,000,000 for? To be a leader?



I agree with this, but I also think accomplishing the goals of the three that had to be edited is relatively simple and something Syverud should be trying to do.



Why in the world would/should he reverse course on stuff that is good for the student body at large, good for the university and common sense? It's not like he's giving them compensation or damages due to their emotional distress.

And, for the record, so far we know of no false flags.



They're kids. Imagine being an 18 year old person of color going away to college. You're nervous, as anyone is going away to college. Maybe a little more so if you're middle class or poor, I can speak to this as a middle class kid who attended SU. I was a little nervous about being around a lot of upper class kids and I didn't know how I'd be treated or how I'd relate - it worked out totally fine, but it was something to be nervous about as I realized how rich some of these kids and their families were. Meanwhile, it's a mostly white school and you're a person of color, so that's on your mind.

Now, all that's going on and like two months into your first semester, there are like seven racist incidents in a two-week period. Most students are probably like, "Yeah, whatever, not a big deal," up until the manifesto... So you're kind of wondering. Do they not get it? Do they not care about me? Do they not see why this is hurtful/scary? Do they actually agree with some of the racist stuff?

I think those are reasonable thoughts for an 18 year old kid to have. Now, imagine sharing a room with someone and wondering that about them. I can imagine where the mind might go by trying to put myself in their shoes. So wanting to be able to choose a roommate who looks like you makes sense to me in that context.

Now, I personally think it's a bad idea for a number of reasons and I don't think it would be productive overall. However, I support those kids right to *ask* for it. I think that Syverud should have attempted to discuss what they wanted to accomplish with that request, and then discussed whether there were other, better, legal ways to do it.

So to call the demand ridiculous is out of line in my opinion. At the very least try to put yourself in their shoes and consider what they're thinking and feeling right now before you decide that the request is ridiculous.



This has been covered but I want to be really clear. The manifesto WAS posted on the Syracuse forum of that Greek Rank site. There are screenshots of the posting on Twitter, they're easy enough to find. There was a line in some article that people think someone tried to airdrop it but that nobody received the file. I don't know how Airdrop works because I don't have an iPhone, but I would imagine you have to accept the transfer. It's possible that students just declined the transfer and nobody received it... Or it's possible that someone saw it on the site, lied about the Airdrop thing, etc... We don't know based on publicly available information.

But be careful about calling it a hoax, given that the manifesto WAS posted on a Syracuse forum on that website. That in and of itself is scary/threatening.



I don't think rational people should discount a post to a national website, nor do I think it's immediately obvious that it's a copycat or prankster. Plus, plenty of mass shooters have been "copycats" in terms of their manifestos. Given how frequently we see a manifesto drop on an Internet forum, followed minutes/hours/days later by a mass shooting by the person who posted the screed, I think we should take ALL of them extremely seriously until we know all of the facts.



She didn't carry out a false flag, she spray painted pro-protest graffiti in separate incidents. I don't condone it or support that sort of thing in this situation, but she did nothing to any of the other allegations, nor is what she did anything remotely akin to a false flag.



How in the world can you say her graffiti was racist if you don't know what it said?



There are screenshots of the posting of the manifesto on Twitter.

And so what that this isn't her first time protesting? What does that have to do with anything? Good for her, I say, for standing up for what she believes in and being willing to spend time and effort trying to enact positive change in the world.



The fact that it had specific names makes it extremely unlikely that it was a prank or a false flag, and it makes it far more offensive and threatening. It also makes it extremely likely that the person who did it is a student living in the dorm where the first couple instances of graffiti were found.



I'm pretty sure Casey is the editor of the DO, so I don't think he's personally going to be disappointed in the context you're suggesting.



I've laid out a lot here. The biggest thing is that he didn't do a good enough job early on, based on the coverage I've read, of speaking up, addressing the student body and the university, and making three things clear:

1. He'd do everything possible to protect students.

2. Racism was intolerable and the people who did this would get far more than a slap on the wrist.

3. He'd do everything possible to make students feel safe (which goes beyond #1) and to hear their concerns.

He didn't get ahead of it from the jump, and doing so is a huge part of his job. If you think the whole thing got blown out of proportion (I would disagree with you, but everyone gets to have an opinion), I think you should be mostly blaming him for that for the PR crisis and the mishandling in that regard.



Syverud is 63 years old, makes ~$1M a year in this job and likely made at least mid six figures in his last couple of jobs. Even if he was forced to resign, it'd be a pretty big reach to say his life would be ruined.

How long did this take you?

 

[721Comstock]

How long did this take you?

It's like a... manifesto of sorts.

 

[Stevenson]

How long did this take you?

Maybe he is getting a PhD in Message Board Studies...

 

[cliftonparksufan]

Lots of bad takes here. Let's start here: the chancellor is a professional at/near the top of his field, making around $1,000,000 a year to do his job, with about 20 years in major leadership positions at various major universities. He's got a law degree and clerked for a Supreme Court Justice. He's 63 years old. He should be comfortable/used to handling public high pressure situations.

The students protesting are 18-22, so they have very little experience at this sort of thing, little/no experience at being in the limelight, and are more likely to be more emotionally invested in this whole thing and to act on that emotion for any number of reasons. Even the leaders are trying to keep the positions of the entire group in mind, and they're all also more likely to get caught up in the emotion/excitement of being part of a big group. They don't have much life experience in terms of overcoming that.

Meanwhile, it's part of the chancellor's job to know all of that and act accordingly.

So let's keep that in mind while evaluating the performances and positions of everyone involved.

So, for example, when the students make a demand with regard to student housing that's literally illegal, it's a stupid demand - but I don't consider them stupid for making it. I can see what their *goal* was - to create a more comfortable situation for freshman students of color in an environment where there has been some recent high profile racism. That's a very reasonable goal. Asking for something illegal in order to accomplish it was not productive, but they're not lawyers. There are also plenty of reasons why this is a bad idea that might not have been productive even if it was legal, given that it's leading toward a form of self-selecting segregation. Now, I could argue either side of it in the context of choosing roommates or characteristics for your roommate, but that's a separate conversation.

But if you ask me who has the most blame in terms of the process and how it's played out in regard to that demand, to me it's on Syverud. He should have sat down one-on-one or in a small group with some of the leaders of the protest and said, "Look, this is literally illegal, so we can't do it... But I think I know what your goal is, and I'd like to discuss with you ways that we can work toward that end within the law so that I can help you in this regard and we can do so legally. First I want to make sure - what are your goals with this request?"

Now we can get somewhere. To my knowledge, that never happened. He may have tried to do so when addressing the protesters or in the forum, but those are emotionally charged environments where that's not going to be a realistic thing that's going to happen. He knows that (or he should). It's his job to create an opportunity for that discussion to take place, and it's the protesters job to take it and go in with a game plan and then it's on both of them to be understanding and reasonable. He should definitely give something in that area, and should do his best to make them happy. They should give him the benefit of the doubt going in, including ignoring his past mistakes on these issues for the purposes of having a frank and beneficial discussion. They have every right to try to hold him accountable for past mistakes, but they should still represent their movement on that issue during that meeting.

Now, as far as I know, this conversation never happened nor did Syverud give it the opportunity to happen. That's on him, if you ask me.

So that's one example, I'll go through and address some specific posts that were bad and/or interesting.



You'd be amazed at how little some cameras can pick up in regard to facial detail. I dated someone who worked in casino surveillance and they had a shooting in a garage caught on several cameras, plus the suspects were on camera entering and leaving the casino. None had a clear enough image of the suspect's face to make any sort of positive identification. Their best lead was off a camera that picked up the license plate when they were entering/exiting the property.



There's nothing wrong with making demands in regard to matters of equality. We shouldn't negotiate on important things like that. If Syverud handled this better, there could have been a discussion that led to progress on all of these issues with great input from the students. It never should have been a negotiation in any form, but rather a cooperative effort to achieve the goals of the students in the most effective and realistic ways. In some cases I think their demands won't be very effective, but he signed off on them because they're fine. Even in those cases I consider his work to be insufficient as chancellor because he could have sat down with them and offered to do more or to do something a little different that would have been more productive.



Hold up. Like which of these 16 that he agreed to are bad? Have you read the list? There are plenty of good ideas on there that he should have been happy to sign off on.

Also, "You give an inch and a mile will always be taken," is a really stupid and offensive thing to say about matters of racial inequality.



Is that the case? Am I unaware of Syverud attempting to sit down privately (or publicly) with a small group of them in a setting and context where their concerns will be heard and a cooperative effort to solve problems through open discussion and exchange of ideas can take place?



This is stupid and offensive, and I'm saying that as a white guy. There are plenty of very good HBCU's, and while I'm proud of my degree at SU, we're not the creme de la creme.



You have no patience for college kids making mistakes? That's silly. The idea that we should all put the institution's reputation over the people who are studying and teaching there is also pretty ridiculous. Institutions of all kinds often protect privileged groups and protect systems that are in place to preserve power for the powerful, wealth for the wealth, and racial/gender/etc privilege. I'm not accusing SU of all of that, but there's certainly some of it, and we should be more concerned with making SU the best place it can be for everyone who attends than protecting its reputation.

Doing that over and over is how you get and keep a tremendous reputation.



He couldn't stop it in advance, but he could have handled the response with more urgency and transparency initially. He didn't read the room well, he didn't speak out publicly enough, he didn't understand the fear gripping campus/students/faculty after the manifesto came into play, he didn't give enough public support to people who felt threatened, and for those concerned with the university's reputation he would have done well to ask a freshman PR major what he should do at pretty much any point in the process.



They're not negotiating a salary and benefits package here, or a political deal over the federal budget. He's also not refusing to give them all 19 out of any sort of principle, but because he views the other three as impossible as requested. Why can't he be the leader in the situation and work with them on that by being the one to reach out? Isn't that sort of what SU pays him almost $1,000,000 for? To be a leader?



I agree with this, but I also think accomplishing the goals of the three that had to be edited is relatively simple and something Syverud should be trying to do.



Why in the world would/should he reverse course on stuff that is good for the student body at large, good for the university and common sense? It's not like he's giving them compensation or damages due to their emotional distress.

And, for the record, so far we know of no false flags.



They're kids. Imagine being an 18 year old person of color going away to college. You're nervous, as anyone is going away to college. Maybe a little more so if you're middle class or poor, I can speak to this as a middle class kid who attended SU. I was a little nervous about being around a lot of upper class kids and I didn't know how I'd be treated or how I'd relate - it worked out totally fine, but it was something to be nervous about as I realized how rich some of these kids and their families were. Meanwhile, it's a mostly white school and you're a person of color, so that's on your mind.

Now, all that's going on and like two months into your first semester, there are like seven racist incidents in a two-week period. Most students are probably like, "Yeah, whatever, not a big deal," up until the manifesto... So you're kind of wondering. Do they not get it? Do they not care about me? Do they not see why this is hurtful/scary? Do they actually agree with some of the racist stuff?

I think those are reasonable thoughts for an 18 year old kid to have. Now, imagine sharing a room with someone and wondering that about them. I can imagine where the mind might go by trying to put myself in their shoes. So wanting to be able to choose a roommate who looks like you makes sense to me in that context.

Now, I personally think it's a bad idea for a number of reasons and I don't think it would be productive overall. However, I support those kids right to *ask* for it. I think that Syverud should have attempted to discuss what they wanted to accomplish with that request, and then discussed whether there were other, better, legal ways to do it.

So to call the demand ridiculous is out of line in my opinion. At the very least try to put yourself in their shoes and consider what they're thinking and feeling right now before you decide that the request is ridiculous.



This has been covered but I want to be really clear. The manifesto WAS posted on the Syracuse forum of that Greek Rank site. There are screenshots of the posting on Twitter, they're easy enough to find. There was a line in some article that people think someone tried to airdrop it but that nobody received the file. I don't know how Airdrop works because I don't have an iPhone, but I would imagine you have to accept the transfer. It's possible that students just declined the transfer and nobody received it... Or it's possible that someone saw it on the site, lied about the Airdrop thing, etc... We don't know based on publicly available information.

But be careful about calling it a hoax, given that the manifesto WAS posted on a Syracuse forum on that website. That in and of itself is scary/threatening.



I don't think rational people should discount a post to a national website, nor do I think it's immediately obvious that it's a copycat or prankster. Plus, plenty of mass shooters have been "copycats" in terms of their manifestos. Given how frequently we see a manifesto drop on an Internet forum, followed minutes/hours/days later by a mass shooting by the person who posted the screed, I think we should take ALL of them extremely seriously until we know all of the facts.



She didn't carry out a false flag, she spray painted pro-protest graffiti in separate incidents. I don't condone it or support that sort of thing in this situation, but she did nothing to any of the other allegations, nor is what she did anything remotely akin to a false flag.



How in the world can you say her graffiti was racist if you don't know what it said?



There are screenshots of the posting of the manifesto on Twitter.

And so what that this isn't her first time protesting? What does that have to do with anything? Good for her, I say, for standing up for what she believes in and being willing to spend time and effort trying to enact positive change in the world.



The fact that it had specific names makes it extremely unlikely that it was a prank or a false flag, and it makes it far more offensive and threatening. It also makes it extremely likely that the person who did it is a student living in the dorm where the first couple instances of graffiti were found.



I'm pretty sure Casey is the editor of the DO, so I don't think he's personally going to be disappointed in the context you're suggesting.



I've laid out a lot here. The biggest thing is that he didn't do a good enough job early on, based on the coverage I've read, of speaking up, addressing the student body and the university, and making three things clear:

1. He'd do everything possible to protect students.

2. Racism was intolerable and the people who did this would get far more than a slap on the wrist.

3. He'd do everything possible to make students feel safe (which goes beyond #1) and to hear their concerns.

He didn't get ahead of it from the jump, and doing so is a huge part of his job. If you think the whole thing got blown out of proportion (I would disagree with you, but everyone gets to have an opinion), I think you should be mostly blaming him for that for the PR crisis and the mishandling in that regard.



Syverud is 63 years old, makes ~$1M a year in this job and likely made at least mid six figures in his last couple of jobs. Even if he was forced to resign, it'd be a pretty big reach to say his life would be ruined.

I'll give you a like just for the effort involved.

 

[cuse522]

How long did this take you?

Probably not as long as it took some people to read it. (Under 30 mins while multi-tasking in true millennial fashion - TV, texting, Twitter, Tinder, Bumble, making dinner, eating.)

Maybe he is getting a PhD in Message Board Studies...

I could only read so many pages of horrible takes before I had to respond to all of it. It's a strength and a weakness.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Probably not as long as it took some people to read it. (Under 30 mins while multi-tasking in true millennial fashion - TV, texting, Twitter, Tinder, Bumble, making dinner, eating.)



I could only read so many pages of horrible takes before I had to respond to all of it. It's a strength and a weakness.

How’s the talent?

 

[perdurabo]

Rutgers student tied to racial bias incident at Syracuse, chancellor says

The verbal assault targeting an African American woman involving at least 14 people has already led to the suspensions of four Syracuse students, and involved 100 students from other schools.

www.nj.com

Rutgers University officials say they are investigating allegations that one of their students leaving a fraternity party was part of a reported bias incident against an African American student at a Syracuse University on Saturday night.

The Syracuse chancellor, Kent Syverud, said 14 students had been involved in what was described as a verbal assault targeting the woman while they were leaving an Alpha Chi Rho fraternity party. Four were Syracuse students, who have been suspended. Ten were students from other universities, that have been informed about what happened.

Meanwhile, reports earlier this week that a white supremacist manifesto had been sent to some Syracuse University students’ cellphones was likely a hoax, the chancellor disclosed.
News of the screed — which authorities had initially described as an apparent copy of on one written by a man accused of killing 51 people at two mosques in New Zealand in March — had further shaken the central New York campus, but authorities haven’t been able to find anyone who directly received the manifesto, Syverud told the University Senate.

 

[hungrychuck]

It is shocking that inappropriate behavior might break out at a frat party.

It almost makes me question whether I went to those in my student days only for the free beer.

Oh wait, I did go to those parties only for the free beer.

While the beer was free, there was always a price to pay.

Guess there still is.

 

[Cheriehoop]

I could only read so many pages of horrible takes before I had to respond to all of it.

Isn’t that a matter of opinion and like everyone else you are just expressing your personal opinion too? Since no one is willing to wait until the investigation is done to even know all the facts to form a totally informed opinion on these racial incidents , isn’t it pretty early to even know the best resolutions?