I'm not sure that he would view HC as a friendly audience and I doubt that is interested in getting into a debate with anyone. (FWIW, I don't think Supreme Court justices ought to get involved in debates, friendly or otherwise, outside of the confines of their workplace.)
...I doubt that is interested in getting into a debate with anyone.
clarence could always send his wife. he does like to use her as his mouth piece. she would at least be good for a laugh.
Post by longsuffering on Dec 2, 2019 17:32:16 GMT -5
There is no need for HC to spin anything. Just a card that says "The campus is alive and jumping with ideas and activity and pride over our championship football team. Wish you were here. This place keeps all of us young! Plan now for winter homecoming."
It would be interesting to find out her schedule for upcoming speeches and to be able to address the questions directly to her. Certainly would clarify any ambiguity regarding if this position is indeed accurate.
I maintain she is grinning all the way to reviewing her online bank statements regarding the ability to generate revenue by stirring the pot of resentment.
Last Edit: Dec 2, 2019 17:53:29 GMT -5 by Crucis#1
I would be shocked indeed to learn she actually said that. She appears to be good at self-promoting and she is not stupid. She would know such a statement would clearly hurt her career (in addition to just being stupid and WRONG). She is too intelligent to say such a thing.
Michele Murray, our Vice President or Student Affairs and Dean of Students shared the following:
As Ms. Mac Donald’s opinion piece outlines, the majority of the audience of 360 walked out of her talk mid-way through. They were responding to her premise that discrimination no longer exists and students of color do not belong at elite institutions.
If Murray can’t provide evidence for this statement, she should, at the bare minimum, be forced to publicly apologize, but in reality be fired. It is completely unacceptable for a Vice President of the College to make such an inflammatory statement.
And if MacDonald has actually said this, she should not have been allowed to speak at Holy Cross.
the majority of the audience of 360 walked out of her talk mid-way through. They were responding to her premise that discrimination no longer exists and students of color do not belong at elite institutions.
Looking deeper and acting all legal even though I'm not a lawyer, this quote does not say that Ms MacDonald actually said or wrote these things. Maybe someone incorrectly inferred her basic premise based on other statements
Would one of our real lawyers care to comment, if the above quote could be libel if she never said/wrote any of that?
A personalized email was sent on official college letterhead this afternoon to all Holy Cross Volunteers from Tracy Barlok regarding Ms MacDonald. I have copied the letter for the pleasure of those not on the original distribution.
As Ms. Mac Donald’s opinion piece outlines, the majority of the audience of 360 walked out of her talk mid-way through. They were responding to her premise that discrimination no longer exists and students of color do not belong at elite institutions. The walkout involved between 250 and 300 students and lasted three minutes, after which Ms. Mac Donald resumed her planned remarks. A small subset of the 300 participated in a call-and-response chant while they were exiting. In subsequent days, Ms. Mac Donald has poked fun at these protesters and used their disagreement as a platform to promote her ideas with a wider audience.
After her lecture, there was a robust 30 minute Q&A session during which many other students who also disagreed with Ms. Mac Donald’s premises asked questions and engaged the speaker in dialogue.
Rather carefully worded in that Ms. Barlock does not write that Ms. Macdonald said this sort of thing at all. The key word is 'premise'. Why doesn't Ms. Barlock use the much stronger word "statement"? LOL - I suspect Ms. MacDonald did not make a statement along those lines that evening. (I further suspect this is the usual tactic of pretending someone [with whom one disagrees] believes something awful and then chanting/disrupting to limit that nonexistent truly awful 'hate' speech that flows out of that nonexistent and hateful belief. While progressives have no monopoly on this distasteful tactic, it has been used on campus primarily as a tool to stifle conservative commentators and to limit free speech.)
Seems to me that if an inflammatory statement like that had been made it would have shown up in the HC student's critique of Ms. MacDonald's speech. It does not. Note the use of the word statement in what seems an actual account of events: "One of the very first statements made by Ms. Mac Donald called attention to how privileged every student on this campus is to have the education provided here. Wholeheartedly, I agree with this. What I do not agree with, and will aim to disprove, is her assertion that every student on this campus has the same access to resources and educational opportunities. hcspire.com/2019/11/22/an-open-letter-to-heather-mac-donald/
It is a shame that Ms. Barlock did not identify the evidence (earlier writings, books, earlier documented speeches, etc.) that led her to conclude that Ms. MacDonald's premise was "that discrimination no longer exists and students of color do not belong at elite institutions." Apparently this is a unique interpretation/invention of Ms. MacDonald's premise. Quite possibly this was a damage-control email to provide cover and pretext for the student antics which may have been viewed as ridiculous by folks outside of the academy.
Generally an interesting piece and he even hits on my "Crusader" issue.
It’s difficult to square the claim that students at Holy Cross are oppressed when the college’s annual price tag is $70,000.
Is it really "difficult to square" when as an alum he should know very well that many students do not pay $70K or anything close to that thanks to financial aid, scholarships and grants. So, individuals can't be oppressed on college campuses or in their lives prior to arriving on an "elite college campus?" None of them?
You have to love the demographic of those who are castigating Holy Cross. Seems to be all men. Wonder where the response from the alumnae in support of Ms MacDonald’s premise. I have yet to see it.
I would believe that when Ms MacDonald entered Yale College in 1974, there were a host of “Old Blues” that were still complaining about their college now allowing women to be enrolled. Heaven forbid they might even be admitted and become a member of Skull and Bones. What is becoming of Yale now that they have crossed the rubicon. Certainly Yale is on its way to “Perdition”.
Ms MacDonald certainly benefited by Yale’s move 5 years prior to include women in its hallowed halls. I wonder what John C. Calhoun would have thought if he knew that in the mid 1970’s that women were now enrolled in his college at Yale.
Her current book certainty illustrates the hypocrisy of Ms MacDonald who was a beneficiary of Yale’s Diversity. Maybe she should have attended Wellesley instead since she is against diversity.
A Warning Against Hypocrisy, Quoting Matthew 23: 1-4
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples”The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in peoples faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to”.
Since Ms MacDonald is an atheist, the words of Matthew RingHollow to her.
Last Edit: Dec 2, 2019 22:07:45 GMT -5 by Crucis#1
In further reference to Ms MacDonald’s undergraduate Alma Mater, I found an interesting Yale Alumni Magazine article written in1993 entitled “Old Blues in black and white (Summer 1993). If you have read “Fraternity” , you will see the similar experience in the struggle found in a culture resistant to change both at Yale and as we are well familiar also at Holy Cross.
Ms MacDonald is playing people on their emotions and resentment of what is perceived as being taken away from them. Her playing is making ill sounds like a cheap violin. Not something that is pleasant to hear.
She is a beneficiary of Yale’s Diversity. I would submit that is Incontrovertible. Not subject to speculation with her inclusion in their alumni body.
As she was also told when she was awarded her Stanford JD, paraphrasing the Dean of the Law school statement to the graduating class “ I am pleased to confer upon you the degree of doctor of laws, with all the rights, privileges and honors there until appertaining”. Seems as if she is playing the privileges card to her financial advantage.
Last Edit: Dec 2, 2019 23:21:31 GMT -5 by Crucis#1
I attended the interview of Bob Cousy and the author of his recent book at the Selos(?) (in Kimball Dining Hall building) Theater. The Cooz mentioned he was a nightly viewer of Fox News Channel. Members of last season's HC MBB team were present and I looked at their faces when he said it. A few small looks of dismay, but otherwise perfect conduct.
Even though I can't watch much of either MSNBC or Fox News, some fine people watch regularly. Tucker couldn't be an unvarnished racist and still keep his gig there. I agree with Crucis that many of these talking heads on either the right or left pole take provocative positions to keep the eyeballs glued and the big bucks rolling in. What they believe in their heart of hearts is hard to say, but thoughtful moderates do not get paid like people with their hair on fire on either the far left or right.
Speaking of MSNBC, Alums Chris Matthews ‘67 and former Rep, Tim Bishop’72 will be speaking at Holy Cross on December 3, 2019 as a Kickoff to 2020. The presentation is limited to the Campus Community.
Would be fun to have Heather on Chris’s show. Particularly since she is now on the bash HC tour to monetize her victim hood by those meanie Crusaders. Break out the popcorn. I sincerely doubt she would accept his invitation.
Maybe her recent appearance will be a topic of discussion at the presentation in Seelos?
Since Bill O’Reilly’s dad was a HC Alum, maybe he should tag along. He could moan why he did not attend HC. Maybe Tom Baisture did not recruit him? He most certainly could not blame Diversity at HC in 1967, was the reason he did not follow as a legacy. Maybe Coach Boisture wanted an accurate prime time kicker ? We certainly could have used one in 1968.
I hope those frequenting these parts do not go off track in an ad hominem fashion so as to deflect from the meaningful exchange of legitimate thoughts, facts, and opinions submitted here.
A few comments:
I for one would not watch any show if I thought the commentator were racist. I do not watch Tucker Carlson every night but I have watched him enough over the years. I do not uniformly agree/disagree and/or endorse positions and premises put forth by TC or any other commentator. I periodically watch almost every station to hear what they have to say. I will leave it at that.
The college has now put out a very public statement in which it specifically and categorically states that Ms. MacDonald promotes a premise that "students of color do not belong at elite institutions." Strong statement.
If in fact that is the case, who is screening speakers on campus these days and why would Ms. MacDonald have been allowed to speak if in fact she harbors such blatantly racist views? One would think that a statement supporting this premise with specific details and facts would have been shared with the members of The Fenwick Review and none of this would have ever transpired.
On the other hand, I think back to my days in lower Carlin and lower O' Kane in which some of my favorite Jesuits would respond to a statement of that sort, "Ok, scholar, support your premise and make your case."
By putting out that specific assertion, has the college potentially taken a bad situation and just made it worse in an attempt to bring cover and curry favor with the alumni who have clearly overwhelmed the Alumni and Development Offices?
I would not be surprised if we hear more from Ms. MacDonald's camp in regard to the college's statement. If/when that happens, the college should not be surprised.
In anticipation of that, I would think the college and specifically Ms. Murray should preemptively put out its reasoning to "support its premise and make its case" as Jesuit education has instructed all Crusaders across the entire spectrum of ideas over the life of the college.
If in fact Ms. Murray does so, she may be a shining light for all of us both on and off campus. I hope so.
If the powers that be though would like to now conveniently try to sweep this under the rug in the same fashion that the Professor Liew debacle was handled, then opportunity lost for all concerned and especially our current students.
Ky - Why try to insult me with the epithet "knee-jerk reaction." Does my OPINION make you angry at me? Why? I did not criticize you in any way. My Opinion, shared by tens of millions is thatTucker is a racist. He is entitled to spout. I am not costing him or you any money. I am merely stating the obvious. How do you know my reaction was "knee jerk"? You don't know yet you mouth these empty words in a futile attempt to invalidate my thoughtful criticism of Tucker. He is a racist in my opinion. I've heard Tucker on more than one occasion and I can tell you I was appalled at his unvarnished racism, not because I disagreed with him but because his disgusting remarks were racist. Repeat: My criticism of Tucker is not a criticism of you. Why lash out at me? You disagree with me and I am not calling you a racist. Tucker is the racist. Do you lash out at anyone who disagrees with you? Very disappointed in your response. You can do better. I would advise you to explain your specific disagreement with the comment and avoid an ad hominem empty response and you would do much better. Peace. LoveHC
MM, I'm thinking that because of your very positive but relatively unique background, you may be blessed with extra sensitivity to hear "dog whistles" about race that the rest of us don't pick up on. And I wouldn't put it past Tucker Carlson to trade in those tactics. When I say He couldn't be an unvarnished racist and keep his gig I am thinking that Fox couldn't logistically keep it's advertising revenue if it's hosts were thought to be unvarnished racists by the masses.
I know this will sound wisea$$, and it is, but I just got personal note from my contact at HC that Chris Matthews will not be able to make his talk tonight at HC due to the weather (the other speakers will be there).
I suggested that they consider bringing back Heather MacDonald for an encore performance as a substitute for Chris.
Off topic, but in reply to Sader 70. As you can imagine, the season ticket coaches in our section have been calling for a QB rotation game change and a modified RPO since the Harvard game. Spring practice will be fun to watch with another year of seasoning. Time for the boys to hit the weight room as soon as exams are over.