SJ Bills backer Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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 More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Thanks for letting us know the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Thanks for letting us know the truth. 113860[/snapback] Why is that the truth? Because the head administrator says it is? Yeah, he has nothing at stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Why is that the truth? Because the head administrator says it is? Yeah, he has nothing at stake. 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 More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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 More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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 More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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 More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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 More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Thisnoisy but non-violent confrontation, which in no way was a mob action, grew into an impromptu anti-Bush rally of 150-200 students I bet in this guy's eyes a noisy but non-violent group of 150-200 republicans would be a "mob". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 I bet in this guy's eyes a noisy but non-violent group of 150-200 republicans would be a "mob". 114321[/snapback] Based on what? Do the two of you regularly discuss politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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 youngfemale 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 asensationalist 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 PalestineStudents) 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 More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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 More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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] Uh, OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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 More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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 More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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 More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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 More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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 More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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 More sharing options...
GG Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 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." 114608[/snapback] Sorry, but the universal corporate communication dictum these days is, "Do not put anything in an email that you'd be afraid to see in NY Times." I think the that college pres chose his words very carefully, because there's no such thing as "internal" communication with email. Whether you agree with his account or not is a different issue of whether he has a vested interest in downplaying the incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Whether you agree with his account or not is a different issue of whether he has a vested interest in downplaying the incident. 114619[/snapback] Agreed. But I'm still much more inclined to believe his account, especially when the contrasting story is being reported by the bastion of fine journalism that is 'www.frontpage.com.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Agreed. But I'm still much more inclined to believe his account, especially when the contrasting story is being reported by the bastion of fine journalism that is 'www.frontpage.com.' 114642[/snapback] Why? He's no more credible, nor does he have less of an agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Why? He's no more credible, nor does he have less of an agenda. 114645[/snapback] Because he can be held accountable there is a huge credibility gap. What's the worst thing that would happen to frontpage.com? His mom takes away his internet access? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Because he can be held accountable there is a huge credibility gap. What's the worst thing that would happen to frontpage.com? His mom takes away his internet access? 114653[/snapback] All the more reason for him to diffuse the situation with just enough truth to absolve himself of possible blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts