MB73 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Looks like SLU just got extorted. If we really gave these concessions in exchange for the protesters leaving, SLU got played. Unbelievable. Exactly. Months of marches, threats, looting, bricks, property damage, gunshots, threats, Molotov cocktails, threats... SLU had to buy out of the Occupy SLU invaders or face serious consequences. Sad, but it is being tolerated. Why? The real problem in STL is a dollars/poverty problem not a color problem. Disagree. Poor Asians, whites, native Americans, you name it, are in SL... they do not riot, extort, threaten, damage, etcetera. I have a close Japanese friend, his parents were behind barbed wire in WWII, he got his ass kicked almost every day on his way to school for being a Jap in the 50's and 60's. His parents put their heads down, worked hard at their jobs, instilled family values, encouraged their kids to get educations, and my friend and his siblings are all successful. The Japanese elders all talk about this Ferguson thing, I am told; they "wonder". Oh, yes the whites rioted for months after the OJ decision. Wait, no they didn't. (that should end the thread) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Us whites save the rioting for pumpkin festivals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 What in this agreement prevents SLU from firing 2 african americans for every new one hired? Answer: nothing. This is just a shell game. The protesters feel like they won, the protests are over and nothing really changes. SLU survives without longterm damage. Good job Mr. President Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Clock, sorry but that is just a bit too cynical for my taste. I think things happened and change also happened at many levels, some non related to the protest per se. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 What in this agreement prevents SLU from firing 2 african americans for every new one hired? Answer: nothing. This is just a shell game. The protesters feel like they won, the protests are over and nothing really changes. SLU survives without longterm damage. Good job Mr. President OK. I agree. It had to be done. Good job. But the whole thing is terrible, not like student protests on war or the environment, this was an invasion of OUR campus by non students. What right do they have? Why SLU? SLU didn't do anything to them. A week of violating OUR campus: the intimidation, the threat of violence as has occurred elsewhere in St. Louis, was there for 7 days, it is nauseating, disturbing to think about. I talked to a man whose granddaughter is at SLU, he was fearful. He heard a lot from her and her parents the whole week, and, yes, he saw the video of the protestor who did the filthy, sordid, sexually intimidating rap song... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milwaukeebill Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 There is definitely a tone from some on this thread that SLU has not handled this well or shouldn't have given any concessions. To me the issue isn't about whether I'm happy that the protesters came to SLU; because I'm not. Pestello definitely didn't ask for this to happen. But once it did happen, he did a pretty good job of handling the situation. In my opinion, his solution was far superior to the solution proposed by some to kick them off immediately, with force if necessary. So if people want to post about how unfair it is that the protesters came to SLU then so be it. But that's not really debatable. What is debatable is how one should handle the situation and in my book SLU did a very good job of handling it. +1. These don't really seem like "concessions" to me. they just seem like good ideas for any university that strives to be better then yesterday. Especially relevant in an urban city school. and are we seriously concerned that the school will have trouble affording this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 OK. I agree. It had to be done. Good job. But the whole thing is terrible, not like student protests on war or the environment, this was an invasion of OUR campus by non students. What right do they have? Why SLU? SLU didn't do anything to them. A week of violating OUR campus: the intimidation, the threat of violence as has occurred elsewhere in St. Louis, was there for 7 days, it is nauseating, disturbing to think about. I talked to a man whose granddaughter is at SLU, he was fearful. He heard a lot from her and her parents the whole week, and, yes, he saw the video of the protestor who did the filthy, sordid, sexually intimidating rap song... Grandpa, didn't you quit this thread about five pages ago? Quit being so afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 One thing must be said, real change is always gradual and oftentimes slow. I think the protest at SLU did start the ball rolling in a positive direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Grandpa, didn't you quit this thread about five pages ago? Quit being so afraid. I'm not a grandfather, and this thug would not have been allowed to say this in front of my wife and me. No way. He is one of many that my friend cited in various videos showing the protestors true character and intent; my friend's granddaughter attends SLU. Do you blame him for being concerned? Or do you, instead, support this thug? If so, please explain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrLM71rqquE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheA_Bomb Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 All you congratulating SLU for their handling of this and/or defending the protesters. You are validating that this protest group has a propensity for violence. That it is not just a non-violent movement. I'm glad you did so because it was obvious to all of us. Therefore, why would SLU allow such a group to live on it's campus for days? It creates an unsafe situation for students that belong on campus. Furthermore, in order to get them off private property the school must make concessions to non-students? This is setting a terrible precedent. Intimidate SLU in order to get concessions. This last part is just all educated speculation: Who gets that high paying VP job or the other positions? That's right the people behind the protest organizing. It's not the pawns that really occupied SLU duped into believing that they are promoting "Social Justice" it's the people behind them pulling the strings. The investigations and courts would have viewed these cases whether or not anyone ever protested, Justice will be and would have been served anyway. Anytime there is a use of lethal force in a law enforcement organization it is a big deal (I know personally). Someone got to exploit a crisis and get some money out of the situation. Look for that someone or somebody close to that someone to be hired by SLU and now they are in the organization and the diversion of funds from other projects won't be so obvious. Never let a crisis go unexploited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 The reaction to this deal, by many, strikes me as a bunch of foo foo, commie-lib, squishy, gooey, feel good, college campus crap. Makes me want to send my kid to a trade school. A-bomb aside...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milwaukeebill Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 The reaction to this deal, by many, strikes me as a bunch of foo foo, commie-lib, squishy, gooey, feel good, college campus crap. Makes me want to send my kid to a trade school. A-bomb aside...... That sentence literally makes no sense. Probably time to lock this thread now that the protesters are off the campus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 That sentence literally makes no sense. Probably time to lock this thread now that the protesters are off the campus. It makes perfect sense but you are right that this thread has probably run its course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I can only imagine what the parents wrote to the administration in 1944 when SLU wasted all those administrative resources on establishing an official policy on the admission of blacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 They ended up at SLU because it was a much easier walk from the Shaw neighborhood than Wash U or UMSL. Yes, it's easy to walk from Shaw to SLU. It's also easy to walk from Ferguson to UMSL. And from Shaw to Forest Park. And from Ferguson to Flo Valley. The kid whose death started all this was actually enrolled at one of those schools, and (hint, hint) it ain't SLU. Another one of those schools had recently been in the news for their lack of diversity, and once again it wasn't SLU. The only "over-thinking" is to try and explain away the fact that only one of the above walking scenarios happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 All you congratulating SLU for their handling of this and/or defending the protesters. You are validating that this protest group has a propensity for violence. That it is not just a non-violent movement. I'm glad you did so because it was obvious to all of us. Therefore, why would SLU allow such a group to live on it's campus for days? It creates an unsafe situation for students that belong on campus. Furthermore, in order to get them off private property the school must make concessions to non-students? This is setting a terrible precedent. Intimidate SLU in order to get concessions. This last part is just all educated speculation: Who gets that high paying VP job or the other positions? That's right the people behind the protest organizing. It's not the pawns that really occupied SLU duped into believing that they are promoting "Social Justice" it's the people behind them pulling the strings. The investigations and courts would have viewed these cases whether or not anyone ever protested, Justice will be and would have been served anyway. Anytime there is a use of lethal force in a law enforcement organization it is a big deal (I know personally). Someone got to exploit a crisis and get some money out of the situation. Look for that someone or somebody close to that someone to be hired by SLU and now they are in the organization and the diversion of funds from other projects won't be so obvious. Never let a crisis go unexploited. What "propensity for violence" are you talking about? The protesters who ended up at SLU were mostly veterans of the Occupy stuff from a few years ago. They were not the people arrested in Ferguson for looting, molotov cocktails, etc. I know they all look alike and were protesting for similar reasons, but this attitude is veering close to MB levels of myopia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Was it good PR for the U? As usual, depends on how you view it. But I would point out that Father James Martin, SJ, put up what sounds like a very favorable post on his Facebook feed, which is followed by no less than 125,000 people: Fr. James Martin, SJ shared a link. October 14 · Edited From a FB follower who wrote me yesterday from St. Louis University, on the community's response to the situation in Ferguson. "Recently SLU was the location for a number of protests that have been now coined as #OccupySLU. The protests, not started by SLU students, have offered a rare bright spot as productive dialogue and peaceful action on the topic. Hundreds of protesters gathered at SLU (which is in a very central spot of St. Louis) and staged on sit in on the central mall of our campus. Instead of seeing the protesters arrested, our new president (and first lay President) welcomed the dialogue, and encouraged safe action. The next night (tonight) hundreds of SLU students gathered at the same spot to ask questions, listen to Civil Rights leaders and professors, and encourage peaceful protest. Furthermore, on the previous night, SLU opened the doors of its on campus basketball arena to welcome clergy of all faith to speak on the topic. SLU students, faculty, and leadership have acted amazingly to confront these sensitive issues head on. Obviously, social justice is at the core of SLU's mission. Our University is proud of its heritage in this regard. In 1944, a full decade before Brown v. Board SLU integrated its student body against the wishes of many in the city. Annually SLU students gather for an organized day of action throughout the city of St. Louis that serves as the largest volunteer effort the area sees each year." What does that foo foo guy know? I think what has been lost or ignored by some in the thread is that the event at the Chaifetz Arena was a big reason why SLU became a bit of a staging ground - http://fox2now.com/2014/10/12/updates-fergusonoctober-interfaith-service-seeks-justice-for-michael-brown/ Sure looks like a group calling for violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Yes, it's easy to walk from Shaw to SLU. It's also easy to walk from Ferguson to UMSL. And from Shaw to Forest Park. And from Ferguson to Flo Valley. The kid whose death started all this was actually enrolled at one of those schools, and (hint, hint) it ain't SLU. Another one of those schools had recently been in the news for their lack of diversity, and once again it wasn't SLU. The only "over-thinking" is to try and explain away the fact that only one of the above walking scenarios happened. These protesters were not in Ferguson and who in the hell has ever gone to a community college to protest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 You wanna resolve issues....Gries should be open til 7:30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheA_Bomb Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 What "propensity for violence" are you talking about? The protesters who ended up at SLU were mostly veterans of the Occupy stuff from a few years ago. They were not the people arrested in Ferguson for looting, molotov cocktails, etc. I know they all look alike and were protesting for similar reasons, but this attitude is veering close to MB levels of myopia. Why all the hand-ringing from the administration? Why all the stress? Why the need to grade easier on mid-terms? Why did there have to be a formal document of concessions? Why not just a dialogue? Why the need to have 2 Campus Security on the group 24 hours/day? Why the live camera feed? Because they were rightly afraid that this protest could turn violent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 These protesters were not in Ferguson and who in the hell has ever gone to a community college to protest? First, there was quite a bit of overlap with the Ferguson protesters, in spite of my distinction above about people and groups who have actually shown a "propensity for violence." And that is exactly my point--the Ferguson protests didn't end up on a college campus, but this one did. Some of the protesters on Twitter and Facebook were specifically asked why they didn't show up at all these other colleges, and they said they wanted to "occupy them all." Only the SLU march was organized by the groups like MORE, which coincidentally is made up nearly entirely of out-of-town Wash U students and grads who view SLU as little more than a Catholic commuter junior college itself. Second, plenty of people protest at community colleges. Many of the actual protesters (not the MORE organizers, but the rank and file "occupiers") are graduates of SLCC. Eric Holder spoke at Flo Valley, for chrissake. There was no "occupation" after that event like there was after the Cornel West event at Chaifetz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheA_Bomb Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 These protesters were not in Ferguson and who in the hell has ever gone to a community college to protest? So you and the University checked their IDs and the IDs of all those that violently protested in Ferguson? I Guess there was a Roll Call at both protests that took 100% accountability of those protesting and we've validated that there was no cross over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Why all the hand-ringing from the administration? Why all the stress? Why the need to grade easier on mid-terms? Why did there have to be a formal document of concessions? Why not just a dialogue? Why the need to have 2 Campus Security on the group 24 hours/day? Why the live camera feed? Because they were rightly afraid that this protest could turn violent. Sure. That seems very different to me from saying that these protesters were known to have a propensity for violence. I can understand the mixed feelings about the concessions, but the point is Pestello avoided this one turning into a violent, ugly scene (in spite of some dude's granddaughter being forced to look at a black dude rapping sexually, or whatever). I'm having a hard time seeing how people can be too upset with his handling of the situation in light of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 What does that foo foo guy know? I think what has been lost or ignored by some in the thread is that the event at the Chaifetz Arena was a big reason why SLU became a bit of a staging ground - http://fox2now.com/2014/10/12/updates-fergusonoctober-interfaith-service-seeks-justice-for-michael-brown/ Sure looks like a group calling for violence. Well, I follow Fr. Martin and there have been numerous times his statements had me totally confused on his motives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Forgive me if somebody has answered this, but I still don't know why they were allowed to protest on a private campus if they weren't students? Protest on public property at the edge of campus - fine, but why were they allowed on campus? If you want to talk about precedence then every future organization or group will think it's okay to protest ON campus. I certainly hope the University doesn't hire any non-union labor or they can set up the picket line right in the Quad. 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.