Replies

Let's be clear what we are agreeing to disagree with.

I say that racism of any type on campus is wrong. You seem to believe that campus racism against whites is OK, and that special allowances need to be made for blacks and racist groups - so long as they are black groups.

You seem to take as given that putting black face on is some type of "racism". Tell me - what was derogitory about it? What is the excitement about? The target of the lampoon is black - and chooses to make that a critical element of his political self definition. What "Racist" action occurred? The reason I am belaboring this point is because for some reason we all seem to be buying into this "poor judgement and socially unnacceptable behaviour = racism" It is not. It may not be PC - but it is not racism. What it is is a Free Speach issue - I do not have to agree with the speech, but he does have the right to make it.

Racism is among other things getting special treatment or position based solely on a person's race. That is what Takeem wants, what Takeem has been the recipient of, and that is what the University appears to be defending. That is the racist element in this event.

Takeem is a leadership member of the Black Caucus. He is the one who brought race into this - no one else. This was his choice - to join and lead a racist organization. He is not some innocent bystander who happens to have dark skin. He has been abbetted by a University that allows racist (or race based) organizations to exist.

The University practices a double standard based on race - you are evidently OK with that. I am not.

You state "Racially inflammatory behavior on a college campus is simply not going to be defended in today's era by any University administration or student government." Lets break it down:

1. Keeping a convicted thief in student government based on his race IS racially inflamatory behaviour. University defending it.

2. "Not going to be defended" by the administration? They are not defending the exerciser of free speach here - they are vilifying him. Lets make sure we state exactly what is going on - the concept of defending his freedom of speach never entered the minds of the administration - the knee jerk reaction is to label the guy a racist, and have the University President get involved? That is not defending any rights other than the rights of the student government to have racial bias built into their system, and making sure the message gets out load and clear what wil lhappen to anyone who questions it. They are defending keeping Takeem, but not the right of someone to exercise Free Speech - PC or not - to draw attention to it.

3. The adminsitration routinely SUPPORTS racially inflammatory behaviour - as long as it is pro black. The existence of a Black Caucus is BY DEFINITION racist - if not please tell me how a group formed only along the base of race is not racist.

What we agree on:

Takeem should not be in student government - but is.
This episode has exposed him for what he is.

What we disagree on -

1. That it should come to this for Takeem's record to come to light. I think the administration could easily have weighed in on a non-racial issue very easily and much earlier - race not involved. I do not think it is OK for them to allow a double standard to exist in their student government. You think racism in student government is OK, or should only be questioned in non-controntational ways that are easy to sweep under the rug.

I think racism of any type on campus is wrong.
You think racism against whites, or for blacks, on campus is OK, and should be supported by the administration.

I am standing on the higher ground.

You are standing on the ground of white guilt and acceptance of institutionalized racism.

You seem to believe that campus racism against whites is OK,

You're ridiculous. You know you're losing a debate when you start using the "you seem" method of debate, ascribing motives and actions to people without proof, and frame every single fact-set in the terms of victimhood, again straight out of the Victimology handbook. You're race hustling with the best of them.

The one time you actually use my real words, you proceed to argue an assertion of fact without substantiation.

You haven't established either that (1) the University administration is defending Takeem's retention in office, or that (2) they're doing so because of race.

If you want to build a case, take small steps and establish your foundation.

I'm not wasting any more time on this. Let's agree to disagree on everything under the sun. You may now proceed to Step 2 in the Victimology Handbook, ad hominem.