. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Sunday, March 23, 2008
Hours, finally

So, I finally got around to reading the minutes from two weeks back.

JP decided that all parties were at fault at the Tikvah/SJP thing a few weeks back. If you know what I'm talking about, great. If not... meh. It's the boring "I'm too afraid to stand up for anyone" conclusion. I was there, and that conclusion is pretty silly. The SJP folks had a protest. Tikvah had a protest against the SJP protest. The SJP folks approached the Tikvah folks and started yelling at them, and following them around with their signs in order to block the Tikvah sign. When the Tikvah students moved to a new location, SJP followed them to keep the conflict going. You could reasonably conclude that nobody did anything wrong, and it was just an expression of free speech by both sides. You could not reasonably conclude that Tikvah was at fault for the hostility (besides the vague idea that showing up to disagree breeds hostility, I guess), unless you're Jonathan Poullard and let your political beliefs determine how you handle student conduct issues. (JP refers to some YouTube videos, and I'd love to point you to them, but I dunno where they are.)

Nad Permaul said that there may be an effort by some fee committee to recommend that student fee increases be presented the previous semester so there was actual time to talk about them and deal with the issues (especially the Office of the President review). This would certainly be nice, as we've seen the ASUC fail quite miserably at putting fees on the ballot by waiting until the last minute.

I discovered that the ASUC does not have a Solicitor General. I know they appointed one earlier, but I guess that person vanished. I guess, strictly speaking, the ASUC only needs to approve an SG to do business. There's nothing prohibiting them from then discarding the SG. Still, I think they might be missing the spirit of the rule by a bit.

Jessica Schley apparently lied to the Senate by saying that Fresh was a student (he was a former student) and comically described "a Senator-sponsored hate crime Facebook page."

Surprise! The Counting Crows are supposedly coming to campus April 4, but it's a "surprise concert," and they'll be billed as the "Shatners." Concert people are weird. Anyway, I think I just blew the surprise. Whoops.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 3/23/2008 04:00:00 PM #
Comments (16)
. . .
>>The SJP folks approached the Tikvah folks and started yelling at them, and following them around with their signs in order to block the Tikvah sign

wtf? there are photos of Tikvah standing in front of the SJP protest, not the other way round.
Yes, Tikvah stood near the protest and held up their sign. The SJP folks then went to the Tikvah students and started shouting at them and trying to block the sign. The Tikvah folks relocated several times, and the SJP folks kept following them. So unless the standard of 'creating a conflict' is to present an opposing viewpoint in the vicinity, Tikvah was not doing so.
fact is, Tikvah have been consistently confrontational. Weiner went up to the SJP table, took a sign-up sheet and wrote "Ismael Haniyah [Hamas leader] - fuck Israel", and then started yelling at the tabling person about the kind of people that sign up for SJP. They've also been peddling this "SJP members made antisemitic comments" crap without any proof that such comments were actually made, or that they were made by an SJP member. Plus they refused to meet with SJP members at Poullard's office. Isn't any of this confrontational?
Well, talking about something else doesn't really help us on the incident in question, which is what JP was talking about.

JP has made it pretty clear which side he's on. Why would they show up for a tag-team matchup? Unless JP shows some sign that he actually cares about what happened, rather than ending up with the "right" result, there doesn't seem to be much point in meeting with him, SJP or no.

I was there for Gabe's shouting match. That was indeed confrontational. Not meeting with SJP... not so much. (It almost seems the opposite, no?)

As I may not have said, I don't think anybody should be complaining, and JP should say so. "Free speech, bitches. Deal with it, or don't be politically active." But it's his job to be the guy everyone whines to, so he can exert the university's influence over everyone in sight. "Tell me who was drinking... or else!" "Your Kamikaze Party is offensive!" "In this week where one side had every single event of theirs disrupted, it's the other side that should be praised for their civility."

The university needs someone who can tell these folks "Shut up and deal," but that's not acceptable on this campus, even though it seems like it should be the most applicable. So if JP isn't going to say it, and wants to get involved and pick sides, then he has to show some kind of interest in using a standard besides "don't piss off the 'wrong' people."
I don't entirely get what you're saying. If it's "Free speech, bitches. Deal with it, or don't be politically active", then as you say, no one should be complaining. SSP didn't go and complain about our events being disrupted, although they were, repeatedly.

If Tikvah wants JP to be the "the guy everyone whines to, so he can exert the university's influence over everyone in sight", then they are not just saying they want things to stay as they are, but that they want some intervention to keep things civil, which is fine, but then you would expect them to be at least willing to meet SJP. So do you think things should stay as they are, or do you think JP should intervene? The only acceptable solution for Tikvah seems to be that he should intervene, but only if he accepts Tikvah's standpoint unquestioningly. Does that seem reasonable to you?

btw - I could see the youtube stuff he was talking about either.
(I meant I couldn't see it)
one more thing - explain why Tokvah going up right in front of an SJP protest with their signs with no spearation at all is a legitimate expression of free speech, but if SJP members did as you say ("When the Tikvah students moved to a new location, SJP followed them) that is not free speech but problmatic behavior. Isn't that a double standard?
I don't believe what either side did was problematic. But putting things in the "whiny" scale that JP likes, I think there's a dramatic difference between standing near a protest with a counterposition and trying to block a protest and yelling at the protesters.

I wish the rule was "nobody complain," but JP has declared, through his actions, that it isn't the rule. Which means he has to deal with the consequences of being the "guy to whine to." SJP met with JP, too, so they recognized him as holding that role, and can't go try and uniquely blame Tikvah for trying to make him hold that role. They also were crying "Hate Crime!" to JP when faced with vandalism.
that really is a double standard - either "I don't believe what either side did was problematic", or "there's a dramatic difference between standing near a protest with a counterposition and trying to block a protest" - you can't have it both ways.

Tikvah wasn't standing "near" the SJP protest, they were standing right in front of it precisely in order to block it, as they tried to interfere in several previous events. There are photos of them practically touching the SJP folks holding up the signs.

Anyways, if they'd be willing to meet and set up some rules for avoiding confrontation (e.g. keep a minimal distance between protests) that would make life simpler, but that doesn't seem to be the Weiner way. Didn't you write somewhere he's not making too many friends?
I don't think it's problematic. But if JP wants to get into the business of calling these things problematic, he has to do so in a fair manner. There's nothing double-standardy in holding an opinion about two different things. Your suggestion that, if I believe in free speech, I can not also believe that restrictions on speech need to be applied equally if they are applied at all is silly.

Tikvah was not blocking the SJP protest. Not even close. The reason they were almost touching the SJP folks holding up the signs this time is because the SJP folks went to them to hold up signs right in front of them.
so if you do think restrictions on free speech are necessary, couldn't Tikvah just agree to maintaining some distance from future SJP protests, and vice versa? we'd be perfectly open to that, if they were willing to sit in the same room with us.
I don't think free speech restrictions are necessary. Tikvah and SJP can agree to whatever desired restrictions they want, but there's no reason for them to do so, or for them to be criticized for not doing so. Not agreeing to shut up is not confrontation in any negative sense.
this is why it isn't possible to communicate with Tikvah and Tikvah sympathizers - you just invent stuff, attribute it to other people and then play the victims. I never suggested anywhere anyone should shut up, I just talked about maintaining some distance between protests, but I guess any suggestion than Tikvah could possibly behave slightly differently is unthinkable.
I am not associated with Tikvah, nor am I particularly sympathetic to their cause. My problem is with JP.

Maintaining distance is a form of localized shutting up, and requests to do so should be approached with the same free speech skepticism as more generalized shutting up requests.
here is the proof Tikvah was blocking the SJP protest, not the other way round. This is probably the video JP was referencing, not Youtube but CalTV.

Are you kidding? That's what passes for "blocking the protest" for you?
Post a Comment

. . .