Per twitter no student section for this game | Page 50 | Syracusefan.com

Per twitter no student section for this game

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reading s*** like this...

Moe Neal was one of those protesters. Hope you didn’t cheer for him on Saturday when he was gashing Duke for 100+ yards.

Yeah lets water cannon lawful student protesters. Brilliant and not at all racist.

View attachment 173196

I deleted it. If they continue to occupy Barnes, they should be removed and arrested. They had their protest and got more from the administration than they should have. If this continues after Thanksgiving its will continue to interfere with my son's education, and I have a BIG problem with that.

Regarding cheering for a player. I cheer for laundry, not the man. By supporting a team I make no endorsement of the political views of the guy playing on the team. I really could not care less what they support.
 
Last edited:
Let them protest what they want so long as they don’t effect other students and the university’s operation.

by the looks of it the movement’s rightfully losing a bit of steam and heading into non-factor territory.

it’s a win and amazing they accomplished 90% of their goals.
 
I deleted it. If they continue to occupy Barnes, they should be removed and arrested. They had their protest and got more from the administration than they should have. If this continues after Thanksgiving its will continue to interfere with my son's education, and I have a BIG problem with that.

Regarding cheering for a player. I cheer for laundry, not the man. By supporting a team I make no endorsement of the political views of the guy playing on the team. I really could care less what they support.

Maybe the protesters should wear bright Orange SU jerseys.
 
Let them protest what they want so long as they don’t effect other students and the university’s operation.

by the looks of it the movement’s rightfully losing a bit of steam and heading into non-factor territory.

it’s a win and amazing they accomplished 90% of their goals.

Doing it around Thanksgiving, finals and winter break...that was always going to be tough to sustain.
 
Protest is fine.
These demands aren’t protesting.
Again having a box when you apply to have a same race roommate is de facto segregation.

After your first semester you control 100% who your roommate is.

These protesters are acting like they are ones who had to put up with the crap Ernie Davis and his two teammates in the Express had to deal with.
They are absolutely ridiculous and I am pissed that Syverud bothers with them now. He should get an extension out of this mess from the BOT just to tell these protesters they can’t force out a good man just because they want him gone when he has done N-O-T-H-I-N-G to show he is a racist, non inclusive, or an enemy of people of color.
You don’t negotiate with people like this. Take immunity from code of conduct violations off the table. Charge these kids and see if they care about getting an education or trying to rabble rouse.
 
Last edited:
were you at the last game? The students had a huge crowd.

In other words, bigger than before these histionics?

Can you tell me what page I can start replying to where my posts wont be buried and not seen and what the rule is of what can be posted here? Certainly a number of my posts that got banned from here had not a thing to do with the religion of "White Privilege". I'm not weeping about seeing that nonsense censored, lol.
 
Couldn't agree more with your points. Look I think were all against any type of racist graffitti, period. That said even if the graffitti was really bad ( I am sure it wasn't exactly pleasant I am not sure what these students expect SU to do about a one time incident in a publicly accessible area with no cameras.
Second unless the person or persons who did it are complete idiots (certainly possible) and confess how in the world would any investigation find out who did it. I mean your talking about I believe a bathroom within a dorm, hundreds of people are probably flowing through there especially on a weekend when I think they said this occurred. Could have easily been someone not even attending the school or from the area who was visiting or happened to be on campus. I am not sure what they expect SU to do as far as an investigation.

I doubt theyre sure either. Heck, I wouldnt wager that they truly care about an investigation. I haven't seen all of the demands, but certainly ssome of them wreaked of extortion.
 
I doubt theyre sure either. Heck, I wouldnt wager that they truly care about an investigation. I haven't seen all of the demands, but certainly ssome of them wreaked of extortion.

You're an expert on everything but haven't even bothered to read their requests? You spent how long going through 48 pages and responding to posts from November 13, but can't even read their requests?

The guys most triggered by their protests have no idea what they're even protesting.
 
You're an expert on everything but haven't even bothered to read their requests? You spent how long going through 48 pages and responding to posts from November 13, but can't even read their requests?

The guys most triggered by their protests have no idea what they're even protesting.

Where did I ever say I was triggered by their protests? I'm actually quite calm, other than after 29 of my posts got moved for some reason I still haven't gotten an explanation of yet despite requests. Apparently your nonsense gets to go unchecked.

Where did I say I was an expert on anything, let alone everything?

Where did I say I read through 48 pages(there are over 50, or were at least before the purge of my posts). I clearly stated I read about 500 posts.

Are you always so dishonest?

I read the BS that was printed in the posts over the course of however many hours. If it wasn't there, I did not read it. I don't claim to be a magician.
 
Where did I ever say I was triggered by their protests? I'm actually quite calm, other than after 29 of my posts got moved for some reason I still haven't gotten an explanation of yet despite requests. Apparently your nonsense gets to go unchecked.
Read the entire thread, including the post at the top of this page by bees.
 
Where did I ever say I was triggered by their protests? I'm actually quite calm, other than after 29 of my posts got moved for some reason I still haven't gotten an explanation of yet despite requests. Apparently your nonsense gets to go unchecked.

Where did I say I was an expert on anything, let alone everything?

Where did I say I read through 48 pages(there are over 50, or were at least before the purge of my posts). I clearly stated I read about 500 posts.

Are you always so dishonest?

I read the BS that was printed in the posts over the course of however many hours. If it wasn't there, I did not read it. I don't claim to be a magician.

You know what people who are totally not triggered do? They give paragraphs long explanations for why they're not triggered.

Imagine the kind of person who would be more angry at the people protesting racism on campus than they are the perpetrators. These students are asking for explanations for why the University has been slow to act on various issues, you're complaining because 29 of your message board posts were deleted and whining that you haven't gotten an explanation.
 
Why is #notagainSU retweeting this stuff? It's shameful to focus solely on one group, and to just ignore what's happening to other POC. :(


The lack of awareness in that post, making it all about black students, and ignoring the hate other people are suffering from just marginalizes those groups further. This is exactly the sort of thing that causes these problems. It's awful. It makes me sad.

It's concerning to see that posted and see the group retweet it showing acceptance of such a narrow view regardless of where it came from...validating it on their Twitter account. Ugh. They need to educate, and not be ignorant of other POC, and how this may impact them. Sad day. :(

#notagainnotagainSU that's my hashtag!
 
Last edited:
Why are they retweeting this stuff? It's shameful to focus solely on one group, and to just ignore what's happening, the pain, the suffering, the lack of safety, that every group is dealing with right now in the wake of these targeted attacks at so many POC.


The lack of awareness in that post, making it all about black students, and ignoring the hate other people are suffering from just marginalizes those groups further. This is exactly the sort of thing that causes these problems. It's awful. It makes me sad. I'm quite sad right now. Very sad.

It's concerning to see that posted and see the group retweet it showing acceptance of such a narrow view regardless of where it came from...validating it on their Twitter account. Ugh. They need to educate, and not be ignorant of other POC, and how this may impact them. Sad day. :(

#notagainnotagainSU that's my hashtag!

they are a day late and a dollar short.
 
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.

You say imagine being a 18 y/o POC (I hate this term btw) and then imagine how they feel. There's culture shock to some extent, but between the safe spaces and other nonsense this generation of college student needs, you draw the line somewhere. Their behavior is irrational and not justified.

And yes, he shouldn't have given into any of their demands. The last thing colleges need are more diversity officers and other imaginary titles that cost mid to high six figures. You give into the crazies and they know that's how they can achieve their goals. These kids and I am purposely calling them kids will be in for a rude awakening when they graduate.
 
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.

A number of good points in here. I admire your charitable outlook toward the students' mindset and share your presumptions about their goal, but I'm not able to conclude that Syverud is at fault because he didn't reach out one-on-one; based in part on the students' combativeness, my sense is that their openness to his outreach is similar to their acceptance of Boeheim's pizza.

My HBCU comment could be interpreted as insensitive, especially coming from Anonymous Internet Guy, so I apologize. (Though if we're being objective about it, I'm not sure where any HBCU degree would be valued more highly than an SU degree. Maybe some circles in D.C. for Howard alumni.) But I digress. I shouldn't presume to tell any SU student to go away. Full stop. But at the same time I'm amazed that a 19-year-old isn't knowledgeable enough to know why residential segregation is neither feasible nor desirable. And I maintain that the onus is first on them (and then on their faculty supporters) to understand why; Kent plays a smaller role here. And if absorbing that education in short order isn't attractive for whatever reason, I don't know that a mainstream private school's mission and obligations can be reconciled with that student's personal preferences.
 
Well, we know the facts about how the school administration has handled the incidents. We know the facts about how these students say they feel on campus as a result of the incidents, and about how they say they feel on campus in general. That's enough to form opinions, as many of the facts about what I just mentioned should be unacceptable to the Syracuse University community.
...

This is a root of the problem, and it's the fault of the university, the kids, and society. Feelings don't matter. They're all but impossible to judge, and impractical to build a community around. Look how all these young kids talk, look at the DO quotes. I feel this, I feel that.

When feelings replaced thought, and the individual's feelings took priority over our obligations to society at large, we lost something important.

When I was three, I felt uncomfortable in the dark. When I was older (25, maybe 30), I thought about it and overrode those feelings.

I don't mean to diminish anyone's feelings. But that emotion can't dictate the rules-based objective order of our institutions and societies. If we can marry thoughts to these feelings, we can better solve our problems.
 
I get where you are trying to go with these posts, but I personally think you are relying a bit too much on how the protesters "feel." In my opinion, this is too complicated to go into a psychological analysis about who feels what and why (and to what degree.) Suffice to say that when policy decisions are made quickly at an institution based on feelings it is a dangerous road.

I would be one of the first to call out the chancellor if I thought he was ignoring the students. I concurrently understand why many students would feel unsafe. As Cheriehoop suggests above, these decisions take time, investigation, and thoughtful decisions.

Also, as I stated earlier in this thread, many of the students' concerns were valid, well-thought, and would lead to good policy. I simply believe more information and attention is needed.

Ah, I was too late.

Nice post.
 
When feelings replaced thought, and the individual's feelings took priority over our obligations to society at large, we lost something important.

When did this time exist?

Regardless, I don't necessarily agree with your premise. There's a "facts don't care about your feelings" argument against marriage equality. There was a time when phrenology was accepted and the people who claimed it was nonsense would have been accused of ignoring science/thought and relying on feelings.
 
When did this time exist?

Regardless, I don't necessarily agree with your premise. There's a "facts don't care about your feelings" argument against marriage equality. There was a time when phrenology was accepted and the people who claimed it was nonsense would have been accused of ignoring science/thought and relying on feelings.

Based on my perception, there's a generation gap here. Even a few years ago when we were in school, thought seemed to trump feelings. Now "I feel" is how so many young people try to make a point.

And I would think society would head in the opposite direction, given our expanding knowledge base since the time of flat-Earthers and phrenologists.

The short version: reason is a more reliable and relatable process than emotion and I think it's governed most of what society has done well in the scientific and policy realms for centuries. Reason is why we've made gains in civil rights, because logic always trumps the "I feel" reactionaries' emotion-based attempts at argument. Somebody might "feel" that man-caused climate changed isn't happening, but the thinkers can provide evidence as to the extent that it is.
 
They had their protest and got more from the administration than they should have.

This reeks of racism. More than they should have??? Which of the things that they "got" should they not have?

You say imagine being a 18 y/o POC (I hate this term btw) and then imagine how they feel. There's culture shock to some extent, but between the safe spaces and other nonsense this generation of college student needs, you draw the line somewhere. Their behavior is irrational and not justified.

And yes, he shouldn't have given into any of their demands. The last thing colleges need are more diversity officers and other imaginary titles that cost mid to high six figures. You give into the crazies and they know that's how they can achieve their goals. These kids and I am purposely calling them kids will be in for a rude awakening when they graduate.

So from this post we learned that you hate the term that is considered the best to use by most people in those groups in 2019, make no attempt to imagine how they feel, and then call them crazies.

I think it's clear for everyone to see where you stand here. You don't want SU students of color to be made to feel any more comfortable on campus, and if they don't like it, it's not your problem. That's a bad take, and you should do better.

A number of good points in here. I admire your charitable outlook toward the students' mindset and share your presumptions about their goal, but I'm not able to conclude that Syverud is at fault because he didn't reach out one-on-one; based in part on the students' combativeness, my sense is that their openness to his outreach is similar to their acceptance of Boeheim's pizza.

I'm glad you read it with an open mind and found some good points. The thing is, if Syverud tried and they reacted similarly to Boeheim's pizza, that'd be on them. It'd be their right to react that way, but I wouldn't be out here saying Syverud didn't do a good job. I doubt they would have reacted that way if he offered to meet with a couple of their leaders for a couple hours in a quiet setting. They may have asked for it to be live streamed or something, but I don't think they would have turned him down. We won't know, because he didn't do it.

My HBCU comment could be interpreted as insensitive, especially coming from Anonymous Internet Guy, so I apologize. (Though if we're being objective about it, I'm not sure where any HBCU degree would be valued more highly than an SU degree. Maybe some circles in D.C. for Howard alumni.) But I digress.

Thank you. Objectively there are a handful of HBCU degrees that could be considered roughly equal to an SU degree. You'd probably have to narrow it down in terms of the area of study to make head to head comparisons, as with any school. I'd rather have a broadcasting degree from Syracuse than a broadcasting degree from Harvard or Yale, for example.

But at the same time I'm amazed that a 19-year-old isn't knowledgeable enough to know why residential segregation is neither feasible nor desirable.

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on the motive for this, which IMO is a pretty easy one to deduce. I think that they didn't think through the effects of it outside of their goal, and that doesn't surprise me for 18-22 year olds.

And I maintain that the onus is first on them (and then on their faculty supporters) to understand why; Kent plays a smaller role here.

I think part of Syverud's job here is to help them understand why in a way that makes them feel like he's accepting their goal (make sure incoming students of color feel welcomed and safe) and trying to find a way to accomplish it, rather than in a way that makes them feel like he's rejecting it. Part of the job of faculty who support them is to advise them on this and so there is valid criticism there, too... But are we sure that faculty supporters are playing any formal role in guiding them?

A lot of the reason for the way I look at who's responsible for fixing a mistake like this in the demands comes down to the age, experience and expected level of expertise of all involved.

This is a root of the problem, and it's the fault of the university, the kids, and society. Feelings don't matter. They're all but impossible to judge, and impractical to build a community around. Look how all these young kids talk, look at the DO quotes. I feel this, I feel that.

The way people genuinely feel matters. Who's most at fault for it can be debated on any given issue, but I think it's pretty clear on issues of race to anyone with a decent education and an ability to detach bias and look at what's genuinely going on in America.

I find it interesting that you say that feelings are impractical to build a community around on a sports forum. This is a community built largely around feelings and the expression of feelings. Excitement after a big win or when a big recruit signs, anger after a bad loss, happiness and joy attending games. One of the biggest things that draws sports fans in is the excitement and feelings we experience attending games.

When feelings replaced thought, and the individual's feelings took priority over our obligations to society at large, we lost something important.

This take ignores that society has not been living up to its obligations at large. This "feelings don't matter" mindset also tends to be pretty extreme. Like, a great deal of what can be done to make other people feel better is at virtually no cost to others, to society, or to institutions. Like people get upset calling people of color that term instead of others. Now, do I use it every single time? No, but I try to use it. Why? It's what a lot of people of color prefer and it's at like no cost to me whatsoever. So why wouldn't I accommodate?

When I was three, I felt uncomfortable in the dark. When I was older (25, maybe 30), I thought about it and overrode those feelings.

But if we're talking about kids being scared of the dark and monsters under the bed, we're basically talking about unwarranted feelings... So now if you compare that, you as (presumably) a white male, are making the giant assumption that you know what is warranted to be felt by a person of color in a white range of situations.

I don't mean to diminish anyone's feelings. But that emotion can't dictate the rules-based objective order of our institutions and societies. If we can marry thoughts to these feelings, we can better solve our problems.

But you literally just diminished people's feelings by comparing them to your fear of the dark as a three year old child.

I think they've (NotAgainSU) done a lot of marrying thoughts to feelings, they've come up with ideas (demands) to improve their experience at SU. A lot of the ideas are almost universally accepted as good ones. One way of looking at Syverud accepting 16/19 is that he acquiesced to a bunch of demands, another (held by most who read the list) is that the kids came up with a lot of good ideas that were easy to accept that will improve the situation. That's a pretty impressive marriage of thoughts to feelings for 18-22 year old kids.

When you start talking about society and rules-based objective order of institutions, that type of discussion should really start with improving the rules-based objective order to eliminate existing forms of bias that are harming minorities and other under privileged groups. I won't get farther into that in this thread, as we're supposed to be keeping it more to the SU situation in here.
 
Based on my perception, there's a generation gap here. Even a few years ago when we were in school, thought seemed to trump feelings. Now "I feel" is how so many young people try to make a point.

And I would think society would head in the opposite direction, given our expanding knowledge base since the time of flat-Earthers and phrenologists.

The short version: reason is a more reliable and relatable process than emotion and I think it's governed most of what society has done well in the scientific and policy realms for centuries. Reason is why we've made gains in civil rights, because logic always trumps the "I feel" reactionaries' emotion-based attempts at argument. Somebody might "feel" that man-caused climate changed isn't happening, but the thinkers can provide evidence as to the extent that it is.

So your feelings that things have changed with respect to "thoughts/feelings" could be trumped by evidence that they haven't?

Earlier in this never ending thread, Hak provided his evidence and researched backed views - and was criticized because people felt that he was wrong.

There's a little bit of irony in your argument. The students may be basing their positions on their feelings, but they also have documented incidents of racism and can document the administration response. One could argue the administration responded appropriately and that's a feeling. One cannot argue that there is no evidence of racism on campus. The only arguments I'm seeing here based entirely on feelings are those against the protesters.
 
So your feelings that things have changed with respect to "thoughts/feelings" could be trumped by evidence that they haven't?

Earlier in this never ending thread, Hak provided his evidence and researched backed views - and was criticized because people felt that he was wrong.

There's a little bit of irony in your argument. The students may be basing their positions on their feelings, but they also have documented incidents of racism and can document the administration response. One could argue the administration responded appropriately and that's a feeling. One cannot argue that there is no evidence of racism on campus. The only arguments I'm seeing here based entirely on feelings are those against the protesters.

Yeah and my guess is "some" people against this protest and any protest don't like protests because their feelings have been hurt over the protest.
 
...



But if we're talking about kids being scared of the dark and monsters under the bed, we're basically talking about unwarranted feelings... So now if you compare that, you as (presumably) a white male, are making the giant assumption that you know what is warranted to be felt by a person of color in a white range of situations.



But you literally just diminished people's feelings by comparing them to your fear of the dark as a three year old child.

I think they've (NotAgainSU) done a lot of marrying thoughts to feelings, they've come up with ideas (demands) to improve their experience at SU. A lot of the ideas are almost universally accepted as good ones. One way of looking at Syverud accepting 16/19 is that he acquiesced to a bunch of demands, another (held by most who read the list) is that the kids came up with a lot of good ideas that were easy to accept that will improve the situation. That's a pretty impressive marriage of thoughts to feelings for 18-22 year old kids.

When you start talking about society and rules-based objective order of institutions, that type of discussion should really start with improving the rules-based objective order to eliminate existing forms of bias that are harming minorities and other under privileged groups. I won't get farther into that in this thread, as we're supposed to be keeping it more to the SU situation in here.

Ah, I'm learning the quote function is confusing when we get to the third level. Bear with me.

I appreciate the dialogue and probably have a couple more clarifications to make, but this is a significant distinction that must be made clear:

I am not diminishing anyone's feelings (at least, I'm trying not to and I want that to not be the effect of my words), but I do want to diminish the role that feelings unsupported by rational thought play in crafting institutional policy.

There are 23,000 students at Syracuse University, each with hundreds of feelings (many internally contradictory, to say nothing of how they might correspond to others') every hour of every day. It'd be madness to reconcile these. I personally care about how kids feel -- let's call this a necessary component of driving change -- but it is unsufficient. It has to be accompanied by rational thought to have practical and logical weight toward this end.

Shifting direction, the bolded portion is something I agree with. Though it is worth discussing how this can be accomplished in a moderate way. My guess is that SU's long been governed -- apart from its never-ending quest to placate full-pays' parents and bring in revenue -- in a utilitarian manner: the greatest good for the greatest number. With finite resources and a nearly infinite number of student opinions and preferences, this is the most pragmatic way to do things. Maybe that needs to change, I don't know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,128
Messages
4,681,592
Members
5,900
Latest member
DizzyNY

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
1,907
Total visitors
2,083


Top Bottom