No, although that's the usual story. The post was an attempt to play-act a brave little victim bearing up under intolerable oppression. Calling it a consciousness-raising effort in an attempt to benefit other people is a cop-out on the level of "the dog ate my homework."
From the article:
“A number of students have actually come out to defend the post, including student activist Vincente Perez. He stated, “Someone felt they had to show something extreme to get people to care. Think about that. This is not a justification. But think about what the weight of apathy can force people to do.”
Fourth-year Jaime Sanchez, who co-led protests about the incident, said that it doesn’t matter that the post was fake.
“From the very beginning, our movement was never about particular incidents; it was about addressing the structural problem of everyday micro-aggressive racism on campus,” he explained. “It’s unfortunate that this betrayal happened, but it was never even about the Facebook incident to begin with. It was always about the larger culture of intolerance that we should continue to focus on.”
Mr. Sanchez, please define “structural problem of micro-aggressive racism.”
And, how can the fake Facebook be both unfortunate and not the issue at the same time?
Were you already leading protests about the “structural problem of micro-aggressive racism” on campus before the incident? If not, then the false posting was the catalyst.
Building your protest movement on lies and exaggeration is really good strategy for discrediting yourself and the “cause.”
BJ gave kids the excuse oral sex isn't sex. Now, hussein has made lies a good thing and facts don't matter.