Where did this list come from?
A 10 min google. There are many, many more. You can google it yourself.
A point known immediately, way before the rally was called:
BTW look - another lie from the college officials:
“Wargo and Decatur both said they were unfamiliar with students being disciplined in the matter.” - Wargo knew about them since Feb. 27th.
Did you just google a list of names, or did you check out each link to see both who provided the story and what each story was about?
Yes, I checked. Do you have an objection to one of the names?
Go ahead and dig. Here are some links for you to start:
You are a God. Of Straw. And all the little Straw men created should bow before you.
Wow. :rolleyes:
Nah, I’ll just use the same search terms you did. Which were?
Perhaps, but there wasn’t any reason for them not to be informed and to have to catch on. There’s no privacy restriction – FERPA generally doesn’t apply to campus police, which is why they turned over the report on a public records request. The police just sat on the information, and it’s hard to see why they did so or how that benefited Oberlin.
Honest question. Assuming everything you said about the Oberlin administration is true… Who gives a shit? A school held an anti-racism rally when they really didn’t need to hold an anti-racism rally. So what?
Can’t apeak for Terr, but if I were seeking to find such hoaxes, I’d try:
hoaxes "racial incidents" -oberlin
That should eliminate the current incident and find other relevant incidents.
I can tell you what my objection would be, if I were to learn that this were true. (And please note the subjunctive mood in the preceding sentence).
The public perception of the need for the anti-racism rally was the racial hate displayed on campus. If the incidents that showed racial hate were discovered to be false, and indeed done for the purpose of inflaming sentiment, then the predicate for the rally vanishes. By continuing with the rally, the administration would have been showing that factual information about the existence of racism on campus did not support the need for the rally, and its continuance was based on other factors – basically, that the administration was complicit in constructing a farcical basis to cover the fact that no true impetus existed.
It’s possible that the administration might have felt that the message was of sch value that the truth of the underlying incidents was irrelevant. But this is questionable – remember that the rally was not the only reaction; classes were canceled. An honest approach would be to announce, transparently, that the incidents were found to be hoaxes but that the underlying message was still important, and continue with the event. But they didn’t, and likely because they knew that would weaken their message.
And in my opinion, it’s virtually axiomatic that if a messenger decides that his cause is more important than the truth – that is, if a messenger decides that a lie should continue because the truth will hurt his “good cause” – then the cause is all the more suspect.
Again, I don’t regard as proven the claim that the administration knew, or should have known, that all the incidents were hoaxes. But if they did, I don’t agree with Miller’s attempt to suggest that the result is trivial.
Assuming, of course, that a “rally” against racism is only appropriate if there is an incident to rally against.
I agree with Bricker that if the rally was based on false pretenses it was wrong. They could have had an anti-racism rally at any time. The objection I have is with the initial claim that this was some sort of left-wing plot to push an agenda, when police reports indicate that the pranksters were just trying to stir shit for the fun of it.
The administration of the college lies to the press, covers things up, pretends there are racists rampaging through the campus knowing that’s false, and riles up the students under false pretenses. I consider that unethical. Of course, liberal standards of ethics may differ.
… and Oberlin administration still is covering up the fact that there were no racists, and that the hoaxers were leftists (from “White Allies Against Structural Racism” even):
http://news.oberlin.edu/articles/oberlin-college-statement-bias-incidents/#.UhjRJM2S6mc
I’m sorry but this makes me doubt all your insinuations and accusations so far.
They should have changed the rally’s focus to gays molesting children. Since, after all, no harm is done by protesting things, whether they happened on campus or not.
Regards,
Shodan
As much as you like it to be, it seems that this is not an isolated incident like “Cartman dressing like Hitler and tolling everyone” The perpetrators of the trolling reported that there were reacting to early incidents and they felt that the early reactions of the school were ridiculous. So the trolls decided to give them more to complain. The point is that just as the administration reported that there were earlier incidents, other reports I have seen also point at the perpetrators confirming those early incidents. That leads me to say that so far you should demand better from your sources of information.
You know, if you want to make sure idiots don’t misunderstand what you’re saying, you should probably avoid phrases like “subjunctive mood.” 
Anyway, being an idiot myself, I really didn’t understand much of your post. But on reflection, the “crying wolf” aspect alone is reason enough to condemn someone for holding rallies on knowningly fraudulent reasons. If that’s what you were trying to explain to me, cool, we totally agree. If you were making some other point, I’m sure it was a good one, too.