Today's Daily Illini features an article about last night's forum.
media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/02/02/News/Stop-Forum.Lets.Students.Voice.Concerns-2693709.shtml
Before we dig in and draw our battle lines, let's just get a few things out of the way:
1. The forum was widely attended--far beyond expectations. In addition to Follinger, the huge turnout caused them to set up additional viewing stations in the Illini Rooms at the Union and Gregory Hall.
2. The issue was not just about the Chief, but the general atmosphere of racial relations on the campus.
3. The issue was not to target white students. There were plenty of Caucasian Americans within the crowd. But what was disturbing was:
4. The lack of Pro-Chief and Pro-Stereotyping people in the crowd. Because:
5. The common "Who does this really hurt?" question was clearly and concretely addressed and answered by the presenters.
I'm curious what will come of this. Certainly I am proud of the students for organizing the event and also, while I'm not sure about the adminstrative response to the issues, the response to the event itself was very efficient in terms of quickly getting additional venues set up.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on these issues, but I hope the sheer numbers and thoughtful presentation of this event will help people see that the treatment of students and Native Americans are issues that people care about and make it harder to just write off people who hold that viewpoint on the issue. I mean it would be pretty disgusting at this point to just say, "Oh that upset kid, and those several thousand folks of color need to quit being so whiny and PC!"
The News-Gazette has added an article about the forum. They estimate it at "at least 1700".
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2007/02/02/racism_forum_chief_must_go
The disappointing thing I walked away from the forum with is that while the opening statement mentioned the "forced code of silence" and threats of intimidation and violence, the open mic section was all Chief, all the time. I walked away thinking that if the Chief were gone, then there would simply be nothing left to do to address the race issues on campus.
I know the Chief debate, the issues raised were the same ones raised for the past 15 or so years. I wanted to hear about these threats and intimidation and I came away empty.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I think that the 1,700 figure is the actual capacity of Foellinger. Perhaps the News-Gazette reporter was just too lazy to bother stopping by the alternate, overflow viewing locations in Greg hall and the Union to see how many people attended those venues to watch, too.
I like how you've summed up why this is important. The racial climate on campus is in the pits and it isn't helped by the few who just can't bring themselves to admit that this is important.
At least one of these people has been stopping by another well-known, progressive website and trolling it with exactly that sort of attitude for years. And he wonders why he gets bounced regularly? Why should WE bother with putting up with someone who carries a chip like that around on his shoulder -- and that's all his argument effectively amounts to?
Who the heck is "pro-stereotyping?" Straw-man much?
Many many more thousands stay on the reservation, just like the 300 million that stayed away from the kooks at the anti war thing in DC last Saturday, "Jihad Jane "and the Hollywood misfits were well represented.
GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!!
I wonder what the Urbana School Dist. is thinking??? Putting this guy on administrative leave for Gods sake! I'm sure they are scared to death that this animal will sue them if he is fired before his arraignment. I have been critical of the Champaign County States Attorney in the past and will be watching this case closely. I understand the 3 class X felonies life in prison will apply in this case. We will see. Urbana residents will remember the Urbana School teacher Brady J. Smith, Smith was also convicted of sexual assault and was sentenced to 4 years in the State Prison, well He only had to do about 18 months and 2 years on parole, which is due to be completed on Feb. 28 2007. He is now living in Peoria according to the Illinois Dept. of Corrections web site. With the Dems still in control in Springfield and there "It's all about the Kids " lets see them draft and pass some strong legislation to make this "a one time and your getting life!"crime. Also the inmates will make sure that the real justice is handed out in the Big House!!!!
Who the heck is "pro-stereotyping?" Straw-man much?
I actually thought about that when I typed it, but how about the people who actively stereotype? Whether you think "Tequila and Tacos" or whatever was a good thing or not, how is it now "stereotyping"?
How would you describe the entire so-called anti-PC movement besides "pro-stereotyping".
Incidentally, once again I put time into a informative resource based post and what do I get?
Nothing but substanceless sound-biting.
"I mean it would be pretty disgusting at this point to just say, "Oh that upset kid, and those several thousand folks of color need to quit being so whiny and PC!""
I know several people who attended this event and they pointed out to that the event was attractive and intriguing, HOWEVER, they were disspointed once they saw what was happening and listened to what people were saying.
Apparently, there were a large number of people who were there to listen, but didn't necessarily agree with what was being said. I do not think it's a fair assumption to conclude that those in attendance were all supporters. I did not hear the terms "whiny" or "PC", but I did hear the words "pathetic" and "dissapointing" used several times to describe the event....by friends I consider very moderate.
I'm interested to hear what other people who attended the event had to say... At any rate, kudos to the people who put this together and generated so much interest!
Apparently, there were a large number of people who were there to listen, but didn't necessarily agree with what was being said. I do not think it's a fair assumption to conclude that those in attendance were all supporters. I did not hear the terms "whiny" or "PC", but I did hear the words "pathetic" and "dissapointing" used several times to describe the event....by friends I consider very moderate.
Good for them. I believe they should have also taken the mic then and articulated their response to the situation. That would not insulate them from criticism, but I would certain criticize anyone who tried to silence them.
My original quote is not from anyone in particular, it has more to do with the people on this site who say "There's no hurt involved" but are incapable of listening to the other side or empathizing with them.
When I encounter someone who has been hurt, I try to understand the situation rather than arguing, "You're not really hurt! What's wrong with you!?" That should be the case whether the implied hurt is physical, mental or emotional.
I read the wroN-G article, and this forum seems to be a summary of the same stuff we've heard during the last 17 years of the Chief debate: Lots of blathering, but few solutions.
This shows the true damage created by the numerous hapless status quo defenders of C-U. Their inability to take any sort of action to address any issue gives rise to the speech code-loving, quota-seeking crowd, made up of people who are even more of a threat to rational thought than the HSQDs are.
All this tug of war shows is how far this community and this university really are from reaching any sort of solution to any sort of substantial problem.
We need new leadership and new sources of information. This community's newspaper and this university's highest officials are symbols of the worst combination of ineptitude, inaction and incompetence.
Xian, by bringing so much attention to things like the "T&T" party, you're doing two things. 1) You're compounding the issue by publicizing it. You're not giving the partygoers the power, per se, but you're giving the image of the partygoers the power. 2) You're inadvetently formenting new hate out of perceived hate - just in a different direction. To coin a phrase, hate is path of the dark side, no matter where the hate is directed.
This strategy doesn't reconcile, it only lays blame, and draws battle lines. Those who agree with you will continue to agree with you. Those who see it in a different light will get their backs up. So how do individuals, social groups and society as a whole benefit from that?
Instead of a backward-looking, blame-and-hate-laying approach, how about an approach where the individual and the social group(s), and soiety as a whole move forward, and put forth effort into creating a better world in the future?
You can continue to sit in a corner and dwell on it, about how bad this or that social group has it, or you can move on, take a minor note of a past situation, and work at making life better for them, yourself and society.
Call it the "who cares what you think, I'm moving forward" approach.
A video of the event may be found on this page:
www.iresist.org/
As a long time resident of CU I have watched the U of I do whatever they want in these communities so any BLAME of CU by Wenalway is baseless. Yes, the NG is a poor representation of a newspaper but that happens to any business without competition.
The issue is a microcosm of the tactic of the hapless status quo defenders: Resist change, no matter what. It's an attitude that pervades the community.
Small lesson for you, Wenalway: Change can be good or bad, for a few or many people. The governments, like people, are designed not to accept change too quickly. As you proceed up from local government, thru state to Federal, you see even more resistance to change, yet we enjoy the most flexible long lasting ruling system ever devised by man, the Representative Republic. The U of I is a collection of Feudal States, the Colleges, loosely governored by a quasi respresentative Board, with hired administrators to stay in the business of education and research, not govern people and definitely not a representative republic.
Yes, CU accepts change slowly, especially U. This keeps the status quo, somewhat. That makes CU not too flexible or too fast, but change does occur. Your comments, Wenalway, indicate you are extremely willing to accept change, maybe even for change sake. So you are extremely flexible, allowing maximum change. Decisions must be very difficult for you as the key to flexibility is indecision.
If the only content of your argument is that your opponents are "hapless status quo defenders", doesn't that make you a "hapless status quo attacker"?
I say this as someone who agrees with you that the pro-Chief arguments appear to be substanceless. But don't we need substance in our arguments to demonstrate a need for change?
I'd really like to get a chance to hear a decent Pro-Chief argument, something I have yet to hear around here. When people feel like you are going to respond with hollow mockery, it doesn't encourage them to think critically and present something of value.
That's because the typical pro-Chief argument is usually a non-sequitur that goes something like this:
"The Fighting Irish are more offensive!"
"We'll have to change the name of the state if we get rid of the Chief! Then the name of the country! And I don't want to change the name of the country!"
And so on.
And I'll accept any change that represents a loss for the hapless status quo defenders as long as it's not some sort of quota or speech code.
Agreed. But that's why I'd like to provide a forum to hear some other more substantive argument--I want to see if it actually exists.
As far as the name of the Country, I'd go for, "United States of AWESOME!" We wouldn't even have to change any of the stationary.. ;)