"our peers of color and other marginalized groups" No one in the drafting process thought for a second that specifically naming one group followed immediately by essentially "et al." was, in itself, marginalizing all other groups?
Some people saying they want "so many things"? I'm sorry you need a TL;DR to understand injustice. Yes, you can say whatever you want, to whomever you want; you have always had that ability. What becomes toxic is when "free speech" is used as a sword to spread hate and retaliate against consequence or criticism. 'Free Speech' allows us to not be fined, jailed, or killed for criticizing the State (in America), it is not, nor will it ever be the right to share unbridled opinions without facing scrutiny for what you say.
I can't wait either! It'll be good to see these idiots finally get whats coming to them. They threaten the administration with civil disobedience then I hope they all get arrested and suspended so they can be made examples of so this bullshit can finally stop.
Man, I don't always agree with the term "Regressive Left", especially since I often agree with the point made by those who are labeled as such. But this here is sadly a clear example of that =(
+RoonskiLuv The movement as a whole I'm ok with. The values I agree with too. I personally would prefer open dialogue between the students and administration rather than a list of demands with a deadline though. But this isn't what concerns me. It's the condemnation of posters expressing the loss of free speech that I find both a tad ironic and regressive (assuming AJ+ reported that part accurately)
+BowNow To be completely honest i dont think that this video accurately represents what our movement is, but that's because we see this as an internal matter - we're working to change things at Amherst, we dont really have the power to impact school policy on a national level so we have been careful to limit the amount of information that goes beyond this campus. We actually have called for, and in many ways had an open dialogue with our administration - in fact a large part of the sit in involved having an open mic with which students, faculty, and staff could share their stories. The issue is that while we want an open dialogue, we feel that time again our grievances have fallen on deaf ears. Hence the list of demands - we were being ignored and shifted to the side by the administration once more so rather than continuing to voice our woes we demanded action. The condemnation of the posters actually wasn't the major issue or the point of our movement, and i think the fact that so many have fixated on it is a clear example of how outside rhetoric detracts from our mission. The free speech posters were put up in response to our sit in of solidarity with the students of MIzzou and they bore the implication that the black students at Mizzou were less important than other people's right to harass or assault them because of their race. Our constitutional right of free speech does not mean hate speech and verbal assault are ok, and freedom of speech does not equate freedom from consequence. We wanted the administration to condemn those posters because they reflect a sentiment that is not in line with Amherst's code of conduct and should not be supported by the institution, even if it happens the be the view of an individual.
Too much learning of theory, too much self-righteousness, too much self-importance, not nearly enough common sense and nowhere near enough self-examination. Like every one of the Uprisers is free of the prejudices they decry.....like they have an automatic right to demand that the current president apologize for history.....like this kind of "zero tolerance policy" they want would lead to the goals they claim they want. And did anyone notice that the long list of prejudices they want to stamp out somehow missed plain old sexism, as well as "sizeism" (ask a midget or dwarf how much insensitivity they deal with on a daily basis) and "Godism" (try being an atheist without encountering some disapproval and insensitivity).
For all of you who are commenting below: Our aim isn’t to suppress the free expression of our classmates, but to urge Amherst College-the home they ultimately chose-to provide an academic environment where they’re afforded respect. RESPECT. SAFETY. INCLUSION. That is all anyone at Amherst is asking for, and Biddy Martin is working directly with us to make this happen because it is paramount. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between speaking freely according to the 1st Amendment and threatening people's lives. By law, the latter is assault, and THAT, my dear UA-camrs, will get you thrown in jail. So grow the fuck up, educate yourselves, and think twice before you post something so goddamn insensitive. Read up: www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/12/heres-what-my-yale-students-get-free-expression-and-anti-racism-arent-mutually-exclusive/
+Helen Montie Helen, I don't think "urge" is the right word for a list of demands, with a time limit and the threat of further "radical" disruption if the demands are not met. And I think a specific demand for an apology is beyond your characterization of wanting only RESPECT, SAFETY, INCLUSION. Those do not require an apology for history.In what way did the "All Lives Matter” and "Free Speech" posters threaten peoples' lives? If they did, then they are certainly improper, but from what I';ve heard of them, they were not threats. If you have information to the contrary, please pass it along.And for what little it's likely to be worth to you, I've long ago grown "the fuck up" and have spent a fair amount of time trying to diminish bias, dangerous assumptions, and other assorted staples of life.
+Lee Russ the posters are, in fact, threatening to people's lives. They were put up in place of "black lives matter" posters and directly after the events at Mizzou. These posters ultimately side with those who do the threatening by not supporting those who are in danger. The point is not who threatened whom--the point is that people of color feel unsafe at Amherst, Yale, and countless other institutions and we all have to do something about it because respect, safety, and inclusion haven't come naturally. That's the short of it.
+Helen Montie "not supporting those who are in danger" isn't the kind of threat that justifies limiting free speech, and certainly is not "assault" by law. You are confusing means and ends. I support your ends--safety, iinclusion & respect--I do not support your means, and I think many, many other people who support your goals feel the same way.
+Hrisin C YES! You saw that evil piece of paper that said "RIP Free Speech"? That was so ableist, and heterosexist, and classist, and islamophobic, and anti-semitic, and every other damn thing from their -tumblr post- manifesto!
+Keith Buckson "Verbal assault" is a form of speech. If you don't believe that people are free to "verbally assault" others, then you don't truly believe in Free Speech. That's fine; you don't have to believe in any particular thing. Just make no mistake about it: if you believe that anyone at anytime should not be free to say anything they want to, then you believe in regulated (and therefore not free) speech.
+KnuckleHunkybuck You do realize that it is specifically under statutes of the First Amendment that freedom of speech is somewhat suspended on private college campuses in that the institution is free to penalize someone for speech that is considered hateful or that doesn't comply with the school's code of conduct
I guess that's what happens when the tumblr residents are leaving the asylum.
+K. Shawn Edgar go back to tumblr
+Snake56 tumblr leaking to the real world
Oh man this is getting ridiculous, Mizzou kind of had a point but now they opened Pandora box
I agree with the list of demands. Also, a university should not refer to its well-known history of racism as "free speech."
Hell yeah, this is the minimum that should be demanded of everyone.
Mizzou students were unhappy because the paris attacks stole their spotlight
Regressive left.
"our peers of color and other marginalized groups"
No one in the drafting process thought for a second that specifically naming one group followed immediately by essentially "et al." was, in itself, marginalizing all other groups?
Some people saying they want "so many things"? I'm sorry you need a TL;DR to understand injustice. Yes, you can say whatever you want, to whomever you want; you have always had that ability. What becomes toxic is when "free speech" is used as a sword to spread hate and retaliate against consequence or criticism. 'Free Speech' allows us to not be fined, jailed, or killed for criticizing the State (in America), it is not, nor will it ever be the right to share unbridled opinions without facing scrutiny for what you say.
I still don't know what the nature of the supposed racism is. What's all the fuss about? Not being dismissive just ignorant on this issue.
now conservatives are going get a hold of this and try to discredit the movement entirely.
Progressive
This really interesting I want see the outcome of this since more and more schools Are doing it
I can't wait either! It'll be good to see these idiots finally get whats coming to them. They threaten the administration with civil disobedience then I hope they all get arrested and suspended so they can be made examples of so this bullshit can finally stop.
Artbug suspend the whole school now that's interesting
Man, I don't always agree with the term "Regressive Left", especially since I often agree with the point made by those who are labeled as such.
But this here is sadly a clear example of that =(
+BowNow I'm curious as to how you see our movement as regressive
+RoonskiLuv The movement as a whole I'm ok with. The values I agree with too. I personally would prefer open dialogue between the students and administration rather than a list of demands with a deadline though. But this isn't what concerns me.
It's the condemnation of posters expressing the loss of free speech that I find both a tad ironic and regressive (assuming AJ+ reported that part accurately)
+BowNow To be completely honest i dont think that this video accurately represents what our movement is, but that's because we see this as an internal matter - we're working to change things at Amherst, we dont really have the power to impact school policy on a national level so we have been careful to limit the amount of information that goes beyond this campus.
We actually have called for, and in many ways had an open dialogue with our administration - in fact a large part of the sit in involved having an open mic with which students, faculty, and staff could share their stories. The issue is that while we want an open dialogue, we feel that time again our grievances have fallen on deaf ears. Hence the list of demands - we were being ignored and shifted to the side by the administration once more so rather than continuing to voice our woes we demanded action.
The condemnation of the posters actually wasn't the major issue or the point of our movement, and i think the fact that so many have fixated on it is a clear example of how outside rhetoric detracts from our mission. The free speech posters were put up in response to our sit in of solidarity with the students of MIzzou and they bore the implication that the black students at Mizzou were less important than other people's right to harass or assault them because of their race. Our constitutional right of free speech does not mean hate speech and verbal assault are ok, and freedom of speech does not equate freedom from consequence. We wanted the administration to condemn those posters because they reflect a sentiment that is not in line with Amherst's code of conduct and should not be supported by the institution, even if it happens the be the view of an individual.
It's my fervent wish that some day these children grow up. And please put the damn cell phones down.
Too much learning of theory, too much self-righteousness, too much self-importance, not nearly enough common sense and nowhere near enough self-examination. Like every one of the Uprisers is free of the prejudices they decry.....like they have an automatic right to demand that the current president apologize for history.....like this kind of "zero tolerance policy" they want would lead to the goals they claim they want. And did anyone notice that the long list of prejudices they want to stamp out somehow missed plain old sexism, as well as "sizeism" (ask a midget or dwarf how much insensitivity they deal with on a daily basis) and "Godism" (try being an atheist without encountering some disapproval and insensitivity).
For all of you who are commenting below:
Our aim isn’t to suppress the free expression of our classmates, but to urge Amherst College-the home they ultimately chose-to provide an academic environment where they’re afforded respect. RESPECT. SAFETY. INCLUSION. That is all anyone at Amherst is asking for, and Biddy Martin is working directly with us to make this happen because it is paramount. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between speaking freely according to the 1st Amendment and threatening people's lives. By law, the latter is assault, and THAT, my dear UA-camrs, will get you thrown in jail.
So grow the fuck up, educate yourselves, and think twice before you post something so goddamn insensitive.
Read up: www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/12/heres-what-my-yale-students-get-free-expression-and-anti-racism-arent-mutually-exclusive/
+Helen Montie Helen, I don't think "urge" is the right word for a list of demands, with a time limit and the threat of further "radical" disruption if the demands are not met. And I think a specific demand for an apology is beyond your characterization of wanting only RESPECT, SAFETY, INCLUSION. Those do not require an apology for history.In what way did the "All Lives Matter” and "Free Speech" posters threaten peoples' lives? If they did, then they are certainly improper, but from what I';ve heard of them, they were not threats. If you have information to the contrary, please pass it along.And for what little it's likely to be worth to you, I've long ago grown "the fuck up" and have spent a fair amount of time trying to diminish bias, dangerous assumptions, and other assorted staples of life.
+Lee Russ the posters are, in fact, threatening to people's lives. They were put up in place of "black lives matter" posters and directly after the events at Mizzou. These posters ultimately side with those who do the threatening by not supporting those who are in danger. The point is not who threatened whom--the point is that people of color feel unsafe at Amherst, Yale, and countless other institutions and we all have to do something about it because respect, safety, and inclusion haven't come naturally. That's the short of it.
+Helen Montie "not supporting those who are in danger" isn't the kind of threat that justifies limiting free speech, and certainly is not "assault" by law. You are confusing means and ends. I support your ends--safety, iinclusion & respect--I do not support your means, and I think many, many other people who support your goals feel the same way.
Is there actually excessive racism or are there only claims of such things going on within the university?
+Hrisin C YES! You saw that evil piece of paper that said "RIP Free Speech"? That was so ableist, and heterosexist, and classist, and islamophobic, and anti-semitic, and every other damn thing from their -tumblr post- manifesto!
+Keith Buckson
"Verbal assault" is a form of speech. If you don't believe that people are free to "verbally assault" others, then you don't truly believe in Free Speech. That's fine; you don't have to believe in any particular thing. Just make no mistake about it: if you believe that anyone at anytime should not be free to say anything they want to, then you believe in regulated (and therefore not free) speech.
+KnuckleHunkybuck You do realize that it is specifically under statutes of the First Amendment that freedom of speech is somewhat suspended on private college campuses in that the institution is free to penalize someone for speech that is considered hateful or that doesn't comply with the school's code of conduct
Bleedin' Jesus will the stupidity ever end?
Made it to AJ+
'Latinx'? Was that a typo?
+Resonators Phresh
'Latino' could be considered sexist by these snowflakes because it may imply only men and not women (latina).
for fuck sake this is going to far
too many typos
excessive.
neo fascist or Maoist actually is the question what's next popot and the Khmer Rouge.
hello
you people at Amherst make me sad for our generation. #victims2k15
Woah
latinx? uuuuhhh wut
#WelcomeTo1984