HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » University of Nebraska Li...

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 02:38 AM

 

University of Nebraska Lincoln introduces new 'non-negotiable respect' policy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3771561/New-chancellor-University-Nebraska-Lincoln-implements-new-non-negotiable-respect-policy.html

University of Nebraska Lincoln introduces new 'non-negotiable respect' policy which bans insulting groups, individuals or ideologies

During a speech given at the new student convocation last month, Green made it clear that 'actions of hate and disrespect' would not be tolerated.

However, the policy on what constitutes 'hate' and 'disrespect' has not been made clear.

...

'Feel free to politely criticize the ideas of ISIS or the Ku Klux Klan, for example, but make sure not to show any disrespect, much less hatred, for any group, individual, or ideology.

'If you can’t express yourself respectfully, shut up.,' intellectual freedom activist David Moshman wrote on the Huffington Post.


Because this worked out so well for Mizzou.

67 replies, 13216 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 67 replies Author Time Post
Reply University of Nebraska Lincoln introduces new 'non-negotiable respect' policy (Original post)
NuclearDem Sep 2016 OP
msongs Sep 2016 #1
Travis_0004 Sep 2016 #2
NutmegYankee Sep 2016 #3
LWolf Sep 2016 #8
NutmegYankee Sep 2016 #11
LWolf Sep 2016 #12
GulfCoast66 Sep 2016 #14
friendly_iconoclast Sep 2016 #4
Odin2005 Sep 2016 #20
NuclearDem Sep 2016 #24
tymorial Sep 2016 #33
Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2016 #49
Uponthegears Sep 2016 #5
Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2016 #6
Uponthegears Sep 2016 #50
Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2016 #52
NutmegYankee Sep 2016 #10
Uponthegears Sep 2016 #51
Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2016 #53
NutmegYankee Sep 2016 #55
Dr. Strange Sep 2016 #67
FLPanhandle Sep 2016 #7
Honest.Dem Sep 2016 #36
Brickbat Sep 2016 #9
petronius Sep 2016 #17
OneGrassRoot Sep 2016 #19
petronius Sep 2016 #56
Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2016 #59
OneGrassRoot Sep 2016 #61
Brickbat Sep 2016 #23
OneGrassRoot Sep 2016 #35
NuclearDem Sep 2016 #38
OneGrassRoot Sep 2016 #39
Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2016 #47
Angel Martin Sep 2016 #60
rug Sep 2016 #13
GulfCoast66 Sep 2016 #15
FLPanhandle Sep 2016 #16
rug Sep 2016 #18
NuclearDem Sep 2016 #25
rug Sep 2016 #32
Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #64
Odin2005 Sep 2016 #21
NuclearDem Sep 2016 #22
Odin2005 Sep 2016 #41
NuclearDem Sep 2016 #44
romanic Sep 2016 #40
Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #66
NutmegYankee Sep 2016 #54
deathrind Sep 2016 #26
loyalsister Sep 2016 #27
NuclearDem Sep 2016 #29
loyalsister Sep 2016 #31
NuclearDem Sep 2016 #37
loyalsister Sep 2016 #45
fishwax Sep 2016 #28
NuclearDem Sep 2016 #30
fishwax Sep 2016 #34
Odin2005 Sep 2016 #42
NuclearDem Sep 2016 #46
romanic Sep 2016 #58
struggle4progress Sep 2016 #43
Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2016 #48
Iggo Sep 2016 #57
backscatter712 Sep 2016 #62
Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #63
Oneironaut Sep 2016 #65

Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 03:01 AM

1. its the thought police get set up and running on campus nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 03:37 AM

2. I hate this new policy

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 03:53 AM

3. And the anti-free speech movement has won.

And as predicted, it will silence the left as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #3)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 10:54 AM

8. I'm a little unclear,

and a little ambivalent.

Does this policy really silence people? Or simply require that they express themselves with civility? Like saying "I disagree with Trump and think he is responsible for the rise of hate in the U.S." instead of saying "I hate that orange fucker and the people he support; they are all psychopathic idiots."

I don't want anyone silenced. At the same time, I don't condone hate speech. What is the solution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 11:20 AM

11. What is respectful? If one faith considers an idea blasphemy, is it disrespectful to say it?

What if that very idea is a major tenant of your faith/ideology?

Also, hate speech may be raw, but it should never be illegal in the land of the free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 11:26 AM

12. No.

It's not disrespectful to say that something is blasphemy. The way it's said may be what makes it "hate" speech or not.

I don't think that we as a nation agree on what constitutes hate speech, which is why this is so complicated.

Strong language or passionate expression is not hate speech, imo. For me, hate speech is speech that harms others, or incites harm to others.

Several decades back, in a political science class, my professor told us: "Your rights end at the tip of your nose. You don't have the right to interfere with anyone else's rights." That's an interesting take, but not wholly correct. We should always be debating that gray area: where are our boundaries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 11:26 AM

14. Seeing supposed liberals

Rejecting the 1st amendment is scary. We know the right wing hates it. If enough on the left stops defending it we are in trouble.

The older I get the more I realize leftist and liberal are absolutely not synonyms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 04:56 AM

4. Virtue signalling. This policy will go away once the first lawsuit is lost

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 07:12 PM

20. "virtue signalling" is a RW buzzword.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #20)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 07:48 PM

24. No, it's not.

 

I hate to break it to you, but the social justice crowd doesn't define the entirety of liberalism or the left, just the ones who took Marxist class conflict theory and adopted it to racial and gender identity conflict. Liberalism and Marxism are inherently incompatible with each other; the former understands that better ideas win when presented in open debate and seeks to guarantee equality of opportunity so that people can succeed or fail based on their individual merit, while the latter believes the answer to differing opinions is to eradicate them by judging those who hold them to be immoral or flawed and purging them from public life and enforcing a system of equality of outcome.

The two cannot exist together, because while the former tolerates the existence of the latter, the latter is out to destroy the former. Which is why I'm a liberal, and not a Marxist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #24)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 09:15 PM

33. I wish that I could express this as eloquently

Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #24)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 07:37 AM

49. So farther every complaint raised against you has done nothing but prove the point you're making.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 08:02 AM

5. While dangers of the suppression

 

of legitimate dissent in any organized society cannot be ignored, it is a logical fallacy to conclude from that fact that all dissent is legitimate.

The claim that falsehood is weeded out in a marketplace of ideas assumes that everyone has a factual knowledge base adequate to evaluate the value of the speech of a charlatan. They do not.

Truth is not simply whatever garners the most support among consumers. Someone has to draw lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uponthegears (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 08:11 AM

6. Your statement is illegitimate hate speech and should not be allowed.

{See how easy that was?}

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 09:18 AM

50. It was easy because

 

of what passes as fact in a world where truth is determined by public opinion.

You spew flotsam without any support in fact or cogent argument and declare victory. All you have done is illustrate the intellectual and moral wasteland that is unlimited speech.

Do you also think that people like Snowden spread knowledge simply by spreading information?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uponthegears (Reply #50)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 09:53 AM

52. You went from a debate on open speech at universities to Snowden?

A red herring inside a non-sequitur wrapped in a false dichotomy.


You spew flotsam without any support in fact or cogent argument and declare victory. All you have done is illustrate the intellectual and moral wasteland that is unlimited speech.

This is ironic since I was obviously mimicking the tactics of the Crybaby Veto. What you're effectively saying is you want a censorship regime that would silence those who would use the tactics of censorship to silence people.

Silencing the silencers -- silently...I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uponthegears (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 11:13 AM

10. The problem with a government controlled "Dept. of Truth" is it's a double edged sword.

Moneyed interests could convince the government that PFOA is perfectly safe and those who disagree are peddling lies/misthruths and can be legally punished.

Many people think the inflation rate is bullshit, but the ministry of truth could smash those doubts down hard.

Beware the yolk of Totalitarianism - it burdens all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 09:21 AM

51. The acknowledgement

 

of the difference between truth and opinion is not totalitarianism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uponthegears (Reply #51)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 09:54 AM

53. That's just your opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uponthegears (Reply #51)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 10:55 AM

55. Whose truth?

The right and the left these days seem to exist in completely different realities. We might think that such policies will bring the RW down from "Bullshit Mountain", but they can be just as easily used to chain us to the top of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uponthegears (Reply #51)

Mon Sep 5, 2016, 07:27 PM

67. Correct.

The acknowledgement of the difference between truth and opinion is not totalitarianism.


The totalitarianism comes in when the government makes the decision for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 08:13 AM

7. The ultimate "safe space" university

Don't say anything that anyone will take personally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FLPanhandle (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 10:02 PM

36. Outside of college there are no "safe spaces"

 

for speech we don't like. If I complained to my boss about political statements made by some of my co-workers he would tell me to deal with it or find a job where I work alone. It's part of life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 10:59 AM

9. Where's the policy?

I see a lot of right-wing sites frothing about it, but I can't find it. All I see are some remarks from the chancellor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 12:53 PM

17. This seems to be the speech:



And it seems that he's referring to this statement on the university website:

http://diversity.unl.edu/our-core-values-beliefs

Doesn't take much to feed the RW froth-machine...


Edit to add the text of the relevant statement:

Beliefs on Diversity and Inclusion

At the University of Nebraska, we strive for excellence in all that we do. True excellence requires that each individual be able to work and learn in an atmosphere of respect, dignity, and acceptance. Our commitment to diversity and inclusion requires each of us to continuously ensure our interactions be respectful, protect free speech and inspire academic freedom.

At the University of Nebraska:
  • We value equity, inclusion, and dignity for all.
  • We strive for excellence and recognize that our differences make us stronger. We respect and seek out inclusion of differences, realizing we can learn from each other.
  • We insist on a culture of respect, and recognize that words and actions matter. The absence of action and words also matter.
  • We believe in the freedom of speech, and encourage the expression of ideas and opinions, and we do not tolerate words and actions of hate and disrespect. We know how to share criticism of ideas with respect.
  • We all share in the responsibility to create a positive culture and to safeguard equity, inclusion, dignity, and respect for all. Each member of the University community—faculty, staff and students—should be a role model for others.
  • We take action when we observe someone being treated unfairly or in a demeaning manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 06:02 PM

19. What's there to disagree with?

I can summarize a culture of respect even more succinctly: no bullying or dehumanizations.

I do acknowledge there are gray areas hence the need for ongoing, respectful, INCLUSIVE dialogue.

I'm realizing the word "inclusive" freaks certain people out.

Thanks for sharing this; easy to see how this will be a viral click bait story, facts be damned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneGrassRoot (Reply #19)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 12:31 PM

56. Indeed, it's a positive and appropriate statement of values from UNL

Each of those bullet points describes principles that members of a productive academic community should strive to adhere to as they interact with one another and explore new ideas...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneGrassRoot (Reply #19)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 06:24 PM

59. "no bullying or dehumanizations."

I've been told that not favoring declaring specific public areas as safe spaces entitled to exclude people makes me opposed to rape victims feeling unsafe. It's only a small step to declare me as bullying or dehumanizing someone.

Those demanding the power to silence people have proven they cannot be trusted with that power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #59)

Mon Sep 5, 2016, 11:38 AM

61. Would you say you lean toward libertarianism?

That isn't a dirty word to me, btw. In a perfect world there'd be no need for labels or generalizations, but in order to communicate I haven't found a way to avoid it. Of course the disclaimer that labels and generalizations don't apply to EVERYONE in a group should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway.

Anyway, there are various worldviews that are predominant now; I don't know how long they've been in place but it's most evident to me with the advent of the Internet and the contrast between the views has become glaringly stark with the growth of social media.

(I'm in the middle of grieving, so I don't have the focus or energy to reply to the various comments here as I truly want to do; this is a great discussion, one that's vitally important, imho. I'll bookmark it and come back to it in a couple of weeks.)

I definitely hear you and others regarding the slippery slope and how so much in this human social experience is subjective. What is painful/hurtful/offensive to one person doesn't even register on another person's radar.

Yet what I and many others have experienced re: stalking, doxxing, etc. in the online realm (which overflows into physical daily life and isn't restricted to the online space...it all blurs together now anyway) is unacceptable. The general online culture is toxic and violent. There is very little civility, and it gets downright nasty, violent and threatening. Certain groups have experienced this more than others (women and, most especially women of color).

I ask if you feel you lean toward libertarianism because that is a vibe (sorry, can't think of perfect words right now) and worldview that is prevalent online. I actually feel that perspective is baked into the Internet, if you will, because -- and this is simply a fact -- the vast majority of online real estate was built by younger, white men with a more "hands off," libertarian approach to life.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH YOUNGER, WHITE MEN. That isn't a diss. And I fully recognize that even young, white men -- with or without socioeconomic advantages -- can feel attacked and bullied by individuals or groups of people. The experience of institutional, systemic racism and bigotry, however, isn't as prevalent in the history of this country for white men.

It's just that each of us as a group lives a certain experience (in general) than people who identify and are identified with other groups. That experience greatly influences our perspective on things and indeed our worldview.

I take a triage approach: I want to address and try to prevent the existing, most dangerous forms of bullying (physical violence and hate which so easily incites physical violence). There is a spectrum to bullying and, yes, it can be subjective.

But to have the discussions about what is or isn't acceptable to an institution or a society needs to happen within a culture of respect. When there are zero boundaries -- on both ends of the spectrum, btw -- it creates more toxicity.

I'm rambling...sorry...but I just don't see where the actual guidelines, to which I responded here, should be problematic for anyone.

Like I said above though, I'm going to come back to all of it because this is very important to me.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 07:36 PM

23. I always find it a little dismaying I see the glee with which some on DU decry efforts of those

who simply ask for people to think about the effects of their words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 09:26 PM

35. I find it dismaying...

to see such a prevalent alt-right contingent here, but I know it isn't new. Still, it disturbs me every time I pop in here and see it so clearly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneGrassRoot (Reply #35)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 10:18 PM

38. I don't think you know what "alt-right" means.

 

Especially if you think there's a "prevalent alt-right contingent" at DU.

I think you just mean "group of people who disagree with me."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #38)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 10:27 PM

39. Nope, I know precisely what I mean and...

what alt-right means, thank you very much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneGrassRoot (Reply #39)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 06:55 AM

47. And yet, ND's summation is proving true in the thread.

A label is created; whether that label be "alt right" or some other and then the charge is laid: No proper thinking person would defend the alt-right.

As soon as reservation or disagreement about that declaration is raised the dissenter is then labeled alt-right.

It's already being played out up and down the thread and that's why this pernicious -- and, frankly, dishonest -- assault on free speech should be opposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #47)

Mon Sep 5, 2016, 01:56 AM

60. Agree completely, well said ! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 11:26 AM

13. It's more a no assholes policy than it is a no free speech policy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 11:29 AM

15. Free speech

Covers freedom to be as asshole.

Or I would have to shut up way too often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 12:06 PM

16. In Nebraska any liberal policy is considered Hate speech or asshole policy

In conservative Nebraska, you think a Pro-Life position isn't going to be label as hate speech?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FLPanhandle (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 05:28 PM

18. Neither pro-life nor pro-choice positions should be considered hate speech at this university.

 

There's a wide variety of student organizations represented.

http://involved.unl.edu/Alphabetical%20list%20organizations%202012.pdf

Of course if the advocacy consists of yelling "baby-killer" and "misogynist" back and forth it would likely violate this policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #18)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 07:55 PM

25. I for one find Nebraskans for the Upgraded Treatment of Squirrels to be hate speech.

 

I was going to actually post something more substantive, but I can't be serious after seeing that name on the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #25)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 08:53 PM

32. This one is bound to stir up controversy:

 

Actuarial Science Club.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 5, 2016, 06:33 PM

64. Given the mass currency of "asshole," student bodies everywhere will have to evacuate!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 07:16 PM

21. WTF is with all the RW talking points in this thread?

I though I was on a PROGRESSIVE web site? I feel like I'm in Reddit with the usual suspects whining about "SJWs" censoring them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #21)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 07:34 PM

22. Those horrible RW talking points like defending academic freedom and freedom of speech

 

from a bunch of hypersensitive crybabies who can't handle opinions different from their own.

Please tell me why these people can't just behave like normal adults and simply debate ideas they find offensive, or why you think the power you're in favor of handing authorities to punish people for extremely vague speech-related offenses will never be turned and wielded against you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #22)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 12:38 AM

41. As opposed to the Gamergators you apologize for who make women too terrified to speak?

Funny how you are so quick to defend the hate speech and bullying of reactionaries even when that so-called "free speech" causes marginalized groups to be terrified into silence. Your idea of "freedom" in reality is just allowing the assholes and fuckwads of the world shit up the place and terrorize women, POC, and LGBT folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #41)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 01:00 AM

44. That was a lovely collection of buzzwords.

 

But honestly, do you really think someone who white-knights for Islam has any business telling someone else he hates women and LGBT folks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #21)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 10:39 PM

40. Then post your own opinions instead of whining...

about "rw talking points", that's what discussion forums are for or did u forget that in your little temper tantrum?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to romanic (Reply #40)

Mon Sep 5, 2016, 06:36 PM

66. But...but tagging an argument "RWtalkingPoint" makes stuff so EZ.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #21)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 10:47 AM

54. Free speech is a basic tenet of liberalism.

If you think that's right-wing, then you are clueless on just what right-wing really is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 08:03 PM

26. This is a very slippery slope...

Everybody has something that they deem to be offensive. This kind of policy could end up getting way out of hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 08:07 PM

27. Are you referring to the threat to koill all black students that was successfully prosecuted

the fools who called the student president the N word, or the student who refused to call a professor with a PhD doctor because he claimed her achievments were a function of affirmative action?

We have yet to see how the standards that MU adopted will fare. After spring and summers semesters and thus far this fall semester, better than your post wishes to impose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 08:39 PM

29. You mean this fall, when Mizzou is starting with two thousand fewer students than last year?

 

And the university is $30 million in the hole?

Yeah, I can see how they're much better off in the hands of people who think freedom of the press is optional and are completely comfortable fabricating hate crimes on campus to advance their agenda.

27. Are you referring to the threat to koill all black students that was successfully prosecuted


Which came after the protesters had forced Wolfe out of his position and occurred nearly a hundred miles away. So again, worked out real well.

Even before the protests, incidents where students were being jackasses typically ended with the students being expelled or disciplined in some way. They were not a part of "systemic white supremacy" at the university like the protests made them out to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #29)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 08:45 PM

31. The university is in the hands of the RW republicans

congratulations on joining them in demonizing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 10:16 PM

37. Yeah, because RW Republicans are real concerned about how inclusive "unisex bathroom" is.

 

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/special_section/welcome_back/mu-changes-bathroom-labels-to-promote-gender-inclusivity/article_9dc1b3f2-5800-11e6-b5d5-abfa2879080b.html

COLUMBIA — Many single-occupancy restrooms across the MU campus that were labeled as "unisex" will be re-labeled "toilet" by the time students return in August.

The change to "toilet" will only affect single-occupancy bathroom stalls. In residential halls, single-occupancy stalls with showers and sinks will be re-labeled "shower" and "toilet," depending on the contents of the restroom.

The move follows a resolution passed by the Missouri Students Association in January. According to the resolution, the change will "make MU's campus bathrooms more accessible to trans and gender non-conforming students."

Sterling Waldman, a social justice chair in the MSA Senate, engaged the support of the MSA for the re-labeling. Waldman said the word unisex excludes people who do not identify as male or female.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #37)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 01:08 AM

45. Somehow I doubt that makes up for the funding shortfalls

that came directly from the general assembly and were justified with your talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 08:33 PM

28. your post suggests the chancellor said the things quoted in the last two paragraphs

But he didn't, of course.

Nor does saying something in a speech constitute imposing a new policy. But that's the daily mail for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #28)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 08:40 PM

30. Oh, it does?

 

'If you can’t express yourself respectfully, shut up.,' intellectual freedom activist David Moshman wrote on the Huffington Post.


Oh, never mind, it doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #30)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 09:15 PM

34. you're right the last paragraph is clear

The next-to-last is less so, in keeping with the original source (although your snippet actually makes that a bit clearer than in the original source, where I suspect obfuscation was by design).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #28)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 12:39 AM

42. OP is an apologist of the Gamergate bullies.

He/she has an obvious agenda of portraying progressives as "totalitarian cultural marxists".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #42)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 01:08 AM

46. Are you ever going to get around to posting anything of substance in reply to me?

 

Your default mode seems to involve screaming "RW RW GAMERGATE GAMERGATE" without actually discussing any points brought up. The OP has absolutely nothing to do with GamerGate; you're just using the negative connotations of it to poison the well so you don't have to actually address any of the points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #42)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 01:56 PM

58. Gamergate is sooo two years ago.

Get with the times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 12:44 AM

43. Quelle horreur! A call for thoughtful academic discourse instead of loud ugly name-calling!

Can our great Republic survive this assault on our precious freedoms? Can our great universities survive this assault?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #43)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 06:59 AM

48. If only that were the case. From the way this thread has evolved

it's those who support the policy who are pouring into the thread with loud, ugly calls of "RW!" and "alt-right!" and "terrorizing!" in order to stop discussion, not advance it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 12:53 PM

57. Respectfully, Fuck You University Of Nebraska Lincoln.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Mon Sep 5, 2016, 12:25 PM

62. Fuck, not more of this stupid safe-space bullshit.

We wouldn't want anyone to be triggered...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Mon Sep 5, 2016, 06:30 PM

63. Oh, breaking wind! Not this again.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Original post)

Mon Sep 5, 2016, 06:36 PM

65. Um... I've never felt "accepted." I sucked it up and it made me a stronger person.

It prepared me for the real world, where people are equally as obnoxious. These are not children - they're adults! Policies like this are infantile and encourage the annoying "extended adolescence" problem our society is suffering from.

What's worse? 1000 people simmering with hatred for you and being forced to be nice to your face under threat of some authority, or knowing who your real enemies are and acting accordingly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread