Quote :

"No, the university should not have an obligation to censor it's students because a donor says so. What if the donor said that he'd prefer if everyone wear a particular colored t-shirt? Should they do that? It's not relevant!"

I said this on a previous page and it wasn't commented on. How is this not a PERFECT example of the free market system correcting a problem? A university that wants to make the most money they can from their donors is making their own free choice to stop a practice which will make them more appealing to donors. If you don't support the free market that's fine, but say so.

11/25/2009 2:22:07 PM

The university is not a private business. They use state funds which come out of your (well, if you live in Mississippi) pocket. They should not be allowed to censor people. If it was a private university, then HORAY! You can do whatever the fuck you want!

Oh, and I happen to believe that the free market isn't the solution to every problem, especially when the "problem" is people saying things more than 50% of people don't like.

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2009 2:26:16 PM

I don't give a shit if it's public, they are accepting private funds and allowed to do so. You know as well as everyone else they wouldn't be able to operate their state funded school and athletics as well without the private donations.

Look at it this way: They have X money from taxes. This allows them to do A and B, which is, let's say, run their school and have a football team. Now their donor gives them Y, which allows them to do C and D, which, for the sake of argument, is better football facilities which allow them to get better recruits and to have a volleyball program.

You are saying they should not listen to the guy giving the extra money and then not be able to use that money to help better their school, because it's not their rightful choice?

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 2:32 PM. Reason : as well]

11/25/2009 2:31:44 PM

I'm saying facilities funded by public monies should abide by the Constitution of the United States, regardless of how many PC fucktards are donating millions of dollars to them.

Let's say that instead of making racist comments, a donor to the University is a staunch Christian and abhors the fact that people get abortions. He decides that he'll pull his money if they don't suppress any anti-abortion chants.

Would that be a perfect system? The assholes with the most money have the say how we live our lives?

11/25/2009 2:39:46 PM

Maybe I missed where this was a legal issue. Have they said students will be thrown out of games for chanting?

Regarding your example it would depend on how they are suppressing the chant. If they chose to say the band that we fund isn't going to play the song anymore, than I have no problem with it. I may not like it, but it's their right to not support that chant. Who says they have to play a certain song?

11/25/2009 2:48:54 PM

I enjoy the fact that it's a general consensus that our inalienable rights should only be applied and defended in court. But I digress.

In the current situation at Ole Miss, no they are not actually being suppressed, because thankfully they probably know they couldn't get away with telling the students they're not allowed to chant. They are using underhanded tactics to make the students conform.

The issue doesn't really have anything to do with the song, it's the chant. No, I don't have a problem with the University assigning the song curricula for their band. It's lame that they're using that as an excuse to stifle racist comments, because (and not to sound like a broken record) they're at a public university and they should be able to make racist chants, despite the limp dick donors' sensibilities.

11/25/2009 2:57:09 PM

It may be underhanded but how does that make it wrong? If you're arguing that they shouldn't have stopped playing the song, even though they want to, isn't that arguing that they are required to play the song? How is that right?

And if that's what you're arguing, which you have to be as long as you're arguing they shouldn't have discontinued it, than applying that to your previous example you would also argue that if they had a song which prompted people to chant, "Abortions are glorious", they should be forced to continue playing that song.

11/25/2009 3:05:28 PM

I'm not saying they should be forced to play the stupid song. I'm saying that they should not be forced to change their song lineup because someone got offended. I'm saying that "I'm offended" is not a good enough reason for anyone (panties in a bunch student or panties in a bunch million dollar donor) to make anyone else do anything differently.

And since people seem to be hung up on the legality of it, "make" doesn't necessarily mean force via government intervention or police. The university spending any time reacting to "I'm offended" is the joke.

11/25/2009 3:18:12 PM

Quote :

"They are using underhanded tactics to make the students conform."

lol

They, of course, being the Student Body Association, some rather prominent donors, the alumni association. Oh yes, and the faculty, several former coaches, ... and, of course, the university administration.

So you're saying that a LOT of people with a LOT of influence at Ole Miss know less than you do about what's best for their university. Right on man, right on.



On a related note, there's an interesting editorial I found from a local newspaper down in Auburn, Miss, that addresses this whole thing rather nicely:

http://www2.oanow.com/oan/news/opinion/editorials/article/editorial_south_will_rise_again_only_rises_divisiveness/103869/

Quote :

"These fans cannot be stopped because it is their freedom of speech, but it is time they show sensitivity. Plain and simple, words referring to the South rising again hurts people. Even Old South Days at Auburn University are no longer sanctioned because they take us back to a day when slavery was acceptable. It brings up a painful, ugly and hateful era of American history. Some say this is a celebration of history and heritage. There are ways to celebrate history and heritage without insulting your fellow man. Whenever one says things such as “The South will rise again,” it propagates hate, particularly when a mass of people are singing the lyrics in unison. The words infer that, somehow, the South will again fight the Union, though we understand how preposterous that sounds. If the South is to “rise again” from the rear of our nation’s education, economic and health rankings, it’s time its citizens make that happen themselves rather than sing songs about a revival that pleases plantation owners."

11/25/2009 3:19:06 PM

OK, let's look at it another way then.

You are the chancellor of the school. You feel that the chant that goes along with the song is in bad taste, offensive, and does nothing to help the school image. You also have faculty, students, and donors complaining about the very same thing you do not appreciate.

What do you do about it?

11/25/2009 3:20:48 PM

^^That is all well and good, I totally agree with the everything quoted from that editorial. It is up to the students doing the chanting to change, not everyone else to force them to change.

^I explain the situation to the people doing the chanting. I inform them of the effect their chant is having on other people. I leave it up to them to change. I do not allow my university to become a bastion for pc thoughtpolice. I probably am fired and replaced with a spineless chancelor that will bow to the donors in the name of bringing in money and go back to posting on TWW.

11/25/2009 3:24:57 PM

Sometimes people don't change, like in this situation. The problem was explained to the students and it didn't change.

Integration was explained to George Wallace, but some people just don't get it and don't care, so you have to take other measures.

**Please note here I am not likening this situation to integration, because I know someone will try and jump on this...it is just an analogy in which everyone should agree that action beyond explanation was necessary**

I see no infringing on freedom of speech whatsoever to make it clear to the outside world that your school does not support the chant, and the best way to show this is to stop playing the song that allows the chant to be heard.

11/25/2009 3:32:18 PM

Yeah, but honestly it's not the university or anyone else's responsibility to make them change and asshole donors shouldn't be threatening to take their funding from a university because an admitted minority of its students are racist.

It's a fundamental freedom of speech issue. If everyone, including the donors, respected freedom of speech more than freedom of not being offended, then there wouldn't be a problem. Hell, if the "south shall rise again" fucktards got no response from anyone, they'd probably go away on their own.

Quote :

"I see no infringing on freedom of speech whatsoever to make it clear to the outside world that your school does not support the chant, and the best way to show this is to stop playing the song that allows the chant to be heard."

What's wrong with having a press release that states clearly that the school does not support the chant, but does support the rights of its students to express themselves how they see fit? Would that also not be a good way to show that they do not support the chant, but do support the rights of the students to express themselves as they see fit?

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 3:38 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2009 3:37:25 PM

You act like in order to support freedom of speech you aren't allowed to be offended by anything.

If I have a son who goes outside and screams "I hate niggers" I'll do my best to make him understand he shouldn't be saying that, but I'll still fight like hell to make sure he can't be arrested or thrown out of a public place for saying it.

A press release and continuing the song is not enough. I can hang a flag outside my door with a picture of a black person in a noose with a note under it saying, "I am not racist, this is just a tradition" and I should still be held accountable for it.

Other than the press release that they had SUGGESTING that the students stop the chant, the school has done nothing to make anyone think that students aren't ALLOWED to chant. They have only taken steps to make it understood that SUGGEST the students stop. There has been no line crossed where any freedom of speech has been taken away.

11/25/2009 3:48:18 PM

Quote :

"For most of the past week, when someone typed "Michelle Obama" in the popular search engine Google, one of the first images that came up was a picture of the American first lady altered to resemble a monkey. On Wednesday morning, the racially offensive image appeared to have been removed from any Google Image searches for "Michelle Obama." Google officials could not immediately be reached for comment."

ZOMG Michelle Obama depicted as a monkey blow the mother fucking horn RACISM!!!!!

All while ignoring the fact that plenty of cartoons depicted George W as a monkey. Google has nothing to apologize about. Their job is to be a search engine that runs on algorithms, not to be the Political Correctness filter, or racism censor. I lost respect for them when i heard they apologized.

If Al Sharpton finds this racist than its his own damn problem

Quote :

""There is no way to defend this heinous incident," said a Twitter user who gave his name as Alheli Picazo of Calgary, Canada. "People often claim their right to free speech to mask blatant racism and insulting bigotry and always seem to get away with it," he told CNN via e-mail. "When it comes to issues of discrimination, hiding behind free speech just doesn't cut it.""

blah blah blah

I'm sure this guy supports the Chinese governments use of google to censor certain unsavory internet items.

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 4:06 PM. Reason : l]

11/25/2009 4:04:43 PM

Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree then. I think you should be allowed to

Quote :

" hang a flag outside my door with a picture of a black person in a noose with a note under it saying, "I am not racist, this is just a tradition""

Without having to be held accountable for anything, though reason should tell you that's an easy way to get an ass beating if not worse.

And honestly they didn't just suggest the students stop. They gave the students an ultimatum. "Stop chanting or we'll punish everyone by removing the song". What they are doing is trying to coerce them to stop chanting in anyway besides actually forcing them (hence why I called it underhanded earlier).

11/25/2009 4:05:58 PM

stop chanting or we'll stop playing a song isn't exactly the threat heard round the world.

I would liken that to me telling my son stop saying something or I stop giving you candy.

It's a massive reach to claim this is infringing on someone's right to free speech.

11/25/2009 4:13:12 PM

It's not directly an infringement of their freedom, yet.

However, if the University, the offended students, alumni, and the donors gave a shit about the concept of freedom of speech, then they wouldn't take the time to try to convince someone to stop chanting racist bullshit. Just because you aren't getting the police to stop them doesn't mean you aren't trying to stop them.

Your analogy to your son is apt, but the University/other students/alumni/donors is not the students' father and is not responsible for the shit that comes out of their mouths.

11/25/2009 4:34:49 PM

the only thing more annoying than jesse jackson and al sharpton are the idiots who constantly bring up jesse jackson and al sharpton.

quit using these two examples to rationalize your bigotry.

how anyone can find any type of controversy or issue with this movement by the student body, donors, and prominent alum and faculty is beyond me. the entire argument people are using to defend this hinges on the notion of free speech, which is not an issue because there is no legislative body trying to curb the behavior. it's as grass roots as you could possibly get.

the chant is nothing more than social litter. people are trying to clean it up. if you lived in a neighborhood where everyone else kept their homes clean and in good shape, and a few idiots constantly left trash and burning crosses on their lawn, the rest of the community would be within their right to voice their opposition to the behavior, and it would even be likely that they could alter their actions in order to curb the unwanted behavior. so what's the controversy?


and seriously. what do these guys mean when they say, "the south shall rise again?" i would like to hear just one person defend the statement and give a definition that the university, students, and alumni and faculty could be proud of.

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 5:33 PM. Reason : ]

11/25/2009 5:23:28 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying that "I'm offended" is not a good enough reason for anyone (panties in a bunch student or panties in a bunch million dollar donor) to make anyone else do anything differently."

haha, wut?

Offending people is a perfectly good reason to change something. It's the reason you don't see people calling blacks negros anymore, or telling women they aren't smart enough to vote, and a host of other things we as a society have made implicit or explicit rules against.

11/25/2009 6:23:24 PM

Show me the implicit or explicit rules against calling blacks negros, or telling women they aren't smart enough to vote. There are plenty of people out there who do the things above and it is a precept of our society to let them say such things.

The PC police don't vouch for the entirety of society, thankfully.

Quote :

"the chant is nothing more than social litter. people are trying to clean it up. if you lived in a neighborhood where everyone else kept their homes clean and in good shape, and a few idiots constantly left trash and burning crosses on their lawn, the rest of the community would be within their right to voice their opposition to the behavior, and it would even be likely that they could alter their actions in order to curb the unwanted behavior. so what's the controversy?"

Holy false analogy, Batman! Thankfully there isn't a 1st Amendment right to trash all over the place.

11/25/2009 8:04:08 PM

Quote :

"Show me the implicit or explicit rules against calling blacks negros, or telling women they aren't smart enough to vote. There are plenty of people out there who do the things above and it is a precept of our society to let them say such things. "

Go to the mall and start saying those things, and see how long it takes for security to escort you off the premises.

Or, at your work, tell that to your clients/customers and see what your bosses (or clients) do.

I’m sure there are some places where they wouldn’t care, but the vast majority of places wouldn’t tolerate that, and of course they shouldn’t.

The 1st amendment wasn’t meant (although it generally does) to protect being a douchebag, it was meant to stop the gov. from suppressing dissenting voices, and this is how the average person interprets it.

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 10:35 PM. Reason : ]

11/25/2009 10:33:07 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying facilities funded by public monies should abide by the Constitution of the United States, regardless of how many PC fucktards are donating millions of dollars to them."

I think you're misinterpreting the Constitution.

Private citizens have the right to be racist without having the government punish them. The rednecks in the stands can whistle dixie all they want even after this decision.

The government itself, however, cannot be racist. 14th Amendment / Civil Rights Act of 1964. Publicly funded universities, for instance, cannot discriminate. Neither can bands funded by publicly funded universities.

So if you really want to involve the Constitution, it's not on your side.

11/25/2009 11:06:56 PM

Quote :

"However, if the University, the offended students, alumni, and the donors gave a shit about the concept of freedom of speech, then they wouldn't take the time to try to convince someone to stop chanting racist bullshit. Just because you aren't getting the police to stop them doesn't mean you aren't trying to stop them."

The University, offended students, alumni and donors in this scenario have their own free speech perogatives as well. In the cases of the students, alumni and donors, they have the right to dictate somewhat because they have some say in the spending of their dollars. Alumni and donors don't have to put money towards athletics programs, and you know it's pretty hard to run them at their present levels without that outside funding. Would it be stifling the free speech of the asshat chanters if the donors that supported their sporting events, etc. decided to withhold the funding necessary to hold the events in the first place? You can't chant offensive things at a football game if you aren't having the football game, after all.

11/25/2009 11:25:22 PM

It's one thing to specifically mention race/creed/etc. It's another to say "The South shall rise again", which, in and of itself, has nothing to do with race/creed/etc.

I'll be the first to admit that it has been used in some pretty horrible contexts. I would never use that phrase myself. However, there is nothing inherently evil about that phrase. It's not inherently "pro-confederacy" or "anti-black". It all depends on context; on circumstances. Even a sushi-eating, carpet-bagging, overly-sensitive, born-and-bred New England liberal such as myself can admit that.

That said, there is nothing wrong with the University making a PR decision to stop facilitating the chant with a song.

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2009 11:27:49 PM

So...it appears that there is one remaining person who has a problem with the loss of this song:

disco_stu

And he isn't even a fan of the song or the region. He just has some business about free speech for drunk, white twenty year-old males despite everybody else's rights to protest the fuck out of the bullshit.





WHAT'S THE FEAR HERE? SERIOUSLY, STUART OF DICSO, WHO IS HOLDING YOU BACK?

11/27/2009 3:01:48 AM

^^ I don’t let people with short, black curly hair into my house… but i’m not racist!

11/27/2009 3:07:04 AM

Quote :

"And he isn't even a fan of the song or the region. He just has some business about free speech for drunk, white twenty year-old males despite everybody else's rights to protest the fuck out of the bullshit."

So this guy that is not a "fan of the song" or a "fan of the region" still supports the carrying on of tradition at Ole Miss. Plus this self-described..

Quote :

"sushi-eating, carpet-bagging, overly-sensitive, born-and-bred New England liberal"

Lumex above thinks that Ole Miss should carry on with the song.

I know chicks are dumb and often don't like admitting they are wrong....
but perhaps BridgetSPK you should take a step back and maybe you will have an awakening that you are fucking full of shit and the persons that are in protest of this song are overly sensitive, welfare seeking, douche nozzles.

11/27/2009 11:40:13 AM

just had to throw in 'welfare seeking'

11/27/2009 5:00:45 PM

I did b.c i knew it would push some proactive liberal pricks hot button

11/27/2009 6:02:08 PM

latent racism: because you can't say the N word in public, anymore

11/27/2009 6:25:11 PM

the civil war was fought over state rights.

i'm ready to secede and start killing nazi liberals. inglourious basterds style. which one of you bastards can i scalp first

11/27/2009 11:52:41 PM

so are you communicating threats of violence against specific individuals in this forum, based on their political philosophy?

or are you communicating threats of violence against non-specific individuals in this forum, based on their political philosophy?





[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 1:39 AM. Reason : ]

11/28/2009 1:28:45 AM

Quote :

"the civil war was fought over state rights. i'm ready to secede and start killing nazi liberals. inglourious basterds style. which one of you bastards can i scalp first"

see, you think you're being clever. sadly, you're actually just being an idiot. go back to chit chat, dumbass.

11/28/2009 12:42:36 PM

^^ you are missing the larger point that the nature of a democracy creates personal culpability for one's philosophy.

11/28/2009 2:22:11 PM

Did you mean diffuses? Because that seems to be more what it does.

11/28/2009 4:25:27 PM

absolutely not. to the contrary, democracy concentrates as much as possible, rather than diffuses, the personal responsibility that each person bears for holding a particular political philosophy.

11/28/2009 4:50:38 PM

Quote :

"see, you think you're being clever. sadly, you're actually just being an idiot. go back to chit chat, dumbass"

So are you asserting that the civil war was not about states rights???? It is a sad day when the federal system has worked its tentacles so far into the classroom and history books that the majority of educated adults have a convoluted view of the past. A view where they believe the sacrifice of many of our forefathers was simply b.c the south was full of ignorant racist red necks that simply wanted to keep their slaves.

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 4:58 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 4:58 PM. Reason : l]

11/28/2009 4:57:34 PM

^yeaaa....because most of those plantation owners would have gladly traded in their slaves for states rights. the two were in no way intertwined. nope. never. no way. only states rights. slaves? can take 'em or leave 'em.


i find it quite amusing that in this last page alone, you've managed to defend the saying of "the south shall rise again," claim that the civil war was not fought over the issue of slavery, hint that there is a federal conspiracy against the south, accuse detractors as being "welfare seekers" and attack al sharpton when completely unprovoked.

bravo man, bravo.



now if you can just mention that you have plenty of black friends, i might win this round of "racist bingo"

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 5:35 PM. Reason : ]

11/28/2009 5:17:10 PM

Quote :

"So are you asserting that the civil war was not about states rights???? It is a sad day when the federal system has worked its tentacles so far into the classroom and history books that the majority of educated adults have a convoluted view of the past. A view where they believe the sacrifice of many of our forefathers was simply b.c the south was full of ignorant racist red necks that simply wanted to keep their slaves."

Sadly, you missed why I posted my response to him. My reply had nothing to do with the states rights stuff, because it's not worth debating. He was being an idiot for suggesting that he's ready to "secede" and kill some "nazi liberals." The rest of his post wasn't worth even an lol.

11/28/2009 7:56:47 PM

Quote :

"i find it quite amusing that in this last page alone, you've managed to defend the saying of "the south shall rise again," claim that the civil war was not fought over the issue of slavery, hint that there is a federal conspiracy against the south, accuse detractors as being "welfare seekers" and attack al sharpton when completely unprovoked. bravo man, bravo. now if you can just mention that you have plenty of black friends, i might win this round of "racist bingo""

hahahaha

called out

11/28/2009 10:08:00 PM

Okay, you fucking middle schoolers, i know you're all feeling clever about this "states' rights revelation" of yours, so lets just get it out of the way now.

YES, the Civil War was "about" States' Rights. Specifically, it was about the southern states' right to legalize the institution of slavery.

end of story. now move on to something more interesting.

11/29/2009 12:08:30 AM

Quote :

"YES, the Civil War was "about" States' Rights. Specifically, it was about the southern states' right to legalize the institution of slavery."

wrrrrrrrroonngg. try again.

11/29/2009 11:47:47 AM

^ you think you have credibility enough to say "you're wrong" and not back it up? all you've contributed here is that you want to kill "nazi liberals." GTFO.

11/29/2009 11:51:24 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-L8bOb5_sQ

[Edited on November 29, 2009 at 11:59 AM. Reason : ]

11/29/2009 11:57:19 AM

Quote :

"YES, the Civil War was "about" States' Rights. Specifically, it was about the southern states' right to legalize the institution of slavery."

because clearly only the states with slaves were the ones to succeed

11/29/2009 12:41:40 PM

It was over states' rights to preserve slavery

It was over territory expansion and whether new territories should be free or slave

It was over tariffs which upset the South's cotton economy

It was over party politics over the slavery issue

11/29/2009 12:47:34 PM

Considering a majority of the soliders that died fighting for the confederacy did NOT even have slaves, I beg to differ.

[Edited on November 29, 2009 at 1:36 PM. Reason : a]

11/29/2009 1:36:22 PM

The majority of people who oppose the estate tax are not millionaires. What's your point?

11/29/2009 1:48:09 PM

The majority of Nazis didn’t actually kill any Jew.

11/29/2009 6:34:38 PM