|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 18, 2019 13:26:45 GMT -5
From what I remember, O'Reilly has followed HC for some time (perhaps because of his father's ties to the school). He would now perhaps because he is in the media and typically checks his facts.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Dec 18, 2019 14:29:31 GMT -5
This is the playbook, right? A personality from a right wing network / publication comes onto campus and it's time to come out in droves and shout "Hey hey ho ho racist Nazi has got to go", rather than engaging in any type of discourse that may enlighten both sides.
I only wish I took a class of Prof. Schaefer's while at HC.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 18, 2019 14:46:20 GMT -5
I believe professor Schaefer is the father-in-law of Jason Riley of WSJ editorial board
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Dec 19, 2019 7:40:25 GMT -5
Fox News this morning just had MacDonald on the set to discuss the HC incident - there was a comment posted from Dean Michelle Murray praising the students’ exercise of free speech - fox asked Murray to join the conversation today and she did not reply to the invitation - not surprising
|
|
|
Post by alum on Dec 19, 2019 8:11:41 GMT -5
I am going to be a snob here. I don't buy books from pundits on the right or the left about current affairs and I don't watch much CNN, MSNBC, or Fox except for breaking news stories. These cable news commentators, bloggers, and podcast hosts are talking about what newsmakers do. I would rather hear from the newsmakers themselves or from historians who give some perspective to current events. I would rather colleges and college groups invite those people to speak.
That said, I hope the students who protested this person see that their strategy backfired and just put more money in McDonald's pocket.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 19, 2019 12:29:30 GMT -5
alum, I don't buy books either, but I do check them out from the local library. Better prices and I abs did contributing to someone whose ideas I may find objectionable. I did read MacDonald's book. The many anecdotes were interesting (and show a sad state of reasoned dialogue in the country). I found no racism, fascism, or any of the things her critics were chanting as they protested her. She does believe today's college students have wonderful opportunities and she points how big a loss it can be for those who do not make the most of such opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 19, 2019 12:41:49 GMT -5
My first exposure to Heather MacD was her work on police shooting statistics, factually countering the claims that there was a huge number of incidents, a disproportionate number, of police shooting un-armed African-Americans. Like every issue, it is one that is best debated with actual facts on hand.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Dec 19, 2019 13:43:05 GMT -5
alum, I don't buy books either, but I do check them out from the local library. Better prices and I abs did contributing to someone whose ideas I may find objectionable. I did read MacDonald's book. The many anecdotes were interesting (and show a sad state of reasoned dialogue in the country). I found no racism, fascism, or any of the things her critics were chanting as they protested her. She does believe today's college students have wonderful opportunities and she points how big a loss it can be for those who do not make the most of such opportunities. I take books out of the library, too, as well as buying them (sometimes used online.) My objection to books by pundits is that they tend not to be based upon quantitative research but instead feature, as you note, anecdotes. I don't really know much about Ms. MacDonald so I won't comment on the quality of her work, but from looking at her Wikipedia page, she seems to have a wide range of interests from welfare policy to torture. I see she earned undergraduate and masters degrees in English before getting a J.D. She would be qualified, it seems to me, to talk about how a liberal arts education prepares one to talk and write about anything.
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Dec 19, 2019 14:06:27 GMT -5
I had not expected that this would devolve into an analysis of race in America as described by a white Canadian woman well known for her racial dog whistles. Why did race come up? The issue of police shootings revolves around the circumstances of the police shootings of civilians. The shooting /killing of a black man in the back after a traffic stop by the police goes to my point. Tangentially, "Stop&Frisk" in NYC, resulted in a much higher rate of arrests of whites than blacks. And, that is the reason S&F was ended. Think about it. Look, due to the circumstances of my life, out of necessity, I have had "the talk." I don't know the background of various folks. Why do some white people and views discount the experience of black people ? I know that white paternalism, namely, that whites know better than blacks about the black experience in white America is inappropriate, incredibly offensive and invariably wrong-headed. If it has not already been done I strongly suggest that white individuals get to intimately know black individuals and not merely as friends and try to understand the very real plight of Black-Americans as a minority in white America. Admittedly, there are a lot of angry white men in white America for obvious reasons. TBT in my own life's experience I have had to look deeply inward, more so than an examination of conscience to try to truly understand my heart and my motives in these types of issues. One must walk in the moccasins of the other to more fully understand them. Peace. LoveHC i don't mind mocassins but when it comes to high heels i bailout!!!
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 19, 2019 14:11:21 GMT -5
alum, I don't buy books either, but I do check them out from the local library. Better prices and I abs did contributing to someone whose ideas I may find objectionable. I did read MacDonald's book. The many anecdotes were interesting (and show a sad state of reasoned dialogue in the country). I found no racism, fascism, or any of the things her critics were chanting as they protested her. She does believe today's college students have wonderful opportunities and she points how big a loss it can be for those who do not make the most of such opportunities. I take books out of the library, too, as well as buying them (sometimes used online.) My objection to books by pundits is that they tend not to be based upon quantitative research but instead feature, as you note, anecdotes. I don't really know much about Ms. MacDonald so I won't comment on the quality of her work, but from looking at her Wikipedia page, she seems to have a wide range of interests from welfare policy to torture. I see she earned undergraduate and masters degrees in English before getting a J.D. She would be qualified, it seems to me, to talk about how a liberal arts e ducation prepares one to talk and write about anything. She provided a fair number of references (114 IIRC), but almost 1/2 of them merely verified an anecdote she had used to make a point. I agree with many of her points and I wish I could see more data from independent sources. I would enjoy watching her in a debate with one or more of her opponents.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 19, 2019 14:11:57 GMT -5
alum, I don't buy books either, but I do check them out from the local library. Better prices and I abs did contributing to someone whose ideas I may find objectionable. I did read MacDonald's book. The many anecdotes were interesting (and show a sad state of reasoned dialogue in the country). I found no racism, fascism, or any of the things her critics were chanting as they protested her. She does believe today's college students have wonderful opportunities and she points how big a loss it can be for those who do not make the most of such opportunities. I take books out of the library, too, as well as buying them (sometimes used online.) My objection to books by pundits is that they tend not to be based upon quantitative research but instead feature, as you note, anecdotes. I don't really know much about Ms. MacDonald so I won't comment on the quality of her work, but from looking at her Wikipedia page, she seems to have a wide range of interests from welfare policy to torture. I see she earned undergraduate and masters degrees in English before getting a J.D. She would be qualified, it seems to me, to talk about how a liberal arts e ducation prepares one to talk and write about anything. She provided a fair number of references, but almost 1/2 of them merely verified the anecdote she had used to make a point.
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Dec 19, 2019 14:22:54 GMT -5
alum, I don't buy books either, but I do check them out from the local library. Better prices and I abs did contributing to someone whose ideas I may find objectionable. I did read MacDonald's book. The many anecdotes were interesting (and show a sad state of reasoned dialogue in the country). I found no racism, fascism, or any of the things her critics were chanting as they protested her. She does believe today's college students have wonderful opportunities and she points how big a loss it can be for those who do not make the most of such opportunities. I take books out of the library, too, as well as buying them (sometimes used online.) My objection to books by pundits is that they tend not to be based upon quantitative research but instead feature, as you note, anecdotes. I don't really know much about Ms. MacDonald so I won't comment on the quality of her work, but from looking at her Wikipedia page, she seems to have a wide range of interests from welfare policy to torture. I see she earned undergraduate and masters degrees in English before getting a J.D. She would be qualified, it seems to me, to talk about how a liberal arts education prepares one to talk and write about anything. I see she earned undergraduate and masters degrees in English before getting a J.D. She would be qualified, it seems to me, to talk about how a liberal arts education prepares one to talk and write about anything.
strange, i find a diminishing return as some accumulate more academic degrees and honors with views they express.
|
|
|
Post by ronphc75 on Dec 19, 2019 14:26:08 GMT -5
The students were shouting "Our oppression is not an illusion". Do they really believe they are oppressed? They attend a highly rated prestigious liberal arts college from which I graduated in 1975. How are they being oppressed? I never felt oppressed during my four years on the Hill. Also, they should show respect to any speaker whether or not they agree with him or her. Let's hope PC will be a passing fancy in the years to come as it does not fit the culture of a Catholic college.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 19, 2019 14:28:17 GMT -5
Welcome to CROSSPORTS, ronphc75.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 19, 2019 14:28:31 GMT -5
Welcome back, classmate
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Dec 19, 2019 14:31:46 GMT -5
I had not expected that this would devolve into an analysis of race in America as described by a white Canadian woman well known for her racial dog whistles. Why did race come up? The issue of police shootings revolves around the circumstances of the police shootings of civilians. The shooting /killing of a black man in the back after a traffic stop by the police goes to my point. Tangentially, "Stop&Frisk" in NYC, resulted in a much higher rate of arrests of whites than blacks. And, that is the reason S&F was ended. Think about it. Look, due to the circumstances of my life, out of necessity, I have had "the talk." I don't know the background of various folks. Why do some white people discount the experience of black people ? I know that white paternalism, namely, that whites know better than blacks about the black experience in White America is inappropriate, incredibly offensive and invariably wrong-headed. If it has not already been done I strongly suggest that white individuals get to intimately know black individuals and not merely as friends and try to understand the very real plight of Black-Americans as a minority in White America. Admittedly, there are a lot of angry white men in White America for obvious reasons. TBT in my own life's experience I have had to look deeply inward, more so than an examination of conscience to try to truly understand my heart and my motives in these types of issues. One must walk in the moccasins of the other to more fully understand them. Peace. LoveHC I try to be an Objectivist (as opposed to a Relativist). If the position expressed above is pushed a little bit, Blacks couldn't have a real understanding of Whites, Whites couldn't have a real understanding of Mexicans, Arabs couldn't have a real understanding of Jews, Europeans couldn't have a real understanding of Native Americans, Americans couldn't have a real understanding of Iranians, and on and on. It's a perilous position, ending in Solipsism, as does all Relativism.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 19, 2019 15:34:06 GMT -5
Whether or not students at Holy Cross are oppressed does not depend on their status as students at Holy Cross.
Becoming a student does not change whatever their life experiences were before they came to Holy Cross. For me, saying that because they go to Holy Cross they cannot be or have never been oppressed or, conversely that they have been oppressed just makes no sense.
I did not hear, nor have I read anything but one article written by MacDonald so I am not sure what she is actually trying to say about students not being oppressed.
If she is/was speaking in absolute terms, I would have to say she is wrong. The students, however, probably should have let her speak and then debate what she said, not refuse to hear her out.
There are 3,000+ students at Holy Cross. While the vast majority of them probably were never oppressed (whatever that term is intended to mean) in their lives, I think there are likely a small but important segment of the student body that experienced oppression. Would the students who were harassed/abused by the organist be considered oppressed? Or, do some think since they accepted the abuse in silence when students because they were gunning for an organ scholarship which many of them got, that this was not oppression?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 19, 2019 17:00:59 GMT -5
mm67 - "Rather than dismiss others, why not listen with an open mind; engage in true dialogue without defensively hectoring" Excellent point. I hope the demonstrators read it and take it to heart. That is how minds and heartscan be changed. Shouting down anything that you "might" object to (since you have not yet heard what someone wants to say) is clearly not.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Dec 19, 2019 17:23:10 GMT -5
mm67- Sometimes one needs to over-simplify in order to move the discussion along. You are arguing for EMPATHY. I completely agree with that. The interesting (for me) question is: Where does the INABILITY of a person or group to empathize with another START, or, put differently, where does the ABILITY to empathize with another STOP. I am simply arguing that to OVER-EMPHASIZE that there is such a line, as it were, is dangerously close to saying that a person or group can never completely know the truth of another person or group IN PRINCIPLE. For me, that is uncomfortably close to saying that any person's truth is as valid as any other person's truth. That is, there is no OBJECTIVE truth. That is RELATIVISM and, I believe it is dangerous. This is not some arcane philosophical point. You will often hear in discussion a person say: "Well that's what I believe." As if the discussion must end there. That is the death of reason, empirical evidence, of logic, etc. Then you are in a world where Fear and Power rule.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Dec 19, 2019 18:52:06 GMT -5
I am not sure where to begin on this topic, but let me start by saying
.Free speech is critical to our great country .Protests are fine and can elevate issues However, this world is turning itself upside down, and our great college is not leading as it should. When you invite someone to speak to your community you treat them with respect. God gave us 2 ears and one mouth for a reason-listen before you speak, but when you speak do so respectfully and with the facts, even if they are your facts.
The letter from Dean Murray gives me concern about the lack of adult leadership in the world of college privilege. Supporting and possibly encouraging students disruptive and less than mature behavior is not my idea helping students grow.
Here is the letter from the Dean
Why Our Students Objected to Mac Donald
At Holy Cross education sometimes means engaging speakers with controversial messages, as with Ms. Mac Donald. And sometimes, it means making use of their own free speech to combat objectionable ideas.
LETTERS December 03, 2019 06:38 p.m. EST
As dean of students at the College of the Holy Cross, I can certainly agree with Heather Mac Donald (“Why Are College Students So Afraid of Me?,” op-ed, Nov. 27) on one point: College students are generally among the most privileged people in the world. At Holy Cross, students learn to use that privilege to make the world a better place. That education requires them to wrestle with a wide range of ideas, which sometimes means engaging speakers with controversial messages, as with Ms. Mac Donald. And sometimes, it means making use of their own free speech to combat objectionable ideas.
Unfortunately, in rushing to claim the mantle of victimhood she seems to detest in others, Ms. Mac Donald failed—in either her op-ed or her follow-up media interviews—to explain the ideas with which our students disagreed. Let me do it here: The subtext of her talk was that discrimination no longer exists, or at least that we should not be bothered by it.
Our students understood her message, even dressed as it was in Frederick Douglass quotes and references to “Faust” and the virtues of the Western canon. I would suggest to Ms. Mac Donald that the students who interrupted her talk for all of three minutes weren’t afraid of her, they just disagreed. But that story wouldn’t make for a good Wall Street Journal piece. I think they understand that part, too.
Michele C. Murray, Ph.D. Dean of Students College of the Holy Cross Worcester, Mass.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Dec 19, 2019 21:52:31 GMT -5
Never heard the Jesuit anecdote before. Truth and "church teaching" is the quintessential oil and water.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Dec 20, 2019 1:49:07 GMT -5
That chant "My oppression is not a delusion" did not score any points with me. Reminds me of the time I had two siblings each arguing that their medical condition was worse than the other's and looking to win me over to their side.
I didn't support either because I thought my medical issues trumped both of theirs put together.
Hearing aging adults complain about how bad they have it is annoying, but hearing it from young adults who have the world as their oyster is more so.
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Dec 20, 2019 2:35:56 GMT -5
That chant "My oppression is not a delusion" did not score any points with me. Reminds me of the time I had two siblings each arguing that their medical condition was worse than the other's and looking to win me over to their side. I didn't support either because I thought my medical issues trumped both of theirs put together. Hearing aging adults complain about how bad they have it is annoying, but hearing it from young adults who have the world as their oyster is more so. I didn't support either because I thought my medical issues trumped both of theirs put together.
you want to talk about "medical issues"? well let me tell you a story....
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 20, 2019 8:10:26 GMT -5
mm67- Sometimes one needs to over-simplify in order to move the discussion along. You are arguing for EMPATHY. I completely agree with that. The interesting (for me) question is: Where does the INABILITY of a person or group to empathize with another START, or, put differently, where does the ABILITY to empathize with another STOP. I am simply arguing that to OVER-EMPHASIZE that there is such a line, as it were, is dangerously close to saying that a person or group can never completely know the truth of another person or group IN PRINCIPLE. For me, that is uncomfortably close to saying that any person's truth is as valid as any other person's truth. That is, there is no OBJECTIVE truth. That is RELATIVISM and, I believe it is dangerous. This is not some arcane philosophical point. You will often hear in discussion a person say: "Well that's what I believe." As if the discussion must end there. That is the death of reason, empirical evidence, of logic, etc. Then you are in a world where Fear and Power rule. A small point. I agree that it is often productive to SIMPLIFY. But, IMHO, it is seldom a good idea to OVERSIMPLIFY. Among other things it can make it appear you are demeaning the person to whom you are speaking.
|
|