OT: Live look-in at campus protesters

[ACE]

Well, I follow Fr. Martin and there have been numerous times his statements had me totally confused on his motives.

So you have a problem with his specific post?

[slufan13]

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.

Some SLU students who wanted to protest with them brought them onto campus as their "guests"

[Tonka]

I was commenting on this: What does that foo foo guy know?

[brianstl]

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.

I didn't make a comment on if the group was made up of any violent protesters or not.

My comment was about how they ended up at SLU. It was a protest that started in the Shaw neighborhood. Occupying a college campus was a way for this group to increase it's profile. SLU was a shorter march than Wah U. People protesting in Ferguson don't need to increase their profile by occupying UMSL. They are getting plenty of attention.

[Tonka]

Some SLU students who wanted to protest with them brought them onto campus as their "guests"

Wow

[brianstl]

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.

I don't think the school or the cops knew they were going to stop at SLU and declare a sit in. Once that happened it was too late and the focus became how to peacefully get them off the campus.

[ACE]

I was commenting on this: What does that foo foo guy know?

On this issue, he seems a bit more closely aligned with SLU's Jesuit principles than the firehose crowd.

[slufan13]

I don't think the school or the cops knew they were going to stop at SLU and declare a sit in. Once that happened it was too late and the focus became how to peacefully get them off the campus.

I wasn't a fan of ever letting them on campus. Wasn't thrilled with the "concessions" or whatever you want to call it. But I also can't say that this was a huge problem. Nothing bad happened and that's good enough for me. My concern was always that eventually someone would get hurt or it would become a major distraction and that never really happened.

And until last week, I never cared one bit about the flag. I was a little bothered by their actions. Not because I really care about our flag, but because I know they wouldn't allow anyone to do that with another country's flag. But again, compared to what happened after the Rams game....no issues.

[Tonka]

On this issue, he seems a bit more closely aligned with SLU's Jesuit principles than the firehose crowd.

And what exactly are "SLU's Jesuit principles"? Honest question. BTW, I am not in full disagreement with how things were handled by SLU.

[hsmith19]

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.

This "slippery slope" stuff doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Just because they let these protesters sit around for a few days doesn't mean they'll lose their ability/right to stop a union from setting up a picket line in front of Des Peres Hall.

[hsmith19]

I didn't make a comment on if the group was made up of any violent protesters or not.

My comment was about how they ended up at SLU. It was a protest that started in the Shaw neighborhood. Occupying a college campus was a way for this group to increase it's profile. SLU was a shorter march than Wah U. People protesting in Ferguson don't need to increase their profile by occupying UMSL. They are getting plenty of attention.

Talk about overthinking things...the Cornell West event at Chaifetz event led to "occupation" of the SLU campus. The Eric Holder events at UMSL and Flo Valley (or any of the other events on those campuses, of which there were many) did not lead to campus "occupations." This was deliberately planned. It was not an accident. Especially knowing what I do about the background of the MORE leadership, this pattern strikes me as very hypocritical. It's their right to single one campus out like this, of course; it just undermines the sincerity of what they claim to be trying to accomplish, in my view.

[MB73]

It's funny how ideologically some will defend anyone, any criminal, any known thug... no matter what, after "leadership" riles them up with half-truths, propaganda, develops chants that they can identify with, and they do not know they are being used for political purposes. And where does it get them? They are worse off than the '60's when all the programs to help them commenced. They get the vast majority of entitlements but think they are victims.

We at SLU escaped a very high potential national incident. Thankfully. So far.

The thug that did the sickening "rap" as an excuse to mark his territory was defended by so many supposedly SLU college educated posters on this board... lame excuses were made for his behavior. You are not a credit to SLU, you need to help these people understand what needs to be done to change in a positive manner, not cause chaos, threaten, destroy property, throw bricks, threaten, march, intimidate, occupy, threaten.

Take a leadership role to help them.

It looks like both slain men were in the wrong... though the grand jury is still reviewing the evidence.

This all should never have happened, if there was a complaint, it should have occurred after the grand jury on MB/DW, not immediately convict the officer nationally through the usual so called leadership's self serving propaganda.

SLU almost was damaged to a significant extent. It still might, who is to say they won't return? I say, they might, en mass. Wait, the "rapper", did he give his word?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrLM71rqquE

[hsmith19]

MB73: It's not too late to stage a sit-in to protest baggy pants and backwards ballcaps, you know...

[ACE]

And what exactly are "SLU's Jesuit principles"? Honest question. BTW, I am not in full disagreement with how things were handled by SLU.

There are other sources, but here are a few principles...

http://www.jss.org.au/about-us/guiding-principles

I didn't see anything about calls for firehoses.

[ACE]

MB73: It's not too late to stage a sit-in to protest baggy pants and backwards ballcaps, you know...

He would if he wasn't too afraid...

[Tonka]

There are other sources, but here are a few principles...

http://www.jss.org.au/about-us/guiding-principles

I didn't see anything about calls for firehoses.

Can you find one post or one thing said about me wanting firehoses or removal by force? My only issue is them protesting in the middle of private property. I have no issues with peaceful protests. I don't necessarily agree with all protests, but people have the right to do them peacefully. I just always thought they had to be on public property.

[ACE]

Can you find one post or one thing said about me wanting firehoses or removal by force? My only issue is them protesting in the middle of private property. I have no issues with peaceful protests. I don't necessarily agree with all protests, but people have the right to do them peacefully. I just always thought they had to be on public property.

I never said you advocated that position.

[Deutschkind]

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.

Some SLU students who wanted to protest with them brought them onto campus as their "guests"

I wasn't there, but I have a hard time buying this as the actual reason they got on campus. SLU retains the right to not allow guests or to kick guests out. For example, every year for Mardi Gras, students living on campus are limited to one guest in their room who must sign up in advance. The idea that a students flashed their ID, said they were his guests, and therefore DPS stood back seems improbable.

Seems more likely that SLU decided a confrontation was a poor choice and decided to let them in while monitoring the situation.

[slufan13]

I wasn't there, but I have a hard time buying this as the actual reason they got on campus. SLU retains the right to not allow guests or to kick guests out. For example, every year for Mardi Gras, students living on campus are limited to one guest in their room who must sign up in advance. The idea that a students flashed their ID, said they were his guests, and therefore DPS stood back seems improbable.

Seems more likely that SLU decided a confrontation was a poor choice and decided to let them in while monitoring the situation.

This is at least what SLU claimed. I can't say that it's true.

[thetorch]

I wasn't there, but I have a hard time buying this as the actual reason they got on campus. SLU retains the right to not allow guests or to kick guests out. For example, every year for Mardi Gras, students living on campus are limited to one guest in their room who must sign up in advance. The idea that a students flashed their ID, said they were his guests, and therefore DPS stood back seems improbable.

Seems more likely that SLU decided a confrontation was a poor choice and decided to let them in while monitoring the situation.

Exactly. There were hundreds of protesters that night and no one knew where they were going. It was a conscious effort by SLU officials and STLPD not to engage.

Of course everyone was afraid of possible violence, that is how these protests keep garnering media attention. The reactions by SLU officials and students changed the protest's mentality. SLU made it peaceful by their reactions in fostering an open dialogue. In a lot of ways the protesters didn't get what they wanted despite the fact that they received "concessions" from SLU.

[hsmith19]

The protesters knew SLU was a Jesuit school with a mission statement on social justice and knew a black man had just taken over the Presidency. I would have had a lot more respect for their "occupation" if they had acknowledged those two realities rather than taking the posture that SLU was to blame for the problems they claimed to be addressing and needed to be talked down/preached to.

[Clock_Tower]

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...

MB73. You're right. The tactics of the protesters is no different than those conducted by activists and community organizers within the African American community. Jesse Jackson and others have shaken down and threatened many Fortune 500 companies with race -- threats, boycotts, pickets, protests, negative comments, etc. over the years. All of this, of course, is bad for business and can damage an otherwise pristine corporate name/reputation and therefore the payoffs have been frequent, regular and in the form of everything from cash to diversity programs to mentorships to summer jobs programs. The exact same now was presented to SLU. I personally challenge your or anyone to truly find any one of the agreed upon goals as being contrary to what SLU wants to do, has been doing and/or should be doing. I fully agree that these tactics are nothing more than extortion but SLU has been trying to help the inner city community, has been trying to increase access and scholarships, to make its product more affordable and to appeal to a diverse group of students from all backgrounds. SLU already has programs, chairpersons, curriculums, etc. in place so it is ironic that liberal groups - like universities which are largely either race neutral or which favor minorities is being held up for additional ransom. Debate about race in the workforce, in the neighborhoods and in throughout the country is one thing -- but not at universities which are dominated by liberals, where diversity is sought at nearly all cost, where minorities and poor students are offered lower entrance standards and scholarships, where minority professors are paid in excess of their counterparts, etc. If all this is still needed to offset prior injustices, then that is debatable. And If SLU's programs need re-structuring, new leadership and/or consolidation, then SLU can, should and will do this. But to think that the University will stay exactly the same but that 13 extra items are truly being added, especially long term, is naive.

[brianstl]

Exactly. There were hundreds of protesters that night and no one knew where they were going. It was a conscious effort by SLU officials and STLPD not to engage.

Of course everyone was afraid of possible violence, that is how these protests keep garnering media attention. The reactions by SLU officials and students changed the protest's mentality. SLU made it peaceful by their reactions in fostering an open dialogue. In a lot of ways the protesters didn't get what they wanted despite the fact that they received "concessions" from SLU.

Concessions that are nothing more than agreeing to collaboration and discussions. The actual agreement was nothing more than a face saving attempt by the protesters and it wasn't a cave in by the school.

The school played this well no matter how some people on both sides want to portray it.

[Bizziken]

I was really, really, really hoping that I could stay avoid this topic, but my willpower has been overcome.

Too often, people take the extreme position. The same is true here..."The SLU protestors are violent thugs and they should get the hell off of our campus" OR "the protestors were merely non-violent observers wanting a forum to express their opinions". In reality, it's probably somewhere in between. Had SLU been confrontational or heavy handed or if some students had become rowdy against the protestors, it's very likely that SOME of the protestors would have turned violent. And conversely, SOME of the protestors probably only wanted to express their feelings at what they perceived to be a wrongdoing and an injustice.

It IS possible to see both sides of this situation. Really, it's okay...Personally, I feel that campus protests are a natural byproduct of a diverse, well-rounded academic community. However, I feel uneasy knowing that non-students (and perhaps even homeless people) potentially associated with violent protests are involved. I don't like that SLU had to make concessions to get the protestors to leave, but I acknowledge that most of the concessions will, if implemented, affect the community in a positive way.

The bottom line is that there are ignorant, stupid, despicable people on both sides of the equation. In most situations, these ignorant, stupid, despicable people usually only serve to inflame the ignorant, stupid, despicable people on the other side of the aisle. And so it becomes a muddled battle of ignorance, stupidity, and who can yell their opinions loudest. Actuality!

[ACE]

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.

"Agitators!" I can only imagine what a few people in this thread would have been like back in 1944. Ultimately... on the wrong side of history. At least SLU was foo foo progressive on the subject of race relations compared to some of their contemporaries. It was more than two decades later until the SEC even had a black basketball player and not until the early 1970s for most SEC football programs. Too many trouble makers back in the 1960s spoke up and made some of that change happen.