[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: FW: CNN Breaking News
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: CNN Breaking News
- From: Annalisa Aguilar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:18:54 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) email@example.com;
- In-reply-to: <CO1PR02MB175B5DA34A3FE3B83FF4551A4140@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <721224930.4664.1447086495430.JavaMail.cmutil@cmfspdiprod2> <BN1PR02MB1663858D22086E4992B1BACA4150@BN1PR02MB166.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>, <BN1PR02MB166B11BEDDBD8FCFBD60F72A4150@BN1PR02MB166.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>, <BC6E28C4-4B8B-4954-A3F3-5059FA959991@cwu.edu> <DM2PR07MB57651B6ED67818D3D790713C1150@DM2PR07MB576.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>, <CO1PR02MB175B5DA34A3FE3B83FF4551A4140@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: <email@example.com>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
- Thread-index: AQHRGwxnMZ/oDBVnl0eqVMKqeFovGZ6T8zCAgAACARCAAAamgIAAF3zxgAD/pnCAAGm1BA==
- Thread-topic: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: CNN Breaking News
First, I agree with you 1000% this story is a lot more than about 1 million dollars to forfeit to Brigham Young, and I'm kind of surprised that my post was taken that way.
I think the point I was making, which apparently was too subtle or ironic, is that in order for the university to do anything about the true nature of the problem, it had to be hit significantly in the pocketbook, rather than doing the right thing from the start.
In addition as you point out, which only emphasizes my point, the idea of not only paying $1 million in forfeiture but the FEAR of jeopardizing $83 million was likely motivation to spend (perhaps?) $1 million in diversity training, and boot the President.
For me, this has on its face the look of "doing something" but it is a kind of "doing something" that doesn't appear authentic. That is, addressing grievances of the students who have been hurt by racism in everyday activities on campus.
Let me explain better: I applaud the actions of the football players, to be sure. What they did was superbly cool. At the same time, the action creates a kind of class division between the football players and student activists who where fighting on the ground from the start, resulting in a hunger strike by one student. The football players should have not had to threaten to strike at all. I hope that my point is clearer now.
Am I happy that this happened? Yes?
Could it mean that professional black football players might follow suit and use a strike as a ploy to provide more attention to Black Lives Matter? that would be interesting, and welcome, but unlikely because they would likely be punished economically in return. College football players have the power that they have in this instance because they are not being paid to play football.
The question for me is: why do these kinds of activism have to even exist when on its face it's pretty clear what change must be with or without the activism?