BigMouthBilliken Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I think SLU owns a large plot of land near the med campus across the street from Captiant Ds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billboy1 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I guess the donors will have the final say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I guess the donors will have the final say That is the advantage to having a billion dollar endowment. You can put up with some donors having a hissy fit over such a stupid thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Here is an official University response from Jeff Fowler, VP Marketing & Communications concerning the proposed statue: Dr. Pestello forwarded your email to me, and I asked if I could respond. First, I do want to thank you for taking the time to write about your concerns regarding the proposed artwork to commemorate the demonstrations and encampment at SLU. Dr. Pestello and all of us in the administration at SLU do appreciate all points of view, and we also appreciate the fact that you chose Saint Louis University for your education. While I do understand your perspective regarding the encampment, the discussions that took place on campus during that week were significant and impactful to the University. The conversations weren’t always easy, but issues of racial intolerance in our region are very real, and, as the city’s namesake University, we could not ignore that discussion. On the first evening of the encampment, approximately 500 students gathered at the Clock Tower to listen and talk with the demonstrators. They did this on their own because they wanted to learn more about these issues. That week and since then, there have been dozens of on-campus meetings and discussions about topics of race and equality. Those are exactly the kinds of discussions that should take place on a university campus. I’m sure you chose to attend, and have your children attend, a Jesuit university for a reason. Our mission statement alone explains why SLU and our president have chosen to be so involved in these issues. Social justice is in our DNA; to ignore what was happening around us would have been antithetical to who we are. Our students are out in the community; some of them have been involved in protests, others have chosen to volunteer in Ferguson. Did some students find the encampment disruptive? I’m sure they did. But through the years, college and university campuses have always been places where difficult discussions have taken place. I am old enough to remember Vietnam War protests on the campus where I went to college in the 70s. To be clear, while some of the conversations were difficult, there was no violence on our campus and the encampment ended peacefully on October 18. The demonstrations and encampment at SLU in October was a significant moment in our history. Whether you agree with our actions or not, the University has been recognized from many quarters for being a leader in addressing the racial issues in our region and for our handling of the encampment. To commission an artwork to commemorate what took place does not mean everyone agrees with the University’s position. But it will recognize that significant events took place at SLU that will be talked about for years; and this artwork will likely help prompt some of those discussions. In closing, I truly hope you can be proud of being a SLU alumnus. Thank you again for taking the time to email us. Sincerely, Jeff Fowler Vice President for Marketing and Communications Perfect statement. Fowler is so on point here. The key part for me: "Those are exactly the kinds of discussions that should take place on a university campus. I’m sure you chose to attend, and have your children attend, a Jesuit university for a reason. Our mission statement alone explains why SLU and our president have chosen to be so involved in these issues. Social justice is in our DNA; to ignore what was happening around us would have been antithetical to who we are." This is perfectly said. If any donors are going to close their wallets for this, I say 'Good Riddance, Chicken Littles.' The real donors understand the larger mission of the institution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billboy1 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Disagree-this is not done yet-can't pick and choose causes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Disagree-this is not done yet-can't pick and choose causes Disagree with what? SLU's mission statement? Fowler's statement? What does it have to do with picking and choosing causes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouthBilliken Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I work at the givings program on campus and you'd be surprised how many older alums use the "ferguson thing" as a reason not to give, even in the months since. No complaints from younger graduates, but the old folks have the $$$ as the recent grads are drowning in debt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Disagree with what? SLU's mission statement? Fowler's statement? What does it have to do with picking and choosing causes? I think the problem for some is they feel SLU is picking a winner here more than a cause and somehow that makes them the losers. I don't agree with that view, but I think it is feeding the opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billboy1 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 On point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgbilliken Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Perfect statement. Fowler is so on point here. The key part for me: "Those are exactly the kinds of discussions that should take place on a university campus. I’m sure you chose to attend, and have your children attend, a Jesuit university for a reason. Our mission statement alone explains why SLU and our president have chosen to be so involved in these issues. Social justice is in our DNA; to ignore what was happening around us would have been antithetical to who we are." This is perfectly said. If any donors are going to close their wallets for this, I say 'Good Riddance, Chicken Littles.' The real donors understand the larger mission of the institution. +1. Pistol, my thoughts exactly. Semi-relevant, the anniversary of the historic anti-discrimination homily given at SLU by Fr. Heithaus in 1944 is coming up.. The speech is worth a read if you haven't read it before. http://www.slu.edu/news-slu-commemorates-heithaus-210 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 On point Okay, but why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSmetBilliken Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Pistol, I couldn't decide which of your posts to quote, so just know that this in a way applies to all of them from this morning. I agree that these sort of discussions can be of benefit to have on a college campus. I just question whether this was the best way for this to happen. Did we have to have a bunch of non-students invade the campus? Could a student organization have achieved this same dialogue? The difference is that if a student organization planned this demonstration, they'd have to abide by these guidelines: http://www.slu.edu/x26818.xml?site=desktop However, if a group of non-students decides to trespass onto campus and set up an encampment, it looks to me that they get more rights than actual students. Just doesn't seem right to me. Again, the things I've heard in admittedly a few conversations suggest that SLU's portrayal of this is not entirely accurate. If students didn't feel safe, SLU failed in their duties to those students and their families. That's where my issue lies Oh, and to the part of attending a Jesuit school part for the reasons Fowler mentioned: I attended a Jesuit school because most of the more highly regarded Catholic colleges within 6 hours of St. Louis are run by the Jesuits. Maybe my liking of the Jesuits at DeSmet played a role, but I and some others found the Jesuits at SLU to be a different bunch than those I was used to at DeSmet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 As a big university, there's only so much you can control. It's a dynamic place with a lot of different people and surrounded by a dynamic city with a lot of different people. SLU never asked for this. SLU was dealt a set of circumstances and handled it with grace. The safety of the students was never compromised. Some of them may have been inconvenienced or heard unpleasant things or painted in unfair brushstrokes, but never were any students attacked or otherwise made unsafe. This angle is being way overblown, seemingly by people who oppose these particular protests for other reasons. "Unsafe" and "inconvenienced" are not synonyms. To say they were given "more rights" than actual students is completely untrue. Again, SLU didn't direct them to campus. They had to make a reallly difficult decision about how to handle this, and rather than use police force to shoo them away, they decided to welcome them with hospitality, open dialogue, and an attempt at reaching a common understanding. What more could you possibly ask for? Had they chose the other alternative, we'd be left with a set of truly embarrassing images for years to come (just ask Ole Miss what that's like). The University acted in accordance with its written mission statement. With so much at stake during a tense, difficult time for the area, SLU's approach was truly commendable. It's not always easy to stick to your mission, and it can be easy to lose sight of the big picture. I'm proud of my alma mater. (As for the statue itself, I don't really care. The teaching moment of it all is more important to me. It was undeniably a big moment for SLU, and I think history will bear that out. If anything, it just feels that such a commemoration is a bit too soon, like retiring a player's number before he graduates.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 As for why you or Fowler or anyone else is involved with SLU - well, everyone has their own reasons. Just because you went there for one reason doesn't mean it applies to everyone else. And every individual Jesuit is different (I've also had a greatly varied experience with the ones I've interacted with, albeit usually positive). The one thing that is consistent is the mission statement of the University and of the Jesuits themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 As a big university, there's only so much you can control. It's a dynamic place with a lot of different people and surrounded by a dynamic city with a lot of different people. SLU never asked for this. SLU was dealt a set of circumstances and handled it with grace. The safety of the students was never compromised. Some of them may have been inconvenienced or heard unpleasant things or painted in unfair brushstrokes, but never were any students attacked or otherwise made unsafe. This angle is being way overblown, seemingly by people who oppose these particular protests for other reasons. "Unsafe" and "inconvenienced" are not synonyms. To say they were given "more rights" than actual students is completely untrue. Again, SLU didn't direct them to campus. They had to make a reallly difficult decision about how to handle this, and rather than use police force to shoo them away, they decided to welcome them with hospitality, open dialogue, and an attempt at reaching a common understanding. What more could you possibly ask for? Had they chose the other alternative, we'd be left with a set of truly embarrassing images for years to come (just ask Ole Miss what that's like). The University acted in accordance with its written mission statement. With so much at stake during a tense, difficult time for the area, SLU's approach was truly commendable. It's not always easy to stick to your mission, and it can be easy to lose sight of the big picture. I'm proud of my alma mater. (As for the statue itself, I don't really care. The teaching moment of it all is more important to me. It was undeniably a big moment for SLU, and I think history will bear that out. If anything, it just feels that such a commemoration is a bit too soon, like retiring a player's number before he graduates.) This. Not sure why people won't celebrate a job well done by the university and choose to instead focus on the perceived negativity of the protesters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I think the problem for some is they feel SLU is picking a winner here more than a cause and somehow that makes them the losers. I don't agree with that view, but I think it is feeding the opposition. Good point, I am not sure I really like it now (don't particularly care), but this is exactly what my initial reaction was based on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 You do know it is a slow basketball season when this is a hot topic on the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Good point, I am not sure I really like it now (don't particularly care), but this is exactly what my initial reaction was based on. It really is a good point that Brian makes. Probably a lot of truth to it, I'm sure. I'd hope more people would be able to see the nuance in it, though, and not just in terms of winners and losers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizziken Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I generally don't have a problem with any artwork and I tend to agree with how SLU handled the situation...but what exactly is the artwork commemorating? The fact that there were protests, the protestors themselves, the fact that they were resolved peacefully, the dialogue that ensued, SLU's response, racial injustice, injustice in general, all of the above? Just imagine if SLU had strong-armed the protestors and kicked them off campus...SLU students would've had targets on their backs (moreso than they already do). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I have made my statement in this regard already, but feel I should add that I fully agree with the statement released by Fowler, particularly with the points highlighted by Pistol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billboy1 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Maybe instead of SLU paying for it have donations pay for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSmetBilliken Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 As a big university, there's only so much you can control. It's a dynamic place with a lot of different people and surrounded by a dynamic city with a lot of different people. SLU never asked for this. SLU was dealt a set of circumstances and handled it with grace. The safety of the students was never compromised. Some of them may have been inconvenienced or heard unpleasant things or painted in unfair brushstrokes, but never were any students attacked or otherwise made unsafe. This angle is being way overblown, seemingly by people who oppose these particular protests for other reasons. "Unsafe" and "inconvenienced" are not synonyms. To say they were given "more rights" than actual students is completely untrue. Again, SLU didn't direct them to campus. They had to make a reallly difficult decision about how to handle this, and rather than use police force to shoo them away, they decided to welcome them with hospitality, open dialogue, and an attempt at reaching a common understanding. What more could you possibly ask for? Had they chose the other alternative, we'd be left with a set of truly embarrassing images for years to come (just ask Ole Miss what that's like). The University acted in accordance with its written mission statement. With so much at stake during a tense, difficult time for the area, SLU's approach was truly commendable. It's not always easy to stick to your mission, and it can be easy to lose sight of the big picture. I'm proud of my alma mater. (As for the statue itself, I don't really care. The teaching moment of it all is more important to me. It was undeniably a big moment for SLU, and I think history will bear that out. If anything, it just feels that such a commemoration is a bit too soon, like retiring a player's number before he graduates.) I think we're in an "agree to disagree" situation here on several of these issues. I will agree that there may have been a risk of some bad press if SLU had them removed. That said, it's a risk I'd have taken every time. While there was no violence at SLU, the majority of those demonstrating in Ferguson were there peacefully, yet there still was significant damage. How would SLU know that there would be no violence? All it takes is 1 bad apple and you have a really bad situation. Maybe I'm just overly cautious, but I viewed SLU's decision to allow the non-student demonstrators to stay as a choice that they made. They could decide to put the safety of their students as priority #1, make sure that there was no chance that students would be harmed, and get the demonstration off campus, or they could allow the demonstration to continue and be prepared to live with the consequences if their assessment. As I said above, maybe I'm just overly cautious, but I wouldn't have taken the risk, especially given the prior violence caused in Ferguson by a small percentage of the demonstrators. SLU made a different choice than I would've and ended up coming out of it unscathed. I'm glad they did come out of it without any harm being done. Maybe I should applaud the fearless decision-making, but I haven't reached that point where I can do so yet. As far as the issue of more rights being given to the protestors vs. the actual students, I don't think that's necessarily untrue. As I posted the other day, maybe I'm just cynical, but I'd be surprised if a student group would be allowed to demonstrate for a week and build an encampment if they didn't square it with Event Services first, in the required amount of time. I know it's an insignificant issue, but it just doesn't seem right to me that it may actually be easier for non-students to demonstrate their views on campus than an actual student group. I think the problem for some is they feel SLU is picking a winner here more than a cause and somehow that makes them the losers. I don't agree with that view, but I think it is feeding the opposition. I think that's right. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that way, but at the time, and now, I believed that the shootings were justified under the law in which an officer is allowed to use deadly force when they were in fear for their life. I felt that the string of anti-police statements and actions were wrong, and I believed that SLU's allowance of the protestors on the campus acted as an endorsement or validation of that. I see the statue as a further endorsement of those actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billboy1 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Very well stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 So you think there would've been less violence if they were forcibly removed? Aren't there plenty of examples from the St. Louis area in August and November of 2014 that prove otherwise? That approach would've been way more dangerous to students, since that's the concern you keep hammering away at. As for your continued insistence that non-students were given privileges students are not given, you're basing your opposition on a hypothetical, and I'm certain it would play out differently because it always has. There were a handful of demonstrations when I was there (and I would consider SLU a fairly non-political campus compared to most other campuses) - Take Back The Night, the Palestinian students who put up the wall for a week (probably the closest example), etc. - and that was during Biondi's tenure. They were always allowed to protest peacefully. And SLU students wouldn't have a need to camp out on campus like these protestors did because they already live on or near campus. Absolutely no one is stopping students from protesting. What SLU showed the protestors is called hospitality, not "more rights" than students have. The protestors were given a safe space to make their points and were shown respect, with many opportunities for dialogue with students and the community at large. No violence whatsoever came from it, and in fact way more positive came from it. How this could somehow be seen as a less attractive option than pushing them off campus with police force - that's something I just can't wrap my head around, and - once again - something that would be antithetical to the school's mission statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billboy1 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 So if 100 homeless people came on campus and camped out would they be shown the same hospitality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.