On Recent Events at the University of Missouri

[amigocabal]

No doubt most of us heard about University President Tim Wolfe's resignation from the University of Minnesota for failing to react to a series of racial incidents. From what is reported, all there was were a series of non-violent acts by private individuals. Of these incidents, only the shit swastika would be the University's business, as it would be vandalism. And none of the student protestors quantified how the invesatigation into that incident was mishandled.

Now, one does not have to go back too far to find instances of the media not reporting the full story. Perhaps there were incidents of racial discrimination by university faculty and staff, which of course the University and its leadership must account for. See Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), Fisher v. University of Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013)

But even assuming that such allegations were made, what disturbs me are proposed solutions. The University Police proposed that students report hateful or hurtful speech regardless of whether as threat was involved.

Public universities are not allowed to punish mere speech. See Papish v. Board of Curators, 410 U.S. 667 (1973), and Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972). see also Iota Xi v. George Mason Univ., 993 F.2d 386 (4th Cir. 1993), Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727 (6th Cir. 2012) The police have no business accepting reports of mere hateful or hurtful speech.

That is not the only thing. The students made several demands of the university.

Enforcement of mandatory racial awareness and inclusion curriculum for all faculty, staff and students, controlled by a board of color.

In other words, a separate but equal board. However...

in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place

today is Veterans' Day. It is a shame so many people want to sacrifice civil rights.

[mr friendly guy]

No doubt most of us heard about University President Tim Wolfe's resignation from the University of Minnesota

You mean Missouri, not Minnesota.

In any event, my understanding is that the President was criticised for being too slow to respond to racist incidents, even if he eventually did so in one case with a student who used the N word, by transferring him elsewhere. What I see on my youtube channel were the students and staff members stopping student reporters from even photographing their protest. Which kind of defeats the purpose of protesting, ie to draw attention to what you are protesting against. The arguments they used were fucking retarded and made my brain hurt just listening to it.

However..... I do have a few points to make

1. Could some racist incidents be counted as harassment? I am not an expert on the law, so I not sure.

2. If the law allows racist statements on the grounds of free speech (silly countries like Australia and Canada with their hate speech laws, clearly we aren't as free as the land of the brave), then wouldn't the only way to combat racism be via education, which is kind of what they are proposing with the mandatory racial awareness and inclusion curriculum.

[Block]

Well, Wolfe supposedly enacted that sort of mandatory training for faculty and students. There are unfortunately a lot of unsubstantiated accusations and conflicting accounts. I'm not entirely sure what can done about townies on an open campus like that, especially relevant since at least half the reported incidents don't involve students doing the harassing.

[trekky0623]

I honestly just do not understand the stuff going on at Missouri. I mean, even if racism by private individuals in these isolated incidents were not the only things the student's took issue with, I do not understand how forcing the president to resign fixes any of it. And from what I understand, most of the demands were already met or were met in a timely fashion, apart from Wolfe apologizing and "acknowledging his white privilege." It just seems completely insane that such such a huge fiasco is so easy to start.

[amigocabal]

I honestly just do not understand the stuff going on at Missouri. I mean, even if racism by private individuals in these isolated incidents were not the only things the student's took issue with, I do not understand how forcing the president to resign fixes any of it. And from what I understand, most of the demands were already met or were met in a timely fashion, apart from Wolfe apologizing and "acknowledging his white privilege." It just seems completely insane that such such a huge fiasco is so easy to start.

\
There is no evidence that Tim Wolfe received white privilege from the University itself. In fact, because he was the President, almost all of his privileges can be traced back to his status as University President.

What disturbs me is that some of the schools, in order to combat privater racial incidents, want to bring back segregation (albeit in a limited context).

[mr friendly guy]

I am going to hazard a guess that the white privilege refers to the fact that he is slow to respond to racist incidents because as a white person, he never experienced it, so he is not as motivated as someone who has been.

The problem with that contention, is how do you actually prove it? It would be better to stick with him being ineffective and incompetent at dealing with racist incidents. *

* on another note with privileges - if I wanted to test the hypothesis that white privilege gave someone an unfair (but not insurmountable) advantage over a non white person in the job market, or made white people better treated under the law, I can easily describe a social experiment to test this hypothesis. However in this case, there is really no way short of Wolfe admitting whether white privilege had anything to do with him being ineffectual. This way they tend to overplay the privilege card and start looking silly.

[Elheru Aran]

I find it a bit more troubling that the sports team has the power to essentially upset the table than anything else, and that the school would have to forfeit a million dollars should they not play a game. How many students could that put through school? How many teachers could that fund? And what the fuck happened to give the athletes that much power, when they're something like .01% of the student body?

To clarify, I'm not saying that their complaints aren't justified-- if there was a recent history of racist incidents then those needed to be addressed-- I'm just disturbed that the football team has that much power... and by extension, much of the NCAA, over their schools. It certainly says something about the priorities of higher educational institutions in the US.

[amigocabal]

I am going to hazard a guess that the white privilege refers to the fact that he is slow to respond to racist incidents because as a white person, he never experienced it, so he is not as motivated as someone who has been.

The problem with that contention, is how do you actually prove it? It would be better to stick with him being ineffective and incompetent at dealing with racist incidents. *

* on another note with privileges - if I wanted to test the hypothesis that white privilege gave someone an unfair (but not insurmountable) advantage over a non white person in the job market, or made white people better treated under the law, I can easily describe a social experiment to test this hypothesis. However in this case, there is really no way short of Wolfe admitting whether white privilege had anything to do with him being ineffectual. This way they tend to overplay the privilege card and start looking silly.

Regardingthe job market, white privilege may not necessarily arise from employer racial discrimination.

For an extreme historical example, some states back in the early 19th century made whiteness a condition for residency. Even after these laws were abrogated by the 14th Amendment, black migrants to those states had a disadvantage in the job market compared to longtime white residents even with employers willing to hire black people, due in no small part in lacking a network of social connections.

[mr friendly guy]

I wasn't thinking of job networking per se.

I was pointing out I can come up with a social experiment to demonstrate racial bias in the job market (for at least one particular field). For example I send 2 CVs to multiple companies advertising a particular position. Both will be identical in font, spacing and have the same content. The only difference would be in the name. One of them has a "white sounding name," eg John Smith, and the other has a clear minority name, lets say Mohammud Youseff. Lets see who gets called back. If there is no racial bias we should have roughly equal. If there is a clear disparity in the number of calls, then there is some bias there.

I once posted an article on someone who did this in Australia, and then others here pointed to other studies in other western nations which showed a similar finding. Guess which ones got called back waaay more. Assuming this is what they mean by white privilege, then it exists at least in this case.

[madd0ct0r]

No, that's straightforward racism on behalf of the person choosing Cvs. Maybe not pro slavery moustache twirling racism, but still racism.

White privelage would be a white job seeker (who gets called back more) assuming the black guy gets the same call back frequency.

[madd0ct0r]

Testing the case in question would require looking at the distribution of followed up claims at other unis, and or his follow up of other, non racial things, such as mugging

[Crown]

2. If the law allows racist statements on the grounds of free speech (silly countries like Australia and Canada with their hate speech laws, clearly we aren't as free as the land of the brave), then wouldn't the only way to combat racism be via education, which is kind of what they are proposing with the mandatory racial awareness and inclusion curriculum.

We've also banned reporting on conditions in offshore detention centres by doctors, and Canada (under Harper) banned government employed scientist from actually speaking their mind (which often intersected with the truth) if it was out of line from the party message. So not sure what you're getting snarky about (if I've mischaracterised the bolded, I apologise).

A universal right to free speech is the only means to insure a vibrant and healthy democracy.

However, the right to free speech doesn't equal the freedom from repercussions that said speech could conjure; social ostracism as an example.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am going to hazard a guess that the white privilege refers to the fact that he is slow to respond to racist incidents because as a white person, he never experienced it, so he is not as motivated as someone who has been.

The problem with that contention, is how do you actually prove it? It would be better to stick with him being ineffective and incompetent at dealing with racist incidents. *

* on another note with privileges - if I wanted to test the hypothesis that white privilege gave someone an unfair (but not insurmountable) advantage over a non white person in the job market, or made white people better treated under the law, I can easily describe a social experiment to test this hypothesis. However in this case, there is really no way short of Wolfe admitting whether white privilege had anything to do with him being ineffectual. This way they tend to overplay the privilege card and start looking silly.

Regardingthe job market, white privilege may not necessarily arise from employer racial discrimination.

For an extreme historical example, some states back in the early 19th century made whiteness a condition for residency. Even after these laws were abrogated by the 14th Amendment, black migrants to those states had a disadvantage in the job market compared to longtime white residents even with employers willing to hire black people, due in no small part in lacking a network of social connections.

Your contention has been eliminated by a properly controlled experiment.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~hf14/teach ... an2004.pdf

I wasn't thinking of job networking per se.

I was pointing out I can come up with a social experiment to demonstrate racial bias in the job market (for at least one particular field). For example I send 2 CVs to multiple companies advertising a particular position. Both will be identical in font, spacing and have the same content. The only difference would be in the name. One of them has a "white sounding name," eg John Smith, and the other has a clear minority name, lets say Mohammud Youseff. Lets see who gets called back. If there is no racial bias we should have roughly equal. If there is a clear disparity in the number of calls, then there is some bias there.

I once posted an article on someone who did this in Australia, and then others here pointed to other studies in other western nations which showed a similar finding. Guess which ones got called back waaay more. Assuming this is what they mean by white privilege, then it exists at least in this case.

Yeah, it is one of those perfectly elegant experimental designs that has been replicated repeatedly.

In employment
University admissions
Grading on subjective content (essays and the like)
Employee evaluations
Women vs Men (for all of the above, including assessment of math competency)

And the results are the same with some variation in the exact numbers every single time.

[mr friendly guy]

No, that's straightforward racism on behalf of the person choosing Cvs. Maybe not pro slavery moustache twirling racism, but still racism.

White privelage would be a white job seeker (who gets called back more) assuming the black guy gets the same call back frequency.

I thought white privilege is supposed to be a consequence of racism or at least bias against non whites. Hence my job seeker example. Its an easier one to test for as opposed to say bias in the law because you can control for more factors with your CV.

We've also banned reporting on conditions in offshore detention centres by doctors, and Canada (under Harper) banned government employed scientist from actually speaking their mind (which often intersected with the truth) if it was out of line from the party message. So not sure what you're getting snarky about (if I've mischaracterised the bolded, I apologise).

A universal right to free speech is the only means to insure a vibrant and healthy democracy.

However, the right to free speech doesn't equal the freedom from repercussions that said speech could conjure; social ostracism as an example.

Simple. Those free speech advocates (I subscribe to some of their youtube channels) who argue that Australia and Canada is less free than the US because we have hate speech laws. Also by extension European countries with Holocaust denial laws are also less free.

Sorry, I don't see why one needs a "right" to racially villify someone (as opposed to other forms of criticism), nor how society is worse off because you limit free speech in this way. Nor do I see other forms of free speech threatened because of it unless you 1) subscribe to slippery slope fallacies (ie if we limit on thing, we will end up limiting more despite the evidence to the contrary with countries which have Holocaust denial laws for example) and 2) are prepared to argue that no country should have slander or libel laws (since even in the land of the free such things exist, and by definition limits free speech).

[Patroklos]

As a general rule I don't see something written as shit as a statement of pro something. If it had been a star of david in shit would they continue to shoehorn in the same pro sentiment?

I

[amigocabal]

I am going to hazard a guess that the white privilege refers to the fact that he is slow to respond to racist incidents because as a white person, he never experienced it, so he is not as motivated as someone who has been.

The problem with that contention, is how do you actually prove it? It would be better to stick with him being ineffective and incompetent at dealing with racist incidents. *

* on another note with privileges - if I wanted to test the hypothesis that white privilege gave someone an unfair (but not insurmountable) advantage over a non white person in the job market, or made white people better treated under the law, I can easily describe a social experiment to test this hypothesis. However in this case, there is really no way short of Wolfe admitting whether white privilege had anything to do with him being ineffectual. This way they tend to overplay the privilege card and start looking silly.

Regardingthe job market, white privilege may not necessarily arise from employer racial discrimination.

For an extreme historical example, some states back in the early 19th century made whiteness a condition for residency. Even after these laws were abrogated by the 14th Amendment, black migrants to those states had a disadvantage in the job market compared to longtime white residents even with employers willing to hire black people, due in no small part in lacking a network of social connections.

Your contention has been eliminated by a properly controlled experiment.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~hf14/teach ... an2004.pdf

Women vs Men (for all of the above, including assessment of math competency)

And the results are the same with some variation in the exact numbers every single time.

My contention was that past racial discrimination could affect hiring decision by employers who do not discriminate on the basis of race (such as the residency exclusion example quoted above). I was not asserting that no employers ever discriminate on the basis of race.

[mr friendly guy]

The thing is, you were replying to my statement which was talking about the job market in general, rather than a subspecific of the job market like what you're talking about. In fact, if you're going to talk about white privilege, it makes more sense to talk about the whole job market rather than just the non racist employers.
*******************************************************************************
Meanwhile


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-uni ... story.html

Two arrested in social media threats against black students at University of Missouri

Two men were arrested Wednesday on suspicion of posting social media threats against black students at the University of Missouri, but both were far from the Columbia campus when taken into custody.

Black students were deeply disturbed by the anonymous messages, including one that said, "I'm going to stand my ground tomorrow and shoot every black person I see."

University of Missouri police said in a Wednesday morning statement that Hunter Park, 19, had posted threats to the anonymous posting service Yik Yak and other social media but was not on or near campus "at the time of the threat."

Another message on Yik Yak said, "Some of you are alright. Don't go to campus tomorrow."

Park, who is white and from Lake St. Louis, was arrested on suspicion of making terrorist threats and was being held on $4,500 bail, according to records from the Boone County jail.

University of Missouri police said in a statement that Park was arrested at 1:50 a.m. in Rolla, Mo., almost 100 miles southeast of Columbia. Officials declined to release more details.

University of Missouri students protest racist incidents
Before Tim Wolfe's resignation Monday, the school's football team had gone on strike, and some professors were staging a walkout from their classes.
Park is a student at the Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla, the school confirmed in a post on its website.

“Threats of violence of any kind are not tolerated,” Missouri University of Science and Technology Chancellor Cheryl B. Schrader said in a statement.

“We will take every threat seriously and act on them appropriately to protect our campus community,” she said.

Separately, a second college student was arrested on suspicion of posting a death threat to Yik Yak. He also does not attend the University of Missouri.

Northwest Missouri State University freshman Connor B. Stottlemyre, 19, was arrested by campus police in his dorm Wednesday morning, according to the Kansas City Star. The university is in Maryville, more than 200 miles from Columbia.

A university spokesman told the newspaper that Stottlemyre's threat read, in part, “I’m gonna shoot any black people tomorrow, so be ready.”

Full Coverage: University of Missouri unrest

University of Missouri unrest
University of Missouri unrest
Black students were rattled by the threats, which came after a semester of mounting campus protests over racial issues that culminated with University System President Tim Wolfe and Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin announcing their resignations Monday.

Loftin tweeted that Park used "multiple accounts" to threaten students.

Some professors canceled classes and some black students left campus out of fear for their safety late Tuesday night as students — including Missouri student body President Payton Head — also circulated incorrect social media reports that Ku Klux Klan members had gathered on campus.

University of Missouri police Maj. Brian Weimer told the Los Angeles Times late Tuesday night that the department had received no reports of Klan members on campus.

Students were also unsettled by a man shouting and cursing late Tuesday night at the speaker's circle next to the university library. Weimer said the man walked away with a friend.

Someone placed a threatening phone call to the campus' black culture center earlier in the day Tuesday, but the center was not evacuated, said Weimer, who added that university police were maintaining a heavier presence on campus than usual.

Do you feel safe on campus? Share your story
Do you feel safe on campus? Share your story
Some black students were still upset Wednesday morning after a night in which students urged each other to walk home in groups and offer students walking alone an escort home.

"How Mizzou responds to the threat on Black lives today will dictate the progress of the school for the next 10+ years," graduate student Jonathan Butler, 25, who held a seven-day hunger strike to call for the system president's removal, wrote on Twitter.

University of Missouri officials said in a statement on its alert service that the university was still operating under its usual schedule, adding, "Safety is the university's top priority, and we are working hard to assure that the campus remains safe while information is obtained and confirmed."

[Balrog]

Mizzou SJWs activists not exactly doing themselves any favors with this type of behavior. I mean, shit, it's almost like they're purposefully trying to act out all the terrible stereotypes about them like it was a dare.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Regardingthe job market, white privilege may not necessarily arise from employer racial discrimination.

For an extreme historical example, some states back in the early 19th century made whiteness a condition for residency. Even after these laws were abrogated by the 14th Amendment, black migrants to those states had a disadvantage in the job market compared to longtime white residents even with employers willing to hire black people, due in no small part in lacking a network of social connections.

Your contention has been eliminated by a properly controlled experiment.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~hf14/teach ... an2004.pdf

Women vs Men (for all of the above, including assessment of math competency)

And the results are the same with some variation in the exact numbers every single time.

My contention was that past racial discrimination could affect hiring decision by employers who do not discriminate on the basis of race (such as the residency exclusion example quoted above). I was not asserting that no employers ever discriminate on the basis of race.

Here is the thing. The sort of discrimination these various papers describe does not require active conscious racism. It is the result of non-conscious biases.

White privilege is the gap in understanding that results from this. People of color have experienced this, having been passed up for promotion and needing to work harder for the same status. White people dont notice, and when it is brought up tend to get defensive (because they dont want to be racist or profit from it, and thus ironically dont want to admit to what is actually going on unless data is ground into their face).

[Kingmaker]

If I had a dollar for every time I've seen a new variant on what privilege means, I'd have like $5-6. More if you counted implicit definitions.

I'm just disturbed that the football team has that much power... and by extension, much of the NCAA, over their schools.

I don't think that's very typical. MIssouri-Columbia is part of the SEC, which accounts for a lot of money (though I don't know how much of that winds up benefiting the school, since all but a few football programs are a net loss). Most schools are not going to have that kind of obligation, so a player strike would be a bit of a dud.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If I had a dollar for every time I've seen a new variant on what privilege means, I'd have like $5-6. More if you counted implicit definitions.

Well sure, but it takes a lot of different forms and I tend to take the less tinfoil hat definitions.

[amigocabal]

Your contention has been eliminated by a properly controlled experiment.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~hf14/teach ... an2004.pdf

Women vs Men (for all of the above, including assessment of math competency)

And the results are the same with some variation in the exact numbers every single time.

My contention was that past racial discrimination could affect hiring decision by employers who do not discriminate on the basis of race (such as the residency exclusion example quoted above). I was not asserting that no employers ever discriminate on the basis of race.

Here is the thing. The sort of discrimination these various papers describe does not require active conscious racism. It is the result of non-conscious biases.

White privilege is the gap in understanding that results from this. People of color have experienced this, having been passed up for promotion and needing to work harder for the same status. White people dont notice, and when it is brought up tend to get defensive (because they dont want to be racist or profit from it, and thus ironically dont want to admit to what is actually going on unless data is ground into their face).

According to the paper, it is not race per se, but rather funny-sounding names, that triggers the unconscious bias.

Of course, names do have a correlation with ethnic descent. I would not be surprised if, in an earlier time, resumes with last names beginning with Mc or O' were usually ignored.

[Aether]

A few things.

1. Jonathan Butler, one of the protesters at the Missouri Home Coming Parade, claimed that the car carrying the UoM President, had hit him. That claim is in question. The video the 'Concerned Student' uploaded, at 6:40 time stamp, it really looks like Jonathan Butler ran into the car himself.


2. Payton Head, student body President,claimed on Twitter that the KKK was confirmed to be sighted on campus. He later retracted his comment and apologized on Twitter.

3. Self levels of parody are afoot with "No Media. Safe Space." banners.

What's stupid about these protesters is that I am sure there are issues that need to be discussed within the community; however, exaggerations, bullying of the media (by a communications professor no less), does not beholden you to the greater community to hear your supposed sorrows.

[madd0ct0r]

Well, it's certainly an odd thing. The obvious option is that, what with protesting against the university president, the professor isn't convinced retaliation on those students won't happen later. Second option being behind the screen talks have told the professors that images of protest that put the uni in a bad light will have repercussions

[mr friendly guy]

According to the paper, it is not race per se, but rather funny-sounding names, that triggers the unconscious bias.

Of course, names do have a correlation with ethnic descent. I would not be surprised if, in an earlier time, resumes with last names beginning with Mc or O' were usually ignored.

Unless someone is being very disingenuous, it would generally be obvious which names are more likely to belong to white people and which are not. Just for the record I have seen people argue "what is a white sounding name anyway?" hur hur hur.

What's stupid about these protesters is that I am sure there are issues that need to be discussed within the community; however, exaggerations, bullying of the media (by a communications professor no less), does not beholden you to the greater community to hear your supposed sorrows.

That's sort of my thoughts on the matter as well. Dave Rubin hit in on the head I think in this spiel on youtube.

When the risk of the behaviour of the anti-racism protesters threaten to overshadow what they're protesting against, its a sad day. I personally feel the way the terms "privilege" has been used is becoming like the boy who cried wolf. Its overused, to the point where its becoming an ad hominem. Instead of saying there is racial bias in job selection and study x,y,z demonstrates it, or racial bias in law enforcement because <insert group> committing the same group gets different punishment, so one group has an advantage (whether they chose it or not), its now <insert person here> doesn't accept my argument because they're privilege. Then to strengthen this line of argument, we get to what Gad Saad describes as "the oppression Olympics," where its a race to the bottom of the barrel to become the least privilege, ie trans, woman, gay, disabled etc. You can sort of see this on the Atheism Plus group.