![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Okay, now I'm not at work, and now I'm not in the midst of the first reaction to seeing it. And as my initial post was somewhat incoherent, I figured I'd follow up with how I view this.
1. George's fault? Maybe, maybe not. No way to know if he influenced that. QUITE possible the university got that bee up their backside all on their own.
2. Write your congresspeople? Yes, because they should be aware that this is a disturbing, unwelcome trend. Statements need to be made.
3. Write the president (or rather, whoever reads his mail)? YES, because he should (and could) say something (even if only behind the scenes) to the people involved and in similar situations.
4. Write the university. Definitely. I need to find contact information. They did make the announcement, and it was stupid.
Now, what do I object to and what don't I. I have no problem with their removal of people who did that from the event. It's rational, it's within their rights, and it promotes the dignity of the moment. (If they would not have removed people who threw things later, or the like, I would question it.) Regardless of whether or not it's right, it's legal, and it's their choice.
Expelling students involved. Um. This is still within their legal rights, but is overreaction. (Now, reprimanding, suspending for a time, and if graduating denying the walk to them? Sure. But expelling? Overkill - unless the student is already a chronic offender.)
Suggesting they will be arrested? That's what really steamed me. In response to turning their backs on the president? That's overkill. Now, if they resist being removed (see previous point regarding their right to do that)...fine. THEN have the police deal with them, being as you do have the right to throw them out.
The way it was handled smacks of involving the law and government in people's right to turn their backs on someone. Not just the university's ego-fluffballs.
And that disturbs me a lot. They have no place there. The further you move toward it being or being able to look like a government objection to protest (rather than a university objection to embarrassment at ceremnies), the further you move toward problems.
What will be next?
No, I don't like the man, I admit that. I am gleefully looking forward to our chance to elect someone else, and I hope by all that I hold holy we earn, make, push for better candidates this time around. But I would be no less upset if this were done in the name of a president I liked. (I admit, I'd probably have been less upset - especially initially - if it had been done at a time when I wasn't stressed for unrelated reasons, tho.)
1. George's fault? Maybe, maybe not. No way to know if he influenced that. QUITE possible the university got that bee up their backside all on their own.
2. Write your congresspeople? Yes, because they should be aware that this is a disturbing, unwelcome trend. Statements need to be made.
3. Write the president (or rather, whoever reads his mail)? YES, because he should (and could) say something (even if only behind the scenes) to the people involved and in similar situations.
4. Write the university. Definitely. I need to find contact information. They did make the announcement, and it was stupid.
Now, what do I object to and what don't I. I have no problem with their removal of people who did that from the event. It's rational, it's within their rights, and it promotes the dignity of the moment. (If they would not have removed people who threw things later, or the like, I would question it.) Regardless of whether or not it's right, it's legal, and it's their choice.
Expelling students involved. Um. This is still within their legal rights, but is overreaction. (Now, reprimanding, suspending for a time, and if graduating denying the walk to them? Sure. But expelling? Overkill - unless the student is already a chronic offender.)
Suggesting they will be arrested? That's what really steamed me. In response to turning their backs on the president? That's overkill. Now, if they resist being removed (see previous point regarding their right to do that)...fine. THEN have the police deal with them, being as you do have the right to throw them out.
The way it was handled smacks of involving the law and government in people's right to turn their backs on someone. Not just the university's ego-fluffballs.
And that disturbs me a lot. They have no place there. The further you move toward it being or being able to look like a government objection to protest (rather than a university objection to embarrassment at ceremnies), the further you move toward problems.
What will be next?
No, I don't like the man, I admit that. I am gleefully looking forward to our chance to elect someone else, and I hope by all that I hold holy we earn, make, push for better candidates this time around. But I would be no less upset if this were done in the name of a president I liked. (I admit, I'd probably have been less upset - especially initially - if it had been done at a time when I wasn't stressed for unrelated reasons, tho.)
no subject
My brother wore a pin to school (high school, I think) saying, Fuck the Moral Majority - and since it was a public school they could do nothing. It was a valid political statement, and schools are sot allowed to punish students for peaceful political statements.
They probably had a right to remove them for being disruptive, but the expulsion or threat of expulsion sounds illegal.
no subject