While I’m not a big fan of many AA programs, I think this particular stunt by the Young Conservatives of Texas was quite juvenile.
This quote by Matt Houston shows a scary ignorance of the history of AA
"Matt Houston, a 19-year-old sophomore, called the group’s price list offensive.
“My reaction was disgust because of the ignorance of some SMU students,” said Houston, who is black. “They were arguing that affirmative action was solely based on race. It’s not based on race. It’s based on bringing a diverse community to a certain organization.”
"
Shame on SMU for their censorship of controversial thought.
I agree. They just don’t get it. Stunts like that is why we needed AA (at one time). There are much better, and more accurate, to get the point across.
I agree
SMU didn’t shut it down as censorship. It was escalating to the point where it might have become hostile and SMU was doing it’s duty to protect the peace.
First, SMU is a private school and can restrict speech if they want to.
Second, SMU may be trying to set an example of tolerance in the community. The HP and UP police (the 2 exclusive areas around SMU) have a history of pulling over people solely because they were black.
Third, Hi Opal.
Fourth, I can see where the event would be offensive to somebody who doesn’t grasp the nature of AA like Matt Houston (fake name?)
So SMU will never invite controversial speakers to visit campus…after all, the audience might become hostile?
Was the bake sale a “hostile environment” because other students found it offensive?
Should that then be the litmus test them for shutting down any campus demonstration (on any campus)?
Other than acting like silly frat boys…I don’t see what the YCofT we’re doing to create a “hostile environment”.
Maybe if you were in Dallas as I am, you’d hear the word on the street as well as the plethera of local news agencies pointing out that it looked as if it might go physical.
Meh. NOW did the same thing in Madison last year, selling cookies to men for $1 and to women for 75 cents to illustrate the “wage gap.” The Republic managed to endure. SMU over-reacted, but I’ll bet dollars to discounted donuts that the Young Conservatives or whoever will run off to federal court within the week. Which irony will be more delicious than any cookie on the table.
Just because people disagree with you about AA does not mean that they do not grasp its nature. It is not the case that you are the default nature grasper.
Now, why exactly do youthinks I need to re-read the quote in the OP from Mr. Houston? Did I sound like I hadn’t read it the first time? I’ve now read it four times. Was I wrong? Is Mr. Yax indeed the default nature grasper? Were you (again) presuming to know what I was thinking? Why is this kind of shit the only crap I ever get from you? How did it go — you saw Libertarian and thought to yourself, “Oh, it’s Lib. His post therefore must be stupid, and he likely did not read what he was responding to.”? Because I can’t see why it was necessary to take upon yourself the mission of correcting some strange error that you perceived. I presume in advance that you consider the one impossibility in all this to be that you were wrong and that you leapt before you looked. Why don’t you just get off my back?
