Oct 17 - 46/45 - McCain +01
Peter Pattakos Forced To Resign From S.B.A.
Peter has been a guest poster on our site on several occasions. He is in some hot water at Northwestern University's Law School:
Here is the controversy as reported on the Wall Street Journal's law blog:
Dear Classmates,
I have only resigned my title because the administration and the SBA Executive Board have forced my hand. The SBA Executive Board and school administration asked me to step down as SBA President with only a month left in my tenure, largely because I have expressed beliefs that are unpopular with some members of our community. Some think that my expression of these beliefs makes me unfit to perform the duties of my office. I disagree with those who have asked me to step down, and initially refused; offering instead to accept a dramatically reduced role in the SBA's decision making process in recognition of the impact of my expression of these beliefs. The administration and Executive Board did not accept my offer. I was told that if I did not step down the administration would have stripped me of any official duty that it could strip me of – they would cease meeting with me as SBA President, and would have prohibited me from representing the school at graduation, law board meetings, admitted student weekend, and other events where the SBA President traditionally plays a role. In addition, the administration would have released a letter to the public explaining these restrictions – and describing my words (discussed below) as "derogatory remarks." Cliff Zimmerman showed me two different versions of this letter; the version to be released if I stepped down being significantly kinder in its wording. The administration reached its conclusion to take this course of action without once bringing me, the Executive Board, administration members, and complaining parties into the same room. Finally, the Executive Board would have conducted a plebiscite on whether I was fit to hold what would have been left of the office of SBA President – the title. Given the costs of going through with this process, it should be clear that I have only "stepped down" from my position in the most technical sense.
To provide some background: There was a breakfast last Thursday with Chief Justice Roberts to which a number of academic and student-government leaders were invited. The administration asked me to recommend a list of 10-15 "academic and community leaders" to attend this breakfast. The administration had the final word on the invitees; this should be obvious given the nature of the event, the addition of 10 students to my initial recommendations, and the fact that my recommendations had to be cleared with the administration. I was never told that the intent was to invite the leaders of every student organization. The students at that breakfast were an undeniably diverse cross-section of the Northwestern Law community. These students were invited not as racial representatives, but because of their leadership on the law journals, in student government, and in student organizations with leadership positions open to members of any ethnicity. Nonetheless, the leader of one of the ethnicity-oriented student groups – a person I have always considered a friend - shouted me down in the Atrium for overlooking the leaders of these groups. He told me that I took the opportunity of a lifetime away from him. I should have walked away. I had been up the better part of the previous evening and early morning answering student complaints about the invitation list, and had continued to field such complaints throughout the day. During what can only be described loosely as a conversation, I stated my belief that our community would be better off if all student organizations were organized around ideas, and not ethnicity. It is this off-hand remark that is the primary justification for my being forced from office.
I've often wondered to myself whether student groups organized around ethnic identity ultimately unite or divide our community as a whole. History, personal experience, and recent events on campus give me reason to believe that both can be true. This is an issue that is the subject of much scholarly debate. It is an issue that some on campus, including the administration, believe an SBA President is forbidden from raising, as I did, with the leader of an ethnicity-oriented student group. I am sorry I did this. My suggestion was not well taken and I had good reason to know that it would not be, but I did not think that this personal disagreement was a good reason for me to be forced from my elected position. I recognize that these groups make substantial positive contributions to our learning environment; I only wonder whether the net positive would be greater if these groups were organized differently. It is decidedly not inconsistent to question the organizing principles of a student group and simultaneously recognize its contributions. Unfortunately, much of the consternation surrounding this particular comment as well as Cliff Zimmerman's email on behalf of the administration explaining that I made comments that "dismissed the value" of these organizations completely misses this point and misrepresents my views.
I did not want to step down from my position because I am concerned about what such an action represents. I have never been and would never be unwilling or unenthusiastic about working with any student group that approached me for help. I have never questioned any such group's right to exist, and I have never questioned the value of diversity. I have always been willing to work with any person of any political belief. Some now believe that they should not have to work with me because they disagree with my political beliefs. I have often been careless in expressing my opinions but I have never shared an idea with a malicious intent. I have always expressed myself with willingness to debate and discuss. I believe that those who have forced me to step down for raising a question that is relevant to the well-being of our community seriously undermine our school's commitment to intellectual diversity. They send a troubling message that certain ideas, while subjects of legitimate scholarship, are not open for discussion in our community.
I have made mistakes that members of our community are rightfully upset about. The timing of/context surrounding my expression of the beliefs at issue could give the harmful impression that I do not recognize the value of the contributions of certain student groups. This impression could not be further from the truth, but I see how my actions have given rise to it. I am deeply sorry for this. I offered to remove myself from the SBA's decision making process in recognition of this. I do not understand why this was not enough. My behavior was impolitic and imprudent – but it does not come anywhere close to calling for the drastic action of removing me from office as I have never, nor could I be shown to have made a decision as SBA President in consideration of the belief at issue.
I am sick about the fact that I have let my classmates down. Serving on the SBA is one of the greatest honors I have known, and I have enjoyed it immensely. Northwestern Law has shown great leadership among law schools by adopting policies that make our student body - and by extension our school - something special. I hope that it will continue to do this by embracing a commitment to diversity of all kinds, including intellectual diversity. I hope that it will recognize the value of an environment in which all students from of all walks of life and from any place of the political spectrum can raise sensitive issues at sensitive times without severe consequences. I will continue to try and reflect well on this institution. My sincerest apologies to all I've offended and let down, and my thanks to the many who have reached out in support. Please feel free to still consider me your SBA President in an advisory capacity as my years of service have given me a good idea of how things work around here.
Thanks, best regards, and sorry again,
Peter
Here is the controversy as reported on the Wall Street Journal's law blog:
Students packed lecture halls last week to hear Chief Justice John Roberts during a two-day visit to the Northwestern University School of Law. Roberts was so popular, in fact, that the president of the school’s Student Bar Association has been forced to resign amid controversy over invitations to attend a breakfast with the Chief Justice.Pete issued an explanation for his resignation as President of the S.B.A. to the student body at Northwestern's Law School. I know this is a lot of text, but I want Pete's letter to be available to those surfing the internet in it's entirety:
The resignation, announced Monday evening, followed a public argument between the former president and a leader of the Latino Law Students Association, who was angered by the absence of representatives from his and other minority student groups at the breakfast.
During the argument, “I stated my belief that our community would be better off if all student organizations were organized around ideas, not ethnicity,” Peter Pattakos, the former president, wrote to students in an email this morning.
Kevin Strom, co-president of the Latino student group, characterized the comments differently, writing that Pattakos said he would dismantle minority student organizations “because they don’t bring anything to the community, and they contribute to racial identity politics.”
Dear Classmates,
I have only resigned my title because the administration and the SBA Executive Board have forced my hand. The SBA Executive Board and school administration asked me to step down as SBA President with only a month left in my tenure, largely because I have expressed beliefs that are unpopular with some members of our community. Some think that my expression of these beliefs makes me unfit to perform the duties of my office. I disagree with those who have asked me to step down, and initially refused; offering instead to accept a dramatically reduced role in the SBA's decision making process in recognition of the impact of my expression of these beliefs. The administration and Executive Board did not accept my offer. I was told that if I did not step down the administration would have stripped me of any official duty that it could strip me of – they would cease meeting with me as SBA President, and would have prohibited me from representing the school at graduation, law board meetings, admitted student weekend, and other events where the SBA President traditionally plays a role. In addition, the administration would have released a letter to the public explaining these restrictions – and describing my words (discussed below) as "derogatory remarks." Cliff Zimmerman showed me two different versions of this letter; the version to be released if I stepped down being significantly kinder in its wording. The administration reached its conclusion to take this course of action without once bringing me, the Executive Board, administration members, and complaining parties into the same room. Finally, the Executive Board would have conducted a plebiscite on whether I was fit to hold what would have been left of the office of SBA President – the title. Given the costs of going through with this process, it should be clear that I have only "stepped down" from my position in the most technical sense.To provide some background: There was a breakfast last Thursday with Chief Justice Roberts to which a number of academic and student-government leaders were invited. The administration asked me to recommend a list of 10-15 "academic and community leaders" to attend this breakfast. The administration had the final word on the invitees; this should be obvious given the nature of the event, the addition of 10 students to my initial recommendations, and the fact that my recommendations had to be cleared with the administration. I was never told that the intent was to invite the leaders of every student organization. The students at that breakfast were an undeniably diverse cross-section of the Northwestern Law community. These students were invited not as racial representatives, but because of their leadership on the law journals, in student government, and in student organizations with leadership positions open to members of any ethnicity. Nonetheless, the leader of one of the ethnicity-oriented student groups – a person I have always considered a friend - shouted me down in the Atrium for overlooking the leaders of these groups. He told me that I took the opportunity of a lifetime away from him. I should have walked away. I had been up the better part of the previous evening and early morning answering student complaints about the invitation list, and had continued to field such complaints throughout the day. During what can only be described loosely as a conversation, I stated my belief that our community would be better off if all student organizations were organized around ideas, and not ethnicity. It is this off-hand remark that is the primary justification for my being forced from office.
I've often wondered to myself whether student groups organized around ethnic identity ultimately unite or divide our community as a whole. History, personal experience, and recent events on campus give me reason to believe that both can be true. This is an issue that is the subject of much scholarly debate. It is an issue that some on campus, including the administration, believe an SBA President is forbidden from raising, as I did, with the leader of an ethnicity-oriented student group. I am sorry I did this. My suggestion was not well taken and I had good reason to know that it would not be, but I did not think that this personal disagreement was a good reason for me to be forced from my elected position. I recognize that these groups make substantial positive contributions to our learning environment; I only wonder whether the net positive would be greater if these groups were organized differently. It is decidedly not inconsistent to question the organizing principles of a student group and simultaneously recognize its contributions. Unfortunately, much of the consternation surrounding this particular comment as well as Cliff Zimmerman's email on behalf of the administration explaining that I made comments that "dismissed the value" of these organizations completely misses this point and misrepresents my views.
I did not want to step down from my position because I am concerned about what such an action represents. I have never been and would never be unwilling or unenthusiastic about working with any student group that approached me for help. I have never questioned any such group's right to exist, and I have never questioned the value of diversity. I have always been willing to work with any person of any political belief. Some now believe that they should not have to work with me because they disagree with my political beliefs. I have often been careless in expressing my opinions but I have never shared an idea with a malicious intent. I have always expressed myself with willingness to debate and discuss. I believe that those who have forced me to step down for raising a question that is relevant to the well-being of our community seriously undermine our school's commitment to intellectual diversity. They send a troubling message that certain ideas, while subjects of legitimate scholarship, are not open for discussion in our community.
I have made mistakes that members of our community are rightfully upset about. The timing of/context surrounding my expression of the beliefs at issue could give the harmful impression that I do not recognize the value of the contributions of certain student groups. This impression could not be further from the truth, but I see how my actions have given rise to it. I am deeply sorry for this. I offered to remove myself from the SBA's decision making process in recognition of this. I do not understand why this was not enough. My behavior was impolitic and imprudent – but it does not come anywhere close to calling for the drastic action of removing me from office as I have never, nor could I be shown to have made a decision as SBA President in consideration of the belief at issue.
I am sick about the fact that I have let my classmates down. Serving on the SBA is one of the greatest honors I have known, and I have enjoyed it immensely. Northwestern Law has shown great leadership among law schools by adopting policies that make our student body - and by extension our school - something special. I hope that it will continue to do this by embracing a commitment to diversity of all kinds, including intellectual diversity. I hope that it will recognize the value of an environment in which all students from of all walks of life and from any place of the political spectrum can raise sensitive issues at sensitive times without severe consequences. I will continue to try and reflect well on this institution. My sincerest apologies to all I've offended and let down, and my thanks to the many who have reached out in support. Please feel free to still consider me your SBA President in an advisory capacity as my years of service have given me a good idea of how things work around here.
Thanks, best regards, and sorry again,
Peter
By Kyle - 2/07/2007
34 Comments:
1) Pattakos: Sounds like you got a pretty raw deal. Sorry.
2)Thinking back to your post on Chief Wahoo; Does what happened to you affect your feelings that polictical correctness can go too far? Or where should the line be drawn?
3) That's why everyone should just keep breedig with everyone else until we're all the same color. I'm doing my part.
and here was the initial response:
Peter,
I’m saddened by your comments. You and I both know that is not why I was upset about the invite list. I did not say that you took an opportunity of a lifetime away from me. I said, while describing the impact of your decision, that it was not a small event, that it was the chance of a lifetime for anyone to go. I wrote down the conversation you and I had shortly after we had it, simply because I knew this might come up, and then I confirmed it with a respected 3L who was standing by during our conversation.
Here is what I have:
After Chief Justice Robert’s speech to the general student body Thursday, the President of the SBA approached me during the reception. He was unaware of many of the complaints and meetings that he had sparked. He was unaware that I, and many others had spent the majority of the day with Cliff and Audra because his actions were a reflection of the administration. He asked me how I was doing. I said, “fine.” He asked if I was sure, because I seemed upset. I told him that was probably not the best place and time to have this discussion. When he pushed on, I told him that I believed the way he handled the selection of “relevant student leaders” was ridiculous and unacceptable. He defended his actions saying that he chose the most relevant groups based on who would impress CJR. He said it didn’t matter because “we impressed him” and the breakfast went fine. I asked how he could ignore a group like BLSA, during Black History Month, with such a huge student base, and an entire month’s worth of programming. I asked him how he could ignore LLSA, another group with a month of programming that won Best Student Group of the Year last year, how we could be less relevant. His response blew me away:
”I would dismantle all of your groups. If it were up to me there would be no LLSA, BLSA, Salsa and Apalsa, because they don’t bring anything to the community, and they contribute to racial identity politics.” He kept going, telling me that he doesn’t get caught up in racial politics and doesn’t believe in race based groups.
I responded by telling him he was doing a ‘super’ job of representing the students he was elected to serve. I told him he couldn’t separate his political views from his Presidential role, and those views shouldn’t affect the decisions he makes on behalf of us. This is especially true when the administration makes the error of allowing one student to make unilateral decisions as to who should attend an intimate breakfast with a figure such as the Chief Justice of the U.S.
To the student body: That is what happened between Peter Pattakos and I the night the Chief Justice spoke to the student body. I was not going to publish this information to the listserv, if you’ve seen my personal email to the Latino Law Student Association, you know that I toned down my words and paraphrased Peter when describing what transpired. I’ve included that email below. Obviously the administration and SBA felt that this, along with Peter’s other actions in the past month warranted removing him from the board, or at least stripping his ability to speak at any events.
I’m available to answer any questions.
Sincerely,
Kevin Strom
***
Dear LLSA,
As your Co-President, I’d like to take this opportunity to clarify the events that led to the President of the SBA’s resignation. These events followed an already tumultuous month concerning racial politics.
The Breakfast with Chief Justice Roberts: One of the reasons the SBA Executive Board asked Peter to resign was his actions in selecting students to participate in a breakfast with CJR, in which Justice Roberts requested to meet student leaders at Northwestern. The initial list of participants to meet with CJR was comprised by Northwestern’s Development Committee. The list included NU Law Review members, Editor and Chiefs of NU Journals, and SBA officials. The Development Committee then asked Cliff if this was an adequate list that represented student leadership. Cliff modified the list by adding many names and essentially doubling the list. That was the last time Cliff viewed the list. Next, Peter was asked to discuss the list with the SBA Executive Board, but instead of obtaining input by other members, he returned a list of student leaders from organizations he felt were, "relevant." This list excluded elected student representatives from active organizations who have large memberships on campus (particularly the diverse student groups) and elected members of the SBA.
The other Presidents of diverse student groups and I went to the administration to voice our concern. Our main issue is not that we were excluded from the event, but that Peter allowed an official decision that was to be undertaken in his capacity as SBA President to be colored by his own personal views of who he considers "relevant."
Thursday night’s reception: After CJR’s speech to the general student body Thursday, Peter explained his reasoning. He defended his actions saying that he chose the most relevant groups based on who would impress CJR. He discounted the value of the diverse student groups and their contributions to the community. He finally said that if it were up to him, the diverse student groups would not exist. This is a position he has repeated and defends. This led me to believe it was the reason we were not invited to the breakfast with the Chief Justice. To have your own political views is fine, but to allow them to affect the rest of our community and Northwestern’s Commitment to Diversity is unacceptable in my mind.
Please feel free to conduct your own research and make up your own minds about all of this. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email me, I’m always available to talk. This email represents my views, not those of the SBA, the Administration or anyone else.
Sincerely,
Kevin Strom
thats a shame pete. Sorry. Thanks for the info, Kyle.
He is getting attacked pretty hard on the WSJ link also. Everyone is saying he is a racist and other BS. It is really ashamed because Peter is far from a racist. I usually disagree with Peter politically, but I agree with him on this issue. I gather that it is his choice and he picked the 10 most qualified persons for the breakfast. Why did he have to include anyone of any race or religion?? If he deemed this group to be the best than that should be that. This is the worst kind of PC and it is really ashamed to see Pete attacked like this.
I first read the WSJ page, before Pete's more detailed explanation.
My first reaction: that was a stupid thing to say. But not worthy of resignation from an elected position. Then I read Pete's more detailed explanation. It just strengthened my opinon.
Further, when I say "stupid", it is obvious Pete is far from stupid. I just think that student groups based on ethnicity are organized around an important issue: diversity and advancement of an underrepresented group.
But Pete goes on to express his value in that, and also shed light on the possible problems with groups drawn on racial lines.
Either way, I find it spineless that the school would take that action, in light of the specific guidelines given to him for invitations.
And then I read the response from Kevin Strom, so I don't know.
Either way, hile I often disagree with Pete and think the context of what he said was probably a hasty/wrong-headed comment, I don't think it is worthy of forced resignation from an elected position. But I don't seem to know the entire background of the situation.
Lastly, I would say, based on Robert's impending votes on racial diversity, it is, sadly, probably true to say Roberts would not be impressed by the minority-based groups.
(not a jab at anyone, but the ultra-conservative politics of the new CJ)
I know him, and Peter is not a racist.
Here is an article in today's Daily Northewstern, which is the student newspaper at their institution.
Typical liberal and academic elitism.
Good to see everyone rallying around Chains.....good people for chains 100
As BJ said, Pattakos got a raw deal. The timing and context of what was said was certainly not the best, but being an elected official does not exclude an individual from having a personal opinion. Both Peter and Kevin bring up valid points about the contribution and detriment of ethnically-organized groups - something that at a law school of all places should most certainly be a subject open and allowable for public debate without the recourse of forced resignation. An elected official is not and should not be forced to abandon or absolve himself of all personal belief, nor should he or she be disallowed to express these views - it is the freedom to express one's views which is the focal tenet upon which this nation has been built. It is truly a sad day and a sad commentary on the state of our country when the individuals charged with training future generations to uphold and fight for these tenets (law schools) tear them down themselves. If we as individuals are not free to debate opposing view points without fear of persecution, regardless of our standing in society, then we are not free at all.
Darwal
If the associate dean approved Peter's list and added 10 more people to this list, why where none of the additional 10 in any of the minority student groups? The dean could have chosen them. This dean is a complete ass. He could not handle the heat and used Peter as a scapegoat. Politics...
Another example of tyranny by diversity and multicultarism. I could ramble on for days but hopefully the need to will pass.
Good Point-Jared
THINK ABOUT IT--a law school demanding someones resignation for exercising their free speeech. Talk about the height of hyprocisy.
Where is the ACLU when you need them? Teaching there perhaps?
I googled Kevin Strom and now it all makes sense. He is the head of The National Vanguard a neo-nazi skinhead group. Who else but a right wing reactionary would deny someone freedom of speech?
I hope that Peter is only made stronger because of this.
University administrators are many times totalitarian fascists (not liberals.
Just one more example of the gang of Fuckheads running our universities.
I can remember when my daughter received a bill from Akron University for 6 million+ dollars / roughly 1 million per semester hour....and the bursurs office brushed me off because I laughed at the fact that they were actually acting like she actually owed this amount. She was actually De-enrolled (expelled in my book) for not paying her tuition on time.
The bill was a huge computer glitch that occurred and was noted in the newspapers but the administrative idiots had NO clue what to do as my daughter sat at home unable to attend class.
One day later, after my personal calls to the bursur and very, very heated exchanges- she was re-enrolled.
But my feeling toward the school admin has never simmered.
Similar, but not so dramatic SNAFUS have occured and I have been on the recieving end of - at three other Universities ---leading me to believe that there are soem REAL DOPES running our schools.
My apologies to administrators who are on the up and up.
I just want to clarify to everyone that the 10 people Peter selected had a very diverse background. They were just not the heads of these specific organizations/groups. The fact that he is even being considered a racist based on that is shameful.
hey kevin strom, you a racist and a scumbag. goota lookout for yourself huh, clown. the world would be a better place if people like you didn't exist. peter is one of the best people i've met. your a tool. i hope this bettered your career. if you would like to dicuss this further, i have a fist full of pissed of that would like to talk to you
Those ethnic groups should have been outside protesting Jon Robert's visit instead of trying to get a seat at the table. Thats where I would have been Fuck Roberts and all his racist memo's from the Regean administration.
Just like I said on WSJ page, it's obvious that Kevin had an agenda from the get go. It's all hearsay. The people picked for the event were cleared through the administration. Whether or not they were the heads of the specific student groups is irrelevant. They were picked on merit. Not race. To me it seems that Kevin was a touch upset he wasn't invited to the party. Granted, Pete should probably have thought a little harder before confronting this guy. All and all it's seems the administration shafted him. Instead of opening up a forum on the topic they chose to sweep the problem under the rug to appease the rest of the student body.
So sorry about this news Peter.
It is clear that the response toward your criticism of race based groups is nothing but a childish ploy to shut you out and avoid actual discussion of any issues.
You made a bad decision in terms of holding on to your position as president. But I believe you are a better man for speaking your mind and acting on it, rather than cowering to the threats of scum like Kevin.
If Kevin had half your strength, he could have instead defended minority groups, invited you to some meetings, and demonstrated the value (if any) of the groups to you first hand, clearly your conversation was personal, a stronger individual would have kept it that way.
This PC cultural epidemic has gone on too long, and it is time to ask just what has Political Correctness accomplished? It seems to me that it is nothing but a bacteria infested band-aid, it hides the wound while only making the infection grow and fester.
It is time to create a new campus student group, one that opposes the PC culture, and one that truly believes in free speech and open debate, rather than name calling, slander, and cowardice.
Kevin, go fuck yourself.
Fred's updating Orwell now:
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; Diversity is Tyranny"
Orwell warned of the duplicitous language of the Left in the post-WW2 years and the dangers of collectivism. Doesn't your school make you read 1984? His 1944 essay "What is Fascism?" should be read by all posters and thought in context of the War in Iraq and society in general. It's not very long but rather powerful.
Mencken: How familiar are you with the author whose name you use? Many contemporary accounts label him as a conservative and a promoter of individual rights over collective/group rights, hardly someone aligned with the modern Left.
Who said I aligned myself with the Modern Left ?
That would be a very dicey assumption.
HLM had shortcomings, but that could be said of anyone, couldn't it ? Hemmingway was a alcoholic, who blew his brains out... that doesn't mean he's not worth reading over and over.
The diversity is tyranny was just too fat to pass up. Funniest line of the month.
I do appreciate you putting some thought into your post though Mr. Anonymous, but isn't there an imperfect literary hero you could borrow a name from ? Lots to choose from.
Mencken: A brief perusal of your posts gives me the impression of left-leaning views. Are you saying Real Mencken was wrong for being somewhat conservative, or rather his pre-WW2 Nazi sympathies (not unlike the European intellectual class)?
Anyway, I enjoy Ambrose Bierce as a satirical writer. Even more so, Real Mencken often cited him as a major influence, especially "The Devil's Dictionary" which is enjoyable, smart-ass wit for all ends of the spectrum.
Bierce: Thanks for the tip. I'll try and read that in the near future. I read a lot of guys and take the best they have to offer. I'm not interested in starting fan clubs or taking on the responsibility of defending their honor on every account. Jesus said some good things, but I would never call myself a Christian. Betrand Russell and Miles Davis were brilliant but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be stuck in an elevator with either of them.
My views are left-leaning often enough here, but I think its mostly in comparison to the extreme positions taken by Bush and his minions. I suppose it depends on who you compare my ideas to on any given subject. I mean how conservative would Barry Goldwater be compared to the Bush Administration? It's all relative.
Thanks again for the Bierce reminder. I've been meaning to spend some time with him.
A FOOLISH OLD MAN:
I read some of Orwell's works early in my teen years and have feared Big Brother ever since. I assumed it would appear in the form of a right wing government slowly eroding our rights. The govs. recent practice of monitoring certain phone calls and examining bank records has troubled me less for the over the individual act but the old slippery slope concept.
Never did I consider an inside out approach to Big Brother espically one that eminated from our "temples of learning". After all are not these instituions that promote tolerance, diviserity of IDEAS and free speech? My next reading assingment is to re-read the works of Orwell.
Pete- Perhaps you have entered the land of Orwell. I hope I am wrong but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
chains, raw deal. i wish this world wasn't so PC. maybe shit would get done. fuck kevin strom
D
Just a clarification:
Kevin Strom, head of the National Vanguard, is very different from Kevin Strom, 2L student at Northwestern and co-president of Latino Law Student Association.
hey strom go back to mexico
yes, I realize it is a different person. It was an attempt to mix a little humor with a message. Left-right makes no differece this should be a country where every citizen has equal rights and that incldes free speech.
what happened to Peter at NU reflects poorly on the school, but no more so than on our society in general - this situation could have arisen anywhere, and analogous situations often do. Admittedly, Peter's opinions are fairly controversial in some respects, and voicing them as the SBA president was not the most politically savvy thing to do - being politically savvy is not necessarily, or even normally, in my opinion, a good thing. Politicians tend to kind of suck. Anyways, the tragic aspect of this is that real issues are being ignored because we've found a handy scapegoat to project all our self-righteous angst onto - now that we've allocated blame, we can move on and never get to discussing any of the issues underlying the situation.
Peter's comment about culturally or racially centered organizations being divisive has, in some regards, a lot of merit to it.
Diversity is encouraged (theoretically) because of the recognition that people from all different backgrounds contribute positively to an environment and, indeed, the introduction of different perspectives and backgrounds will improve the community overall. Diversity-based (racially or culturally) organizations can contribute by proactively creating opportunities for the members of the community to actually talk with and learn about each other.
However, diversity-based organizations are not always used in that positive aspect. There's a critical line between functioning in a manner which builds a cohesive community of diverse viewpoints and in a manner which tends to segregate people into sub-communities. Diversity-based organizations can be very dangerous if their primary function and result is merely to prove to everyone that, hey, we've got blacks here, and jews, asians, and a bunch of those types of people - you can't call us prejudiced. When the purpose of these groups degenerates to this, the groups do become divisive mechanisms within the community.
Peter selected leaders of academic and political organizations to go to the breakfast. The idea that this can be seen as an exclusion of any race or culture is necessarily premised on the idea that these are the "white male" groups - to get any blacks, latinos, jews, etc., you have to go to one of those "diverse" organizations.
Diversity based organizations can be representative or integrative; that is, proof of enough "diversity" to avoid any accusations of racism or prejudice, or intra-community mechanisms for encouraging discussion about different ideas and providing opportunities to learn about friends and classmates. The idea that inviting academic and political organizations, and not diversity based organizations, is a sign of racism and exclusion tends to suggest that diversity organizations in the NU community are in fact representative as opposed to integrative. And if that is the case, then, I think Peter is right.
But hey, people were offended, Peter complied when he was "asked to resign," and everything's peachy. No need to worry about any touchy subjects, at least until the next time someone brings one up. Hopefully they will be in a position of authority so that we can shut them up before they threaten us with the possibility of a truth we don't like.
Heaven forbid that we all actually be judged on the content of our character and not the color of our skin/our ethnicity/our creed/our gender/our religion/or whatever point of divisiveness we can think of! Sorry that you had to go through this Peter. I hope that it makes you stronger.
How can one be racist for not inluding race as a reason to choose people?
wow gold cheap wow gold buy wow gold world of warcraft gold wow world of warcraft wow gold WoW Warrior WoW Hunter WoW Rogue WoW Paladin WoW Shaman WoW Priest WoW Mage WoW Druid WoW Warlock power leveling powerleveling wow power leveling wow powerleveling wow guides wow tips google排名 google左侧排名 google排名服务 百度推广 百度排名 网站推广 商业吧 机床 LED灯 电池 塑料 摄像机 移民 甲醇 染料 福州热线 体育博客 股票博客 游戏博客 魔兽博客 考试博客 汽车博客 房产博客 电脑博客 powerlin518 logo design website design web design 商标设计
Post a Comment
<< Home