Are Your Campus Officials Against Rioting?

[mahagonny]

In the wake of the George Floyd disaster, so far I have seen multiple statements from college presidents, chancellors condemning systemic racism, bigotry, even misogyny (not sure how that issue got brought into it, but, of course, we ought to oppose misogyny, agreed). Followed by messages of new task forces, committees to explore systemic and other racism in the workplace, the classroom, the internet and commitment to renewing and invigorating more results-oriented methods. Mentions of George Floyd and other casualties of police encounters gone wrong by name. But I haven't seen any of these college or university leaders coming out against the wave of rioting, malicious destruction of property or violence that have been in the news ever since the end of May. Are you hearing any? Is there any reason we should hear from them about it?

[apl68]

I don't know about today's university officials, but back in my day when students tried rioting the administration was pretty stern with them.  That could even get a frat kicked off of campus.

[mahagonny]

I don't know about today's university officials, but back in my day when students tried rioting the administration was pretty stern with them.  That could even get a frat kicked off of campus.

Sure, not surprising. I have to assume the people who implement these rules see themselves not only as protecting their property and people of necessity but also affirming important principles and educating students about them, or at least affirming what they were taught.. They are not only against rioting when it could harm them and others in their care. They're against it because it's wrong. Our college presidents are not shy about weighing in on current affairs. Well, I'm sure they often abstain, but they will do it when they think it's their role. But this time around it seems the job is just to take sides. The protestors or the perception of complacence about racism and those implicated. Yet protesters seem to want us to know that they are acting peacefully and legally and the rioters are giving them a bad name. So why wouldn't the colleges want to reinforce them that way, in support of the reason/legitimacy for the protest? Are they intimidated by the growing clout of BLM?

[fourhats]

According to an article in the Washington Post, a non-partisan group of long standing that tracks rioting in a global context finds that over 93% of the protests against racism are peaceful. Furthermore, of those arrested for rioting and destruction, the majority are outside of the protester groups. Moreover, in another article I saw, protesters have been working to stop destruction by others. So I would imagine that destructive actions are not taking place on campuses or by students.

[mahagonny]

According to an article in the Washington Post, a non-partisan group of long standing that tracks rioting in a global context finds that over 93% of the protests against racism are peaceful. Furthermore, of those arrested for rioting and destruction, the majority are outside of the protester groups. Moreover, in another article I saw, protesters have been working to stop destruction by others. So I would imagine that destructive actions are not taking place on campuses or by students.

That's good to know. If I understand correctly, a state university campus is public property so anyone may go there and set up a demonstration. So if you were to speculate that 80 students at SUNY want to demonstrate peacefully, there still no guarantee that no others will 'crash the party.' I keep hearing no it's not the BLM folks who are rioting; it's white supremacists who are trying to make them look bad. But it's hard to know who's been doing what. and the BLM-supporting folks I talk to are resigned to the presence of destruction. so the fact that bad actors are expected to show up at their rally will not concern them greatly or affect their plans.Of course many of us are not on campus at all. Maybe that's a good thing for now.
I have to ask, maybe rhetorically: what good does continuing demonstrating do? Haven't we got the point by now? Not that you shouldn't be able to demonstrate in legal ways. But why would you? The argument put forth by BLM seems to align with the 'antiracism' message of d'Angelo, Xendi, et al, which by their own accounting means everything in white American culture needs to be overhauled and will take years. Are we going to have demonstrations every day until that work is completed? And how will we know when that is?

[Hegemony]

I am sensing a behind-the-scenes implication here.  Like: "They denounce this one thing, but they do not denounce this other thing, therefore they are in favor of property destruction."  Or is there another implied conclusion?  "...therefore they focus on the thing they find most important"?

[mahagonny]

I am sensing a behind-the-scenes implication here.  Like: "They denounce this one thing, but they do not denounce this other thing, therefore they are in favor of property destruction."  Or is there another implied conclusion?  "...therefore they focus on the thing they find most important"?

Well, they're causing me to wonder if rioting would be the more important of the two if it were happening to them on their campus. But that's not what social justice is, is it? Social justice is when something's wrong anytime it victimizes any innocent. Of course, if you know my posting around here, you know I don't consider higher education to really have its ear to the ground on social justice (Happy Labor Day!).  So I'm already embarrassed about half of what they go on about. But at least they could do their share in supporting law, order and peace. Especially taxpayer funded institutions.

on edit: I think these people could make a difference in the national dialogue too. we have people now stating that 'looting is morally justified. It's reparations.' These people are being given the microphone on TV news and treated as though they are mature people with important ideas. This is extraordinary. Who's pushing back?