Student Paper Draws a Student Protest

[spuwho]

A student newspaper printed an op-ed that asked questions about the "Black Lives Matter" movement.  In response, the students protested the newspaper to try to have it shut down.

The president of the school said, "Black lives do matter, but so does free speech".

Per ABC News:


Wesleyan Students Push Boycott of Campus Newspaper
By MICHAEL MELIA, ASSOCIATED PRESS
MIDDLETOWN, Conn. — Sep 24, 2015, 12:56 PM ET

At Wesleyan University, known for its liberal culture, a campaign to shut down the campus newspaper is coming from an unlikely source: its students.

The student government for the liberal arts school is weighing a petition to strip The Wesleyan Argus of funding after some students objected to an opinion piece it published on the Black Lives Matter movement.

Executive Editor Gabe Rosenberg, who has been salvaging discarded batches of the latest edition from campus recycling bins, said the paper is looking into arranging outside financing. He said the newspaper is committed to doing a better job of representing diversity but he disagrees with opponents' tactics.

"I totally agree the newspaper is not a perfect place. We just cannot support their methods," Rosenberg said.

The university president, Michael Roth, has weighed in on the side of the press. In a statement titled "Black lives matter and so does free speech," he and two other administrators objected to what they described as harassment of the newspaper's editors and said the campus should not "demand ideological conformity because people are made uncomfortable."

Frank LoMonte, director of the Student Press Law Center in Washington, said battles with student newspapers are more typically led by members of school administrations or Greek organizations, but the Wesleyan case follows a trend on American campuses toward protecting people from things they find offensive.

"It is worrisome when you see students wanting to silence disagreeable opinions," he said. "It doesn't seem like you can punish people into being more open-minded."

The student opinion piece that ran last week questioned whether the Black Lives Matter movement is achieving anything positive.

The petition argues that The Argus has failed historically to be inclusive of minorities' voices and lists demands including diversity training for all student publications, disposal of copies of The Argus on campus and withholding of funding until they are met.

The Wesleyan Student Assembly discussed the petition on Sunday. The assembly's president, Kate Cullen, said in a prepared statement that it promotes respectful discourse and is hosting another forum on the petition this weekend to discuss next steps and promote community through greater inclusion.

If The Argus does lose funding, LoMonte said, it would have little recourse outside the court of public opinion because, as part of a private institution, it is not protected by the First Amendment.

[Adam White]

If The Argus does lose funding, LoMonte said, it would have little recourse outside the court of public opinion because, as part of a private institution, it is not protected by the First Amendment.

And as it is a newspaper paid for and published by the university, the students are within their rights to demand it sends a particular message. You can't really make much of an argument for editorial independence when the paper is an organ of the school - a school that these students all pay to attend.

It makes sense for it to go independent (like the Alligator at UF). That way it can publish what it wants, free from interference.

[carpnter]

Those kids got awful worked up over an article that had nothing really objectionable in it. 

[spuwho]

[AKIRA]

the loudest voice gets what it wants..

[civil42806]

W

the loudest voice gets what it wants..

Well its a college campus, so whoever is the biggest designated "victim" or most "oppressed" gets what they want.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

http://wesleyanargus.com/2015/09/14/of-race-and-sex/

Why Black Lives Matter Isn't What You Think
September 14, 2015, 5:36 pm by Bryan Stascavage, Staff Writer

A 20-year-old man walks into a church and massacres nine people, claiming that he was afraid that America was being taken over by Black Americans, citing American race relations as evidence. About a month later, a man wears a GoPro, tapes himself walking up to a local reporter and a cameraman, and shoots them both on camera, proclaiming racial injustice in this country as his motive.

Police officers are looking over their shoulders as several cops have been targeted and gunned down. The week before classes started, seven officers were killed in the line of duty; a few were execution-style targeted killings.

An officer I talked to put it succinctly: "If they want to come after me, fine. Just come at me head on. Don't shoot me in the back of my head. I'd rather go down with a fighting chance."

Is this an atmosphere created by the police officers and racist elements in society itself? Many, including individuals in the Black Lives Matter movement, believe so.

Or is it because of Black Lives Matter? Many believe that as well, including a police chief who made his remarks after one of his officers was shot and killed—he claimed that Black Lives Matter was responsible for the officer's death. Some want Black Lives Matter labeled as a hate group.

I talked to a Black Lives Matter supporter, Michael Smith '18, who recoiled when I told him I was wondering if the movement was legitimate. This is not questioning their claims of racism among the police, or in society itself. Rather, is the movement itself actually achieving anything positive? Does it have the potential for positive change?

There is evidence to support both views. Police forces around the country are making more of an effort to be more transparent, have undergone investigations to root out racist officers and policies, and have forced the conversation to the front pages after being buried on the back pages for far too long.

On the other hand, following the Baltimore riots, the city saw a big spike in murders. Good officers, like the one I talked to, go to work every day even more worried that they won't come home. The officer's comments reminded me of what soldiers used to say after being hit with IEDs in Iraq. Police forces with a wartime-like mentality are never a good thing.

Smith countered with, "You can't judge an entire movement off the actions of a few extremists."

I responded with, "Isn't that what the movement is doing with the police? Judging an entire profession off the actions of a few members?"

Hence, my concerns that the movement is not legitimate, or at the very least, hypocritical.

It is apparent that the man who shot the reporter and her cameraman isn't a representation of Black Lives Matter. The question is whether or not the movement is setting the conditions of the more extreme or mentally disturbed individuals to commit atrocities.

Smith explained further. "Yes, but the police have an established system of reporting the bad officers. BLM is decentralized, they aren't as organized. You can't hold the more moderate elements responsible for what a crazy person does in their name."

Perhaps. But that doesn't explain Black Lives Matter rallies from cheering after an officer is killed, chanting that they want more pigs to fry like bacon. That wasn't one or two people. The movement also doesn't want to be associated with looters and rioters, calling them opportunistic. But it is plausible that Black Lives Matter has created the conditions for these individuals to exploit for their own personal gain.

I warned in an article last semester that a movement that does not combat its own extremists will quickly run into trouble. The reasons why are now self-evident. If Black Lives Matter is going to be the one responsible for generating these conversations, then a significant portion of that conversation needs to be about peace. They need to stand with police units that lose a member, decrying it with as much passion as they do when a police officer kills an unarmed civilian.

Smith does have a point, though. An organization cannot be labeled based of a small percentage of their membership. There is a reason why so many have shown up to protests across the country: there is clearly something wrong, and wrong enough to motivate them to exit their homes and express their frustration publicly. That is no small effort. The system is clearly failing many, and unfortunately they feel like they will only be listened to if their protests reach the front pages of the news. And so far, they are correct.

But this principle needs to be applied universally. I know many of us here at Wesleyan realize that most police officers are good people simply doing a service for their community, and that there are only a few bad apples. But those chanting to fry the pigs seem to have missed this message.

It boils down to this for me: If vilification and denigration of the police force continues to be a significant portion of Black Lives Matter's message, then I will not support the movement, I cannot support the movement. And many Americans feel the same. I should repeat, I do support many of the efforts by the more moderate activists.

It is advice that I need to take myself. After the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage nation-wide, a few liberals gloated in a conservative political forum that I like to read. They were surprised by the reaction: every conservative who responded was happy with the ruling.

I realize that moderate conservatives need to speak up more as well. If we had, gay marriage might have been legalized years ago. Instead, I got the feeling that a lot of moderate conservatives were afraid of speaking up about the issue and being labeled as a RINO (Republican In Name Only).

I also understand the frustration of moderate Black Lives Matter members, like the one I talked to, about being stereotyped based off of a few radical and vocal members.

Kim Davis, the misguided clerk who is refusing to hand out marriage licenses, is a perfect example of this. As a conservative, it is infuriating to see one clerk in one city out of the thousands in conservative states making headlines, when the rest are handing out licenses with no issue. One clerk is making headlines and is being held up as evidence that conservatives hate homosexuality. Kim Davis generated a couple hundred supporters, a very small showing.

Yet I am not innocent when it comes to Kim Davis. I could have gone down to the courthouse and joined the counter protest, holding up a sign that says "conservatives for gay marriage rights," and made a statement that Kim Davis is not representative of the mainstream conservative views. I don't blame those who can't support conservatives for not being more vocally pro-gay rights, though many liberal politicians were also silent on the issue during the 1990s and 2000s.

Returning to Black Lives Matter, the country is nervously waiting to see what happens next. The next unarmed civilian to be killed, the next officer to be killed, the next radical racist to take their views to the next level.

At some point Black Lives Matter is going to be confronted with an uncomfortable question, if they haven't already begun asking it: Is this all worth it? Is it worth another riot that destroys a downtown district? Another death, another massacre? At what point will Black Lives Matter go back to the drawing table and rethink how they are approaching the problem?

[Tacachale]

While there's nothing in that piece that remotely justifies shutting down the paper, it's funded by the school (and it's a private school). This is an issue faced at pretty much every campus paper that's funded that way. One would think that a school like Wesleyan would be strongly defending the paper from the free speech angle, but the "I don't want to hear things that offend or challenge me" lobby is strong at pretty much every school, whether it's mostly liberal, conservative, or whatever.

[fsquid]

Good Lord what a bunch of bitches.  Write a rebuttal and send it in if you disagree

[I-10east]

Well its a college campus, so whoever is the biggest designated "victim" or most "oppressed" gets what they want.

Yup, pretty much. Many comedians (of different races, including Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, and Larry the Cable guy ) don't perform acts on college campuses because of the PC-mania.

[Adam White]

Well its a college campus, so whoever is the biggest designated "victim" or most "oppressed" gets what they want.

Yup, pretty much. Many comedians (of different races, including Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, and Larry the Cable guy ) don't perform acts on college campuses because of the PC-mania.

You're wrong. Larry the Cable Guy is not a comedian.

[Gunnar]

Good Lord what a bunch of bitches.  Write a rebuttal and send it in if you disagree

Swinging the PC flag is so much easier than writing a thoughtful rebuttal though 

Sad thing is that some of those are probably going to be future leaders.

[Adam White]

Good Lord what a bunch of bitches.  Write a rebuttal and send it in if you disagree

Swinging the PC flag is so much easier than writing a thoughtful rebuttal though 

Sad thing is that some of those are probably going to be future leaders.

I don't know the ins and outs of why this happened - I certainly haven't see much to indicate why the particular column was considered offensive (the original article doesn't really give much info in this area). I am inclined to think this is an overreaction.

That said, I am so sick of people using the term "PC". It's so easy to just dismiss other opinions as being the result of so-called "politically correct" thinking.

[Tacachale]

In my experience, no one group has the market on trying to shut down or censor speech that they object to. Leftists do it (like in this case), conservatives do it, and fairly apolitical groups do it. It seems to have more to do with the ability to mobilize people who also don't want to hear a particular message.

[Adam White]

In my experience, no one group has the market on trying to shut down or censor speech that they object to. Leftists do it (like in this case), conservatives do it, and fairly apolitical groups do it. It seems to have more to do with the ability to mobilize people who also don't want to hear a particular message.

I agree. I think people on the right don't realize that they have their own form of political correctness. But anyway - part of my point was that the article doesn't really shed any light - or sheds very little light - on why the students were outraged. None of them were interviewed. They may have very reasonable views. It's a bit knee-jerk to just dismiss it as more PC BS.