Half of them couldn’t find Vietnam or Gaza on a map and gave no clue why America is even involved. “Hey, let’s dress up and have a protest so we don’t have to do Finals!”
What evidence do you have for the Ivy League students not being able to find Vietnam or Gaza on a map? Or that they have no clue why America is involved? Or that they are only protesting to avoid taking finals?
This seems to be pure opinion and hyperbole.
In addition, I have no problem with “having a protest,” but this bullshit about 19 yr olds telling an Ivy League School what they should and should not invest their endowments in is a fucking joke…but they “demand” they divest? SNOWFLAKE!!
Ivy League (and many other) students demanded divestment from apartheid South Africa in the 70s and 80s — were those “snowflakes”, as well?
What exactly should the protestors be asking for in your opinion? And when and how can they protest—and about what—in your opinion?
Keep in mind the act of protest is inherently meant to be disruptive and provocative, so any argument that protest is only acceptable if it causes no disruption or provocation is essentially arguing against the concept of protest itself.
Which would be a strange stance to take as someone that has, in other discussions, extolled the virtues and—even the moral superiority—of free expression in the United States.
I think I’ve made it patently obvious I abhor any and all unprovoked violence. The police were called in on the violence to which you refer, but ON CAMPUS violence is usually dealt with by CAMPUS POLICE, unless local PD is called to assist…as we have seen at other universities.
Are you implying that the violence that the pro-Israel counterprotestors carried out on the pro-Palestine protestors at UCLA was “provoked” and therefore ok? Because it does not seem you are denouncing it, but rather subtly supporting it.
If you support that violence, why?
And the police were called well after the violence began. When they arrived they stood and watched it unfold for quite some time, before finally stepping in to simply tell the pro-Israel counterprotestors carrying out the violent attack to leave or face arrest. This despite the mass assault itself being very definitely illegal and many of the police clearly witnessing specific people physically assaulting protestors in the encampment (many requiring medical care in the aftermath).
If you believe the protests themselves to be illegal, and therefore should be dealt with by police, including forced removal and arrest, why would you be comfortable with aggravated mass assault being ignored by police, campus or otherwise (the distinction between campus or local police, or even state troopers, is irrelevant in this discussion, as all were present for the violence and chose not to act appropriately).
Surely, if you understood the issues at hand you would know this already, but I answered it for you above.
I do understand the issues at hand (I have first hand experience with this sort of thing, actually), and am quite close to the underlying events themselves, unfortunately, hence why I am asking you these questions.
I genuinely don’t understand your stance, as it seems to be contradictory (i.e. you only seemingly support “law and order” in certain cases, largely based on ideological lines based on your comments, and seem quite derisive of protests in general, despite claiming you have “no problem” with them).
