FWIS3

So for those who missed it, the UoMO is in the thick of the racial tension times because, in short, various racist incidents were occurring on campus that were quite disturbing, the university administration was slow to respond to this stuff, and it got to the point where many of the football players, black and white, were threatening to boycott their game on Saturday unless the university president resigned. This being America where such a threat equates to several million dollars, the president resigned right quick.

Now, I'm no expert on the local campus politics, but from reading up on what happened it does sound like the president seriously mismanaged it. Further, I suspect a lot of (white) people do not understand what it's like to be black in Missouri and how race can still be an issue (see: Ferguson). I also think people have a tendency to not consciously think it, but have a mentality of "ok, the president is out, that means racism on campus must be solved!" That said, this video was a bit weird. In short, a student journalist wandered in to take pictures of the protest, protesters got in his face telling him to leave because they didn't want him there, journalist refused, and he pretty much got assaulted out of there. Was the student arguably a bit of a jerk to continue taking pictures of people who didn't want their pictures taken? Yes, but then so does the paparazzi, on a more intimate and personal basis, and we can't assault them.

But judging from the dialogue I've seen lately it seems like these days you can't just say something simple like that, you have to either say the student does not understand the concept of a safe space because of white privilege, or threaten the faculty member in the video to the point where she resigns her job instead of just saying "ok, one more nut in the world." Once again, it's easy to call for level heads when you're just becoming aware of an issue rather than being frustrated for a long time about it, but damn.

I'm aware of what happened at the University of Missouri but I am a bit confused by the video. Why are the students unwilling to have reporters in their midst?

Beyond that, I think the students acted like assholes. The student-reporter was very civil and was in a public space.

That baffled me too. I would expect them to want the student reporter's presence.
Because, you know, if a protest happens and no one knows about it, did it really have a point.

All I know is that, as a result of this racial crap in Missouri, some asshat has now threatened Howard University where my cousin is a professor. Very scary.

This planet is fucked up.

vendic wrote:That baffled me too. I would expect them to want the student reporter's presence.
Because, you know, if a protest happens and no one knows about it, did it really have a point.

These days interestingly you often don't need the media as much to get your message out, thanks to social media, especially on a college campus. You set up your Twitter account and the like and go to town. Trust me, the student newspaper or CNN is the last place you get your information from.

I should be clear in that I think the students dealt with the student journalist very badly- in fact, so obvious I didn't bother to emphasize it. But I guess my point is one of if a bunch of people tell me they don't want me to take pictures of them for whatever reason, my first reaction isn't to stick around and keep doing so. Obviously you can anyway because it's a free country, but just because I can be a jerk doesn't mean I'm routinely invoking my right to do so. Does that make sense?

A (really weird) example comes to mind here- back in undergrad one year in springtime I was laying on the quad reading who knows what, and a guy (presumably another student) came up and took my photo. I didn't know this person, and he offered no explanation as to why he wanted said picture. I asked him why he did that, he shrugged and said it was a public area, and he left.

Technically yeah, I guess he was right, but that doesn't mean he wasn't fucking creepy at worst and a bit invasive at best.

One thing I find interesting about the interference with the photographer (I didn't know it was a student journalist, and I'm not sure why that would matter).... the person who started the confrontation is a professor at the school and a professor of communications!

A video discussing the issue

Apparently she has resigned from one position she had with the university and apologized, but I'm really curious as to what her "thinking" was; why were she and the students in the face of the people taking pictures (and it is apparent from one of the videos I saw, it wasn't just the one photographer, but several).

The video I linked to mentions something about giving students a "safe" place to protest. But if you are protesting in a public space, how are people taking your photo making it a non-safe place? (I see a public protest as completely different than the creepy situation Rommie described)

It actually comes across to me not as making it a safe place for students to express their opinion, but a way of marketing your protest, of controlling your message, so that the images you desire are the ones that are disseminated. It goes beyond "if you are not with us, you are against us" and changes that to "if you are not communicating our message the way we demand you communicate it, you are against us".

It is a useful lesson to teach your Communications students - they will all have long careers ahead of them at Fox "News".

Rommie wrote:Obviously you can anyway because it's a free country, but just because I can be a jerk doesn't mean I'm routinely invoking my right to do so. Does that make sense?

It does, but, I'm more with Swift on this.
You can do private things in public places, make out for example. So long as it doesn't go too far. Most people will give you that privacy regardless if you are at a public beach, park etc.

When you organise a protest in a public place, it's no longer something that society regards as private. People want to know what the disruption is. The people telling the reporter to leave do not have the right to speak for everyone else present and they certainly don't speak for the people who want to know what is happening in said place.
This instance gets even more complex since the property is not public. That means the protesters have no right whatsoever in telling others who are also allowed on that property to leave or what to do. They do not speak for the property owner but are acting like they own the place.

On yet another level, they are now telling the media what events the media can and can't pursue. It really goes against the very principle of freedom of the press. There is a huge distinction between the press covering a private situation (two people making out) and a protest. It is their job to inform the public and censorship is not a good path to go down.

vendic wrote:When you organise a protest in a public place, it's no longer something that society regards as private. People want to know what the disruption is.

Yes. Even more so, the main purpose of many (most) protests is to disseminate a message to the public. It seems counter-productive to interfere with people helping to disseminate the message.

But there is another possible purpose of a protest, and that is to disrupt "normal operations". Often that is also tied in with the communications purpose, but not always. If all these protestors wanted to do was "block traffic" (so to speak), or to be otherwise disruptive or destructive, then they may not have wanted witnesses.

I'm not saying it gives them the right to block and threaten the photographers, but I'm struggling to even understand the motive here.

I have trouble feeling annoyed with the protesters given the circumstances, really.

I mean, how do you think it would go over, if someone started putting up "Kill the Jews!" posters on a German university campus, and the faculty failed to deal with it promptly? Now consider the ugly precedent here, especially in Southern states like Missouri.

People are scared, and scared people tend be less reserved.

Pretty sure what you're seeing is anger, not fear.

Anger born of fear, then. I think my analogy stands. Also

vendic wrote:This planet is fucked up.

I concur entirely.

Gullible Jones wrote:I have trouble feeling annoyed with the protesters given the circumstances, really.

I mean, how do you think it would go over, if someone started putting up "Kill the Jews!" posters on a German university campus, and the faculty failed to deal with it promptly? Now consider the ugly precedent here, especially in Southern states like Missouri.

People are scared, and scared people tend be less reserved.

If you are talking about having trouble feeling annoyed about their treatment of the photographers, I completely disagree.

I have no problem with their protests, I even agree. But if you turn around and start hating on others, and use your own emotions as an excuse, then you are part of the problem.

*Like

Gullible Jones wrote:I have trouble feeling annoyed with the protesters given the circumstances, really.

I mean, how do you think it would go over, if someone started putting up "Kill the Jews!" posters on a German university campus, and the faculty failed to deal with it promptly? Now consider the ugly precedent here, especially in Southern states like Missouri.

Let me spin it a little. How would you feel if those Jews then went to Jewish schools and posted, "kill the Arabs" as a response?

I'm really getting tired of people doing the wrong thing being given a pass because they had something done to them.
Get over it. Everyone has had to deal with bad shit, only the depth varies.
I see it all the time now.
When someone does something bad to you, your reaction shouldn't be to do something bad to someone else.
It should teach you NOT to do the wrong thing to others.
Unfortunately, people are learning the wrong lesson and the more we excuse them, the more they will think it's the right reaction.

vendic wrote:Let me spin it a little. How would you feel if those Jews then went to Jewish schools and posted, "kill the Arabs" as a response?

I... uh, I don't think that's remotely similar to what's going on here.

Gullible Jones wrote:

vendic wrote:Let me spin it a little. How would you feel if those Jews then went to Jewish schools and posted, "kill the Arabs" as a response?

I... uh, I don't think that's remotely similar to what's going on here.

First, let me get something clear here, are you, GJ, defending their actions against the photographers? Because I'm getting confused if you are talking about that, or the protests in general. I support the protests and I think vendic does too.

Second, if that is the case, then please explain how those actions are justified and how those actions are helping, not hurting, their cause. You are someone who always gets upset over threatening gestures, both physical and emotional. Well they were threatening these photographers.

Gullible Jones wrote:I mean, how do you think it would go over, if someone started putting up "Kill the Jews!" posters on a German university campus, and the faculty failed to deal with it promptly? Now consider the ugly precedent here, especially in Southern states like Missouri.

People are scared, and scared people tend be less reserved

And I don't feel what you said is remotely similar to what is going on here.

You are excusing it as an emotional response, that people were scared.

They were not responding to something that just happened (like the attacks in Paris), something that was immediately scary. They were responding to months of hateful gestures to which the university didn't respond. And this wasn't the only protest, this was one of many such actions. I don't see how at that moment in time they were "scared".

Second, these aren't little children; these are adult students and a professor doing these actions. As I said, this wasn't an immediate threat, there was certainly time for rational thought about what they were doing.

I gave my explanation of what I think they were trying to do, I think they were trying to control the message, and I think they were trying to hide actions that went beyond peaceful protests. But that's my guess. I would love to hear an explanation from the professor.

I think they should be ashamed of themselves. I'm not calling for them to be put to death, but their actions are not excusable.

Watching the video: I see the student reporter being whiny, honestly. Dude, just apologize and back off.

The protesters seem pretty on edge, but that can only be expected for already-irate people having a camera put in their faces. "You better back off, bro" could be construed as threatening, but is par for the course. When you get in strangers' faces, they will sometimes get back in yours.

The older white lady (professor, I'm assuming?) acts kind of pompous later. Whatever. Seriously, I have no idea what the hell you guys are talking about; especially in context of schmucks putting up pro-genocide posters around campus.