Jump to content

2nd view on SF State U "attack" on republicans


Recommended Posts

I was truly surprised to see the post from a few days ago alleging SF State University republican students being threatened by PLO supporters. In fact, I contacted people on our campus as I was really surprised not to hear or see any local news coverage of this.

 

To follow up and perhaps point out some not surprising lack of detail in the Front Page reporting, here's what I hope is an unbiased report on these events from our president which I just received today. Hopefully some of you may alter your opinions based on what's presented here.

 

Dear Colleague:

 

As I have said in many settings, and remind us all now, San Francisco

State University is committed to providing an environment for open

discourse, for the free exchange of ideas, and for practicing the skills of

democracy. And democracy, as we know, must be rooted in respect for the

humanity of all -- including those whose ideas we find objectionable, even

abhorrent.

 

It is hardly surprising to see the strong feelings that have gripped

our nation play out on this politically-engaged campus in the aftermath of

the Presidential election. However, last week's noisy and angry campus

encounters between students of opposing political views have left me deeply

disappointed with the behavior of some on both sides. Even though

sensationalized reports of these events are false, some students did

dishonor their cause -- and themselves -- by their verbal attacks and

intensely hostile demeanor.

 

This is what actually occurred: On November 1, four members of the

campus College Republicans staffing a table were approached by four young

female students of Middle East descent (three of whom are U.S. citizens, by

the way) who began to voice their intense anger about Bush policy and the

war in Iraq. Tempers flared on both sides, but the only physical exchange

occurred when a College Republican attempted to slap away the hand of a

student leaning over the table and pointing at him. In response, she

slapped his shoulder. Campus Public Safety intervened and interviewed the

two students on the spot. When asked whether they wanted to press charges

against each other, both declined. However, both have now been referred to

the campus discipline office for possible violation of the student code of

conduct.

 

Were ugly and unacceptable remarks exchanged? Yes, and campus

discipline provides a mechanism for dealing with that behavior. But to

label this encounter, largely between eight students, an anti-Semitic

"intifada" and the work of a "mob" is seriously to distort reality.

 

Two days later, on November 3, students who were angered by a

sensationalist Internet site's portrayal of the Monday event and others who

were disappointed by the outcome of the Presidential election gathered near

the Student Center. That day they disrupted scheduled events and some

confronted an informational table set up by the College Republicans.This

noisy but non-violent confrontation, which in no way was a mob action, grew

into an impromptu anti-Bush rally of 150-200 students. Public Safety

maintained a clear separation between the College Republican table and the

crowd. We have found no evidence that the GUPS (General Union of Palestine

Students) initiated either this or the Monday event. Rather, both were

outbursts between students of strong and opposing opinions.

 

Taunts, attempts to incite each other to anger, and remarks drawing

on the worst stereotypes and global fears violate the values of this

campus. In many cases, they also violate the student code of conduct, as a

number of students (from both sides of the argument), who have been

referred for possible student discipline, have just learned. Further,

exchanging charges of "racism" and anti-Semitism" with others because of

their political affiliation rather than dealing with the substance of the

political differences is a dishonest dead end. If vigorous discourse moves

from heated to heinous, we will use existing campus policies to restore

civility. On this campus, free speech does not mean free rein.

 

It is time to place greater emphasis on another of the key skills of

democracy -- effecting change. To take a purely practical view, hurling

charges and yelling is not the way to bring about political and social

reform. Those who really care about issues need to work the political

system, where the battles are fought and won.

 

I wonder whether those who seek to antagonize, to provoke, to vent

their anger rather than wrestle with issues, realize what harm they do to

free speech, to a fair and open society, and to the cause of justice for

all peoples. Such behavior invites -- has already invited -- the kind of

calls for interference in the life of this campus that would ultimately

make it an inhospitable environment for all.

 

I believe strongly that in our terribly troubled world, each of us

has an intense, personal responsibility to seek solutions, not exacerbate

problems. I hope that at the next emotional gathering on campus -- and

there will be more -- all of us will find that balance between passion and

decency. Our future depends on it.

 

-- Robert A. Corrigan, president

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is that the truth?  Because the head administrator says it is?  Yeah, he has nothing at stake.  :D

113874[/snapback]

He has no reason to cover up anything that may have happened, as the credible frontpage.com had already fabrica- er, reported what happened.

 

It appeared to me that he was just explaining what, exactly, happened, and what his thoughts were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was truly surprised to see the post from a few days ago alleging SF State University republican students being threatened by PLO supporters.  In fact, I contacted people on our campus as I was really surprised not to hear or see any local news coverage of this.

 

To follow up and perhaps point out some not surprising lack of detail in the Front Page reporting, here's what I hope is an unbiased report on these events from our president which I just received today.  Hopefully some of you may alter your opinions based on what's presented here. 

 

Dear Colleague:

 

      As I have said in many settings, and remind us all now, San Francisco

State University is committed to providing an environment for open

discourse, for the free exchange of ideas, and for practicing the skills of

democracy. And democracy, as we know, must be rooted in respect for the

humanity of all -- including those whose ideas we find objectionable, even

abhorrent.

 

      It is hardly surprising to see the strong feelings that have gripped

our nation play out on this politically-engaged campus in the aftermath of

the Presidential election. However, last week's noisy and angry campus

encounters between students of opposing political views have left me deeply

disappointed with the behavior of some on both sides. Even though

sensationalized reports of these events are false, some students did

dishonor their cause -- and themselves -- by their verbal attacks and

intensely hostile demeanor.

 

      This is what actually occurred: On November 1, four members of the

campus College Republicans staffing a table were approached by four young

female students of Middle East descent (three of whom are U.S. citizens, by

the way) who began to voice their intense anger about Bush policy and the

war in Iraq. Tempers flared on both sides, but the only physical exchange

occurred when a College Republican attempted to slap away the hand of a

student leaning over the table and pointing at him.  In response, she

slapped his shoulder.  Campus Public Safety intervened and interviewed the

two students on the spot.  When asked whether they wanted to press charges

against each other, both declined.  However, both have now been referred to

the campus discipline office for possible violation of the student code of

conduct.

 

      Were ugly and unacceptable remarks exchanged? Yes, and campus

discipline provides a mechanism for dealing with that behavior. But to

label this encounter, largely between eight students, an anti-Semitic

"intifada" and the work of a "mob" is seriously to distort reality.

 

      Two days later, on November 3, students who were angered by a

sensationalist Internet site's portrayal of the Monday event and others who

were disappointed by the outcome of the Presidential election gathered near

the Student Center. That day they disrupted scheduled events and some

confronted an informational table set up by the College Republicans.This

noisy but non-violent confrontation, which in no way was a mob action, grew

into an impromptu anti-Bush rally of 150-200 students. Public Safety

maintained a clear separation between the College Republican table and the

crowd. We have found no evidence that the GUPS (General Union of Palestine

Students) initiated either this or the Monday event. Rather, both were

outbursts between students of strong and opposing opinions.

 

      Taunts, attempts to incite each other to anger, and remarks drawing

on the worst stereotypes and global fears violate the values of this

campus.  In many cases, they also violate the student code of conduct, as a

number of students (from both sides of the argument), who have been

referred for possible student discipline, have just learned. Further,

exchanging charges of "racism" and anti-Semitism" with others because of

their political affiliation rather than dealing with the substance of the

political differences is a dishonest dead end. If vigorous discourse moves

from heated to heinous, we will use existing campus policies to restore

civility. On this campus, free speech does not mean free rein.

 

      It is time to place greater emphasis on another of the key skills of

democracy -- effecting change. To take a purely practical view, hurling

charges and yelling is not the way to bring about political and social

reform. Those who really care about issues need to work the political

system, where the battles are fought and won.

 

      I wonder whether those who seek to antagonize, to provoke, to vent

their anger rather than wrestle with issues, realize what harm they do to

free speech, to a fair and open society, and to the cause of justice for

all peoples. Such behavior invites -- has already invited -- the kind of

calls for interference in the life of this campus that would ultimately

make it an inhospitable environment for all.

 

      I believe strongly that in our terribly troubled world, each of us

has an intense, personal responsibility to seek solutions, not exacerbate

problems. I hope that at the next emotional gathering on campus -- and

there will be more -- all of us will find that balance between passion and

decency. Our future depends on it.

 

                                        -- Robert A. Corrigan, president

113830[/snapback]

 

Hmm, when I read it, it still said the PLO types started the whole thing. And of course the campus president isn't going to say anithing negative about the group, or he would be branded a bigot and fired.... sorry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has no reason to cover up anything that may have happened, as the credible frontpage.com had already fabrica- er, reported what happened.

 

It appeared to me that he was just explaining what, exactly, happened, and what his thoughts were.

113890[/snapback]

 

You're making an assumption you shouldn't. That academic types are intellectually honest.

 

Academia today is a joke. It's no more about freedom of thought and expression than the Madrassas are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're making an assumption you shouldn't. That academic types are intellectually honest.

 

Academia today is a joke. It's no more about freedom of thought and expression than the Madrassas are.

114091[/snapback]

And just what are you basing YOUR assumption on? How did you come to this conclusion that academia is a joke? That the President of the university didn't come out and rip/blame the arab-american students? If he did, you would have been the first on this board to link to it because it supported your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're making an assumption you shouldn't. That academic types are intellectually honest.

 

Academia today is a joke. It's no more about freedom of thought and expression than the Madrassas are.

114091[/snapback]

Really? Would the Madrassas have allowed a place on campus for a Republican group of students to set up shop? The whole reason there was an argument is because the University permitted two groups of completely opposing political viewpoints express their opinions on campus. I don't think Madrassas allow for opposing views.

 

Even after the "altercation", the Republicans were back the next day at their table and the other group was still up and running. Had that occurred at a Madrassa, I don't think that would have happened.

 

I know that your political ethic, frozen as it is in 1971 or so, requires you to forever look at colleges as hives of anti-American protest and centers of intellectual elitism so I won't bother arguing it with you but to go even further and compare them to the Madrassas of the Middle East is just too ridiculous to let pass without comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what?  Do the two of you regularly discuss politics?

114355[/snapback]

Based on the overall tone of his letter. In particular the part in parentheses where he says (BTW, they were US citizens). He throws in little defenses of the Arab students throughout the letter and does not reciprocate with the republicans.

 

Some more:

 

College Republicans staffing a table were approached by four young

female students of Middle East descent (three of whom are U.S. citizens, by

the way) who began to voice their intense anger about Bush policy and the

war in Iraq. Tempers flared on both sides, but the only physical exchange

occurred when a College Republican attempted to slap away the hand of a

student leaning over the table and pointing at him. In response, she

slapped his shoulder.

 

She walked up to his table, starts yelling at him and pointing in his face. Note that they are voicing their intense anger, not intensely voicing their anger. He clearly initiated the only physical exchange. She was merely responding. The fact that she walked up to his table and started screaming at him was not initiating anything.

 

Two days later, on November 3, students who were angered by a

sensationalist Internet site's portrayal of the Monday event and others who

were disappointed by the outcome of the Presidential election gathered near

the Student Center. That day they disrupted scheduled events and some

confronted an informational table set up by the College Republicans.

 

Their disruption of these events, including the republicans is easily justified by their disappointment in the election results and the meanie web site.

 

We have found no evidence that the GUPS (General Union of Palestine

Students) initiated either this or the Monday event. Rather, both were

outbursts between students of strong and opposing opinions.

 

Pictures of fifty or so students with palestinian head garb do not constitute any evidence? They were just walking by, carrying their head garb?

 

The whole letter was worded in an effort to walk on eggshells with the Palestinan students.

 

And I said I'd bet on it. I didn't say I know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has no reason to cover up anything that may have happened, as the credible frontpage.com had already fabrica- er, reported what happened.

 

It appeared to me that he was just explaining what, exactly, happened, and what his thoughts were.

113890[/snapback]

 

You can't be serious. You don't think it'd be in his best interest to cover up a near-riot on his campus (if that is what happened)? What did you think he would say on the matter? That is *was* a big deal?

 

Academia is thoroughly infested with dirtbags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't know who is telling the full truth, but if you think the administrator has no reason to play down the incident you are smoking something.

114425[/snapback]

This was an internal communique posted here by an employee of the school, not a press release. Undoubtedly, some of the recipients of the memo were staffers who witnessed the incident. Perhaps I'm just giving him credit for not trying to pull the Jedi mind trick and tell people what they did or did not see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was an internal communique posted here by an employee of the school, not a press release.  Undoubtedly, some of the recipients of the memo were staffers who witnessed the incident.  Perhaps I'm just giving him credit for not trying to pull the Jedi mind trick and tell people what they did or did not see.

114554[/snapback]

Microsoft was almost brought down by seven emails. If you think people aren't VERY careful when they put something on paper with that in the back of their mind, especially a senior executive...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft was almost brought down by seven emails.  If you think people aren't VERY careful when they put something on paper with that in the back of their mind, especially a senior executive...

114562[/snapback]

I believe he chose his words carefully, not because what may have happened in Redmond, but because as a university president, he's probably a well-educated man.

 

Also, remember that an employee of the school was unaware of the incident until it was posted here. Sounds to me like a whole hubaloo about nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe he chose his words carefully, not because what may have happened in Redmond, but because as a university president, he's probably a well-educated man.

 

Also, remember that an employee of the school was unaware of the incident until it was posted here.  Sounds to me like a whole hubaloo about nothing.

114577[/snapback]

Dude, see what you want. Doesn't matter to me. However, your line of thinking in this thread is nothing more than ideology. The truth lies somewhere between the 2 stories we've seen here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was an internal communique posted here by an employee of the school, not a press release. Undoubtedly, some of the recipients of the memo were staffers who witnessed the incident. Perhaps I'm just giving him credit for not trying to pull the Jedi mind trick and tell people what they did or did not see.

 

Yeah - an internal communique that is now posted on a Buffalo Bills message board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah - an internal communique that is now posted on a Buffalo Bills message board.

114600[/snapback]

So you think he's doing the Jedi mind trick?

 

"Hey Pres, I saw a riot on the Quad!"

 

"You did not see a riot"

 

"I did not see a riot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...