UT Pro-Palestine Protest Thread

[HendersonHorns 85]

27 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

For those uninformed... 

 

I think this one goes with your examples. 
 

 

[troph 24498]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The bolded is why "FUCK YOU."  You are pissed about the content of the speech.  The content doesn't.  Fucking.  Matter.  That's the whole motherfucking point of the First Amendment, and the Texas Statute that your hero governor waved around (whoops....turns out he only meant that law to apply to speech he agrees with.  Bad move, Abbott).

I don't agree with any of the messages you stated (although you overstate like a motherfucker and commit about a dozen logical fallacies in the process).  But they are 100%...not 90%, not 99%, but 100% allowed by law to peacefully state their position, no matter how loathsome any of us may find it.

Either the First Amendment protects speech, or it doesn't.  You don't get to cherrypick its applicability based on whether you agree with the message.  That's the one approach that you can't take.  Yet.....a shitload of people on this very thread are taking it, demonstrating yet again that the percentage of Americans who get how the First Amendment works is likely in the low single digits.

first amendment does not protect all speech and neither you nor I are there to hear what is being said.  it doesn't protect any assembly either. frankly I side more on the side of the first amendment here, but it's not carte blanche to do or say anything. I don't think the assemblers are interested in full compliance with first amendment laws.

[YGIFS 19447]

23 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Given that since 10/6 there have been a number of pro-Palestinian protests on campus that went off smoothly, I wonder what made this one different.  Why respond the way they did now?  

Good point.  I've saw a number of them last Autumn and earlier in 2024.  In South Mall/Six-Pack and West Mall.  Biggest one I saw was two rows behind me at the Bari Weiss talk at LBJ.  Several dozen made a scene for about 5 mts but it was completely non-violent, though a little obnoxious.  They also waited outside as well left but other than disturbing flags, they got in nobody's personal space.  I still think they're directing their frustration and anger and wishes for UT divestiture from defense companies at the wrong people.  But obviously we all remember knowing everything at 21yo.  

But yeah, to your point.  A dozen or so UTPD observed/escorted all these protests over the last 6 months and it went fine.  Barely made the Daily Texan newspaper, let alone CNN.  The response by UTPD has been amplified, but the DPS and APD force posture is obviously what's escalating this, which makes the students ante up, and so on and so on.  I'm gonna take a wild guess it has something to do with a prominent Austin resident trying to garner national attention to curry favor with a prominent Florida resident.  Just a wild coincidence this is all happening as short-lists are being created for a prominent position.  I mean the very laws protecting this kind of activity were just signed into law recently in Texas, but not this purpose.  So the whole thing had to be turned on its head.  What a puzzling situation.  

[lucious leftfoot 126]

49 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Hartzell may be the only one who can save this situation, and it will involve him acting like an adult and joining the protesters .. not in their message, but physically going down there, standing with them, stating that he supports their right to peacefully assemble, and ordering the police to stand down. Some will say that’s a risk to his personal safety now, but if he’d done it last week I truly don’t believe we’d be where we are today. 

If I knew Hartzell I would recommend he not do that. 
 

19 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Nevermind that abbott signed the free speech law to allow neonazis a more free hand to speak on campus

I must’ve missed the neonazi encampment on campus.

 

 

 

 

[Captainant 27250]

13 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Their point of farthest divergence and least sympathy from me, TBH.  It’s fine to call for it, I guess, but I don’t know how you watch Russia and China and conclude that we need to divest from our defense industrial base.

Texas public schools get funded and we also get to develop Virginia-class boats, B-21s, and air breathing cruise missiles? 
 

 

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This.  Are they shouting from the divestment of all the wafer/chip manufacturing that allows all these systems to actually work?  That's why Taiwan is so important.  We can make due with older iPhones and laptops.  We can't implement cutting edge weapons systems at the scale we need without them, and neither can anyone else.  The MIC is do ingrained into every facet of society I don't know how any school with market investment can 100% divest from every aspect is this industry.  

This is a perfectly acceptable response to their speech. Sending in riot cops to shut them up isn't. 

That's the problem here

[lucious leftfoot 126]

4 minutes ago, troph said:

first amendment does not protect all speech and neither you nor I are there to hear what is being said.  it doesn't protect any assembly either. frankly I side more on the side of the first amendment here, but it's not carte blanche to do or say anything. I don't think the assemblers are interested in full compliance with first amendment laws.

Exactly. 
 

I’m sure a sizable percentage of the participants saw what happened at Columbia last night and thought, oh cool.  
 

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

 

This is a perfectly acceptable response to their speech. Sending in riot cops to shut them up isn't. 

That's the problem here

You should go join them. This obviously means a lot to you. We could use some boots on the ground reporting. 

[YGIFS 19447]

4 minutes ago, lucious leftfoot said:

If I knew Hartzell I would recommend he not do that. 
 

I must’ve missed the neonazi encampment on campus.

  

Patriot Front (self-admitted White Nationalist organization) and Proud Boys have all marched (albeit in modest numbers) on our campus.  I seen't it.  

Just because they didn't set up tents, doesn't make it any less fucked up.  People who know they're wrong and weak, tend to not stay in one place and pitch tents.  They keep moving before they get their asses beat. 

Just like people looting a CVS or breaking a Starbuck's window in 2020...they have this weird tendency to move on (physically speaking).

[Make em eat Taco Bell 1549]

9 minutes ago, HendersonHorns said:

I think this one goes with your examples. 
 

 

nothing anti-semitic here.

[wildcat09 29146]

1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

  

Patriot Front (self-admitted White Nationalist organization) and Proud Boys have all marched (albeit in modest numbers) on our campus.  I seen't it.  

Just because they didn't set up tents, doesn't make it any less fucked up.  People who know they're wrong and weak, tend to not stay in one place and pitch tents.  They keep moving before they get their asses beat. 

Just like people looting a CVS or breaking a Starbuck's window in 2020...they have this weird tendency to move on (physically speaking).

You'll have to go easy on sockposter, he's clearly pathologically terrified of tents. 

[HendersonHorns 85]

Just now, Make em eat Taco Bell said:

nothing anti-semitic here.

Just a grassroots movement

[Bevo 13468]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

You'll have to go easy on sockposter, he's clearly pathologically terrified of tents. 

 

Speaking of, whose sock is Felix? I've never seen him post, but he likes negging posts that he disagrees with.

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

7 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Good point.  I've saw a number of them last Autumn and earlier in 2024.  In South Mall/Six-Pack and West Mall.  Biggest one I saw was two rows behind me at the Bari Weiss talk at LBJ.  Several dozen made a scene for about 5 mts but it was completely non-violent, though a little obnoxious.  They also waited outside as well left but other than disturbing flags, they got in nobody's personal space.  I still think they're directing their frustration and anger and wishes for UT divestiture from defense companies at the wrong people.  But obviously we all remember knowing everything at 21yo.  

But yeah, to your point.  A dozen or so UTPD observed/escorted all these protests over the last 6 months and it went fine.  Barely made the Daily Texan newspaper, let alone CNN.  The response by UTPD has been amplified, but the DPS and APD force posture is obviously what's escalating this, which makes the students ante up, and so on and so on.  I'm gonna take a wild guess it has something to do with a prominent Austin resident trying to garner national attention to curry favor with a prominent Florida resident.  Just a wild coincidence this is all happening as short-lists are being created for a prominent position.  I mean the very laws protecting this kind of activity were just signed into law recently in Texas, but not this purpose.  So the whole thing had to be turned on its head.  What a puzzling situation.  

Is this a wild guess or a "guess"?  I ask because the texts the media released show Hartzell saying he reached out to ask for DPS assistance, not the other way around.  If that's the case it seems like there had to be something to trigger that request if he hadn't already done it for the other protests.  I agree that the mere presence of troopers last Wednesday likely had an escalating effect on the protesters (I won't call them students because it appears a large portion were not students), but what caused the escalating effect on the University to even call in the troopers?  We have a lot of posters here postulating that it's because he disagrees with the content of their speech, but if that's the case, why not call the troopers in one of the first dozen or so times UT had pro-palestinian protesters on campus?  

[F250 28623]

4 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Patriot Front (self-admitted White Nationalist organization) and Proud Boys have all marched (albeit in modest numbers) on our campus.  I seen't it.  

[SquishMitten 10381]

3 hours ago, Skipper said:

Really?  Have you not seen how things have gone in NYC and on the West Coast without police or administration escalating? 
I have. But this isn't the thread for those protests. Mentioning them here is irrelevant at best, or intentionally misleading and gaslighting at worst. 

Give them an inch they will take a yard.
Ok? Maybe? But you have to let that happen before you can step in to stop it. There was absolutely no evidence to justify the intervention we saw last week. Could it have escalated on it's own? Sure. Would it definitely have? Who knows, but that also doesn't matter. The government can't step in until something actually does happen. And any action must strive to be limited to those not abiding by the law.

Some of you need to open your eyes and realize these aren't a bunch of hippies smoking pot and singing Give Peace a Chance like in your good old days. 
Who has said that? I certainly haven't.   

I feel like plenty on this board are letting their hate for Trump/Abbot/MAGA cloud their judgment.
Who has said that? I certainly haven't. Feel free to look at my post history to see if I've ever advocated sending in riot police to stop MAGA folks at their various protests. You won't find anything because I understand the First Amendment. As much as I may loathe some of those people or the reasons for their protests, I support their right to hold them unless/until they are no longer peaceful, in which case the government's response should be narrowly tailored to only address the wrongdoers. 

Listen to some of the jewish students speak (including those on UT campus) about the rhetoric they are hearing walking around campus.
I have. And I find much of it repulsive. But again, most of it is protected speech.

How about protestors at UCLA not letting Jews on campus.
This is the thread about UT, not UCLA. Stop bringing up irrelevant shit. 

The national news was disgusting this morning. Not fox news or newsmax, fucking mainstream national news. 
This is the thread about UT, not the national news. Stop bringing up irrelevant shit. 

80% of this country is disgusted at what is taking place.
I don't believe that 80% of the country understands the First Amendment, but I support their right to be "disgusted" at whatever you claim them to be disgusted about. 

But sure - Hartzell is the problem.
At UT, following his involvement in the unwarranted actions of the police last week, his comments before and after, the continued escalation...yeah, he's part of the problem. He needs to be part of the solution.

 

Edited April 30 by immamac
formatting.

[Blotto 23366]

2 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Is this a wild guess or a "guess"?  I ask because the texts the media released show Hartzell saying he reached out to ask for DPS assistance, not the other way around.  If that's the case it seems like there had to be something to trigger that request if he hadn't already done it for the other protests.  I agree that the mere presence of troopers last Wednesday likely had an escalating effect on the protesters (I won't call them students because it appears a large portion were not students), but what caused the escalating effect on the University to even call in the troopers?  We have a lot of posters here postulating that it's because he disagrees with the content of their speech, but if that's the case, why not call the troopers in one of the first dozen or so times UT had pro-palestinian protesters on campus?  

Because in my opinion,  it was all a planned publicity stunt for abbot to helicopter his flaccid dong around and prove he means business in the state of TX. The next day there was little to no police presence with what I've read was a larger crowd protesting.

[lucious leftfoot 126]

21 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

I'm gonna take a wild guess it has something to do with a prominent Austin resident trying to garner national attention to curry favor with a prominent Florida resident. 

Do you think it has nothing to do with protests “sticking” and escalating on campuses around the country? I think Hartzell didn’t want the hassle, embarrassment and ultimately danger of a potential tent city of militant protestors established on campus. Columbia is a bit of a vindication for him honestly. Hands off and disregarding the rules leads to fucked up shit happening. 
 

12 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Patriot Front (self-admitted White Nationalist organization) and Proud Boys have all marched (albeit in modest numbers) on our campus.  I seen't it

Maybe those guys know to follow the rules around protesting?  I have no idea but they do wear nice, pressed khakis with a tucked in polo.

Edited April 30 by lucious leftfoot

[YGIFS 19447]

5 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Is this a wild guess or a "guess"?  I ask because the texts the media released show Hartzell saying he reached out to ask for DPS assistance, not the other way around.  If that's the case it seems like there had to be something to trigger that request if he hadn't already done it for the other protests.  I agree that the mere presence of troopers last Wednesday likely had an escalating effect on the protesters (I won't call them students because it appears a large portion were not students), but what caused the escalating effect on the University to even call in the troopers?  We have a lot of posters here postulating that it's because he disagrees with the content of their speech, but if that's the case, why not call the troopers in one of the first dozen or so times UT had pro-palestinian protesters on campus?  

I don't think he disagrees with their right to express themselves.  But yeah, if he did-he would have done this much earlier in the academic year when it all began.  

The wild card, as you point out, is where all these non-student/staff protestors suddenly come out of the woodwork?  

Hartzell did have to/is currently communicating with DPS because somebody high-level has to coordinate their efforts.  You can see them in person on campus, or on TV, 'working' side by side.  I'm not sure on chain-of-command here but will try and find out at next week's BOR meeting when I suspect this will dominate their agenda.  Couple guys get chatty after a few drinks in the evenings after the meetings.  But it seems to be that the Governor wanted to make a spectacle with DPS, and now things are ramping up tit-for-tat.  I don't think he'd order Hartzell directly, but there are lots of fingerprints of Eltife and Longoria pointing Jay in this direction or that direction.  They are, by far, the most loyal to Abbott on a Board that's full of his supporters.  

All that to say, I just don't see Jay deciding after 6 months of this kinda thing, picking up the phone last week and calling in DPS & APD when his own police force had been handling things just fine and he's been wildly popular with students and faculty alike for a many years now.  That the BOR and UTSystem leadership have been so publicly quiet about this is the other tell.  

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

6 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Because in my opinion,  it was all a planned publicity stunt for abbot to helicopter his flaccid dong around and prove he means business in the state of TX. The next day there was little to no police presence with what I've read was a larger crowd protesting.

That's not an opinion, it's a supposition.  And it runs counter to Hartzell's text saying he requested DPS presence.  Unless your supposition is also that Abbott ordered Hartzell to request DPS presence, Hartzell requested their presence, and then Hartzell lied to a state senator about the source of the request.  

Edited April 30 by Longhornfan1024

[Captainant 27250]

10 minutes ago, lucious leftfoot said:

Maybe those guys know to follow the rules around protesting?  I have no idea but they do wear nice, pressed khakis with a tucked in polo.

They also wear *GASP* FACEMASKS!!!(1!!!)

https://www.texasobserver.org/homegrown-neo-fascist-movement-marches-in-austin/

 

And they were not targeted by the State because the State likes their speech - the 2019 law was passed to make it easier for these groups to come on campuses, I linked a contemporaneous Georgetown Free Speech Project page that discussed the legislations authoring and the debate around it at the time. 

 

Edit: lmfao of course the resident church elder Deacon Dickhead likes your post about the fascist groups getting preferential treatment from the Uvalde Defenders

Edited April 30 by Captainant

[wildcat09 29146]

6 minutes ago, lucious leftfoot said:

Maybe those guys know to follow the rules around protesting?  I have no idea but they do wear nice, pressed khakis with a tucked in polo.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10098]

6 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Is this a wild guess or a "guess"?  I ask because the texts the media released show Hartzell saying he reached out to ask for DPS assistance, not the other way around.  If that's the case it seems like there had to be something to trigger that request if he hadn't already done it for the other protests.  I agree that the mere presence of troopers last Wednesday likely had an escalating effect on the protesters (I won't call them students because it appears a large portion were not students), but what caused the escalating effect on the University to even call in the troopers?  We have a lot of posters here postulating that it's because he disagrees with the content of their speech, but if that's the case, why not call the troopers in one of the first dozen or so times UT had pro-palestinian protesters on campus?  

Hartzell reached out for help in direct response to this Palestine Solidarity Committee posting on Instagram, specfics being:

Spoiler

 

Brian Davis, a university spokesman, said the university has seen 13 pro-Palestinian events "largely without incident" since the Israel-Hamas war began in October. 

"In contrast, this one in particular expressed an intent to disrupt the campus and directed participants to break Institutional Rules and occupy the University, consistent with national patterns," Davis said.

 

Houston Chronicle text on actions:

Spoiler

Here is what we know about why the troopers appear to have been called in:

The Palestine Solidarity Committee advertised the event on Instagram, calling on students to “reclaim our space” by occupying the South Lawn. 

University rules require groups planning to rally on campus to coordinate with the dean of students. The university did not say whether the Palestine Solidarity Committee, a registered student group, did that. 

The office of the dean of students on Tuesday sent a letter to the group canceling the rally, which the university alleged had a “declared intent to violate our policies and rules, and disrupt our campus operations.” 

The letter pointed to an Instagram post by the group that said, “In the footsteps of our comrades at Rutgers-New Brunswick SJP, Tufts SJP, and Columbia SJP, we will take back our university and force our administration to divest, for the people of Gaza!” 

It also noted the organizers urged attendees to bring face masks, which the letter described as a violation of university rules that forbid students from concealing their identity to obstruct law enforcement.

 

“Simply put, The University of Texas at Austin will not allow this campus to be ‘taken’ and protesters to derail our mission in ways that groups affiliated with your national organization have accomplished elsewhere,” said the letter, signed by Executive Director of Student Involvement Aaron Voyles. “Such disruptions are never allowed and are especially damaging while our students prepare for the end of the semester and final exams.”

The letter warned that any attempt to proceed with the planned rally would result in possible suspension from the university or arrest. 

DPS said in a statement that troopers were deployed at the university’s request and at the direction of the governor. It’s not clear how many state troopers responded to the campus, but the department said they made at least 34 arrests. Many officers were clad in riot gear and others arrived on horseback. The Austin Police Department and the university’s own police force also responded to the event.

 

The university on Thursday confirmed that the decision to bring in DPS was made by UT President Jay Hartzell and his leadership team, in tandem with Kevin Eltife, the chair of the UT system's board of regents. 

Brian Davis, a university spokesman, said the university has seen 13 pro-Palestinian events "largely without incident" since the Israel-Hamas war began in October. 

"In contrast, this one in particular expressed an intent to disrupt the campus and directed participants to break Institutional Rules and occupy the University, consistent with national patterns," Davis said.

Hartzell said in a statement Wednesday night that the university “held firm” and expressed gratitude to law enforcement. 

“Breaking our rules and policies and disrupting others’ ability to learn are not allowed,” his statement said. “The group that led this protest stated it was going to violate Institutional Rules. Our rules matter, and they will be enforced. Our University will not be occupied.”

 

[Blotto 23366]

4 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

That's not an opinion, it's a supposition.  And it runs counter to Hartzell's text saying he requested DPS presence.  Unless your supposition is also that Abbott ordered Hartzell to request DPS presence, Hartzell requested their presence, and then Hartzell lied to a state senator about the source of the request.  

you have correctly surmised my opinion. 

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

4 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Hartzell reached out for help in direct response to this Palestine Solidarity Committee posting on Instagram, specfics being:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Brian Davis, a university spokesman, said the university has seen 13 pro-Palestinian events "largely without incident" since the Israel-Hamas war began in October. 

"In contrast, this one in particular expressed an intent to disrupt the campus and directed participants to break Institutional Rules and occupy the University, consistent with national patterns," Davis said.

 

Houston Chronicle text on actions:

  Hide contents

Here is what we know about why the troopers appear to have been called in:

The Palestine Solidarity Committee advertised the event on Instagram, calling on students to “reclaim our space” by occupying the South Lawn. 

University rules require groups planning to rally on campus to coordinate with the dean of students. The university did not say whether the Palestine Solidarity Committee, a registered student group, did that. 

The office of the dean of students on Tuesday sent a letter to the group canceling the rally, which the university alleged had a “declared intent to violate our policies and rules, and disrupt our campus operations.” 

The letter pointed to an Instagram post by the group that said, “In the footsteps of our comrades at Rutgers-New Brunswick SJP, Tufts SJP, and Columbia SJP, we will take back our university and force our administration to divest, for the people of Gaza!” 

It also noted the organizers urged attendees to bring face masks, which the letter described as a violation of university rules that forbid students from concealing their identity to obstruct law enforcement.

 

“Simply put, The University of Texas at Austin will not allow this campus to be ‘taken’ and protesters to derail our mission in ways that groups affiliated with your national organization have accomplished elsewhere,” said the letter, signed by Executive Director of Student Involvement Aaron Voyles. “Such disruptions are never allowed and are especially damaging while our students prepare for the end of the semester and final exams.”

The letter warned that any attempt to proceed with the planned rally would result in possible suspension from the university or arrest. 

DPS said in a statement that troopers were deployed at the university’s request and at the direction of the governor. It’s not clear how many state troopers responded to the campus, but the department said they made at least 34 arrests. Many officers were clad in riot gear and others arrived on horseback. The Austin Police Department and the university’s own police force also responded to the event.

 

The university on Thursday confirmed that the decision to bring in DPS was made by UT President Jay Hartzell and his leadership team, in tandem with Kevin Eltife, the chair of the UT system's board of regents. 

Brian Davis, a university spokesman, said the university has seen 13 pro-Palestinian events "largely without incident" since the Israel-Hamas war began in October. 

"In contrast, this one in particular expressed an intent to disrupt the campus and directed participants to break Institutional Rules and occupy the University, consistent with national patterns," Davis said.

Hartzell said in a statement Wednesday night that the university “held firm” and expressed gratitude to law enforcement. 

“Breaking our rules and policies and disrupting others’ ability to learn are not allowed,” his statement said. “The group that led this protest stated it was going to violate Institutional Rules. Our rules matter, and they will be enforced. Our University will not be occupied.”

 

Thanks.  This is helpful.  

[MissingInAction 24746]

1 hour ago, Macklemore said:

You have to say that 3 times for me to come out to you. If you want fascist cosplay, you’ll have to provide the party favors. 

FYI I'm into nazi midgets.

[Make em eat Taco Bell 1549]

24 minutes ago, HendersonHorns said:

Just a grassroots movement

the pro-Pals should not hinder movement of anyone, into buildings or grass fields, but there is nothing antisemitic about being against Israel, shouting at Jewish students, or even wanting to destroy Israel. 

[Dbeasy 14931]

17 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

 

This is an extremely important post. Both posters hit at the heart of the disagreement and issue being discussed. 

SquishMitten is absolutely right. IMO it’s fine for the university to be well prepared for escalation and if necessary take firm action. The problem is that they took action too quickly. Would it have escalated to what has been seen elsewhere in the country? Yes it probably it would have. This demonstrates how important it is to be very very careful when taking action against protestors.

[Brisketexan 104226]

3 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Not a fan of "we have rules but have decided in this particular case they don't apply". Bad precedent to set IMO.

So, I presume that you are pissed off when the cops don't pull you over for going 56 in a 55?  When you've had some drinks at the tailgate, and while under control, are clearly intoxicated in public, and the cop just smiles at you and lets you walk by?  Law enforcement and the prosecutors having the good judgment to not go full "ARREST, TRY, AND EXECUTE THEM ALL!" on every single TECHNICAL violation of the law is absolutely necessary for a functioning society.

So, yeah, the approach that the U of Chicago has taken is a damned good chess move.

26 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Really?  Have you not seen how things have gone in NYC and on the West Coast without police or administration escalating?  Give them an inch they will take a yard.  Some of you need to open your eyes and realize these aren't a bunch of hippies smoking pot and singing Give Peace a Chance like in your good old days.    

Sure.  The protests at Columbia have gotten way out of hand, and I am all for law enforcement clearing them out of the hall and their encampment.

But....if you're going to point to campuses where the law didn't go full Gestapo, maybe you oughta point to campuses like Chicago and Northwestern, where administration has been in dialogue with the protesters and has forged a path that has allowed for protest action while also preserving the peace.  It can be done.  Step 1 for administration is "don't be fucking assholes."  When you show up spoiling for a fight.....you often get one.  The job of admin should be to forge a path forward that preserves a functioning and safe academic environment.  Not "showing those whiny bitches who's boss," which then results in over-the-top pushback, which commences a full shitshow.

[wildcat09 29146]

If anyone thinks the situation at Columbia has gotten to where it is now because officials ignored it you haven't paid any attention to it. Officials there escalated the situation same as Hartzell did at UT.

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So, I presume that you are pissed off when the cops don't pull you over for going 56 in a 55?  When you've had some drinks at the tailgate, and while under control, are clearly intoxicated in public, and the cop just smiles at you and lets you walk by?  Law enforcement and the prosecutors having the good judgment to not go full "ARREST, TRY, AND EXECUTE THEM ALL!" on every single TECHNICAL violation of the law is absolutely necessary for a functioning society.

So, yeah, the approach that the U of Chicago has taken is a damned good chess move.

Sure.  The protests at Columbia have gotten way out of hand, and I am all for law enforcement clearing them out of the hall and their encampment.

But....if you're going to point to campuses where the law didn't go full Gestapo, maybe you oughta point to campuses like Chicago and Northwestern, where administration has been in dialogue with the protesters and has forged a path that has allowed for protest action while also preserving the peace.  It can be done.  Step 1 for administration is "don't be fucking assholes."  When you show up spoiling for a fight.....you often get one.  The job of admin should be to forge a path forward that preserves a functioning and safe academic environment.  Not "showing those whiny bitches who's boss," which then results in over-the-top pushback, which commences a full shitshow.

Brisket, you're an attorney and you know better than this.  There is a difference between what a private university like Chicago or Northwestern can do and what a public university like UT can do.  If UT chooses not to enforce its rules against this group because they are protesting for a 'good cause' then UT can't enforce its rules against any group.  Otherwise, that would be viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the first amendment.  It's all or nothing when it comes to enforcing the rules as a public institution, and it sounds like this group intended to and did violate UT's rules.    

[HendersonHorns 85]

7 minutes ago, Make em eat Taco Bell said:

the pro-Pals should not hinder movement of anyone, into buildings or grass fields, but there is nothing antisemitic about being against Israel, shouting at Jewish students, or even wanting to destroy Israel. 

I’m not disagreeing with you.
 

But for campuses to put safe spaces around colleges for people doesn’t make sense if this goes on.  Does what I’m saying make sense?  
 

The last ten years (ish) have been about inclusion and minority students being safe.   
 

i see both sides, just like with most political arguments. But I do side with the kids on this. In Austin. Let me be clear. 

[Brisketexan 104226]

49 minutes ago, troph said:

first amendment does not protect all speech and neither you nor I are there to hear what is being said.  it doesn't protect any assembly either. frankly I side more on the side of the first amendment here, but it's not carte blanche to do or say anything. I don't think the assemblers are interested in full compliance with first amendment laws.

Of course it doesn't protect ALL speech (we've already discussed the fact that it doesn't protect calls for violence, direct threats, and the like -- to the extent that any of those happen, the individual speaker is subject to having their speech shut down).  But he posters I have pointed to above are not attacking the speakers because of a specific call for violence, but rather because those speakers "support" a regime they hate, call for the end of Israel, etc.  I may agree that those positions are shitty....but "shitty" is not an exception to the First Amendment.  That's what the problem is here -- content-based repression of speech, across the board (again, they aren't just nabbing someone who said "kill that jew over there" or something like that.  They're shutting down the entire protest).

24 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

That's not an opinion, it's a supposition.  And it runs counter to Hartzell's text saying he requested DPS presence.  Unless your supposition is also that Abbott ordered Hartzell to request DPS presence, Hartzell requested their presence, and then Hartzell lied to a state senator about the source of the request.  

 

17 minutes ago, Blotto said:

you have correctly surmised my opinion. 

And mine.  I am confident that's exactly what happened, AND Hartzell was told that if he wants to keep his fucking job, he needs to say it was all his idea.

Once you have experience with how this particular governor's office works, you know that's exactly what happened.

[TKthunder2 4973]

13 minutes ago, Make em eat Taco Bell said:

the pro-Pals should not hinder movement of anyone, into buildings or grass fields, but there is nothing antisemitic about being against Israel, shouting at Jewish students, or even wanting to destroy Israel. 

I agree with this first part but you lose me here. If a white guys is yelling at only black people it is racist same would go for anyone targeting Jews. “Destroy Israel” yeah that doesn’t come off as antisemitic at all…

[Nicole44 22016]

51 minutes ago, troph said:

first amendment does not protect all speech and neither you nor I are there to hear what is being said.  it doesn't protect any assembly either. frankly I side more on the side of the first amendment here, but it's not carte blanche to do or say anything. I don't think the assemblers are interested in full compliance with first amendment laws.

Thank you Troph.
 

You said what I wanted to say. I’m not good at brevity. I’m like a shitty pitcher. It takes me forever to wind up to my point/throw the ball. People then think the opposite of what I’m trying to convey. If you look at the demonstration on the Texas State campus they are calling for their university to cut all ties with Israel.

im all for the first amendment and for protesting. I walked with those downtown protesting after George Floyd. I was proud to do so.
 

My heart is in the right place but for some reason if you question the motives of the protesters and their end game here you are in league with vomit Orange Cheeto Trump and his peeps. Or you live Gov Abbott and I do not.
 

 I’m not and never have been in their corner.  But it’s a reason I stopped posting as much.especially on the DT.  I’d rather go where I’m understood better on political issues. It’s not all black and white to me. 
 

anyway, good point and I guess I’ll get negged again for breathing on the DT. 
 

rather try to find a missing autistic boy on other platforms than get pummeled for seeing what these protests were from the jump. 
 

doesn’t mean I’m not interested or won’t post on football or other things. But there is this need to attack any opinion that doesn’t align with the group. And we all know mobs and groups aren’t exactly the sharpest people.

[Brisketexan 104226]

3 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Brisket, you're an attorney and you know better than this.  There is a difference between what a private university like Chicago or Northwestern can do and what a public university like UT can do.  If UT chooses not to enforce its rules against this group because they are protesting for a 'good cause' then UT can't enforce its rules against any group.  Otherwise, that would be viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the first amendment.  It's all or nothing when it comes to enforcing the rules as a public institution, and it sounds like this group intended to and did violate UT's rules.    

Your blanket statement is false.  If UT chooses to waive a rule in the interest of keeping the peace, that is not dispositive as to all future actions (regardless of viewpoint).  It can be evidence, yes, which is why a well-run entity documents the action, the reasoning therefor, and all communications with the protesting group to that effect.   And further, the mechanism of enforcement is also quite discretionary.  One doesn't have to go right to "deploy a Roman phalanx with tear gas and truncheons."

[Hate 20095]

On 4/25/2024 at 5:00 PM, Brisketexan said:

See, the fact that my office in Austin has never been attacked by tigers is PROOF that my use of Brisketexan's Patented Tiger Repellent works!

How fucking breathtakingly stupid.

Your office has a spiral staircase?

[Make em eat Taco Bell 1549]

Just now, TKthunder2 said:

I agree with this first part but you lose me here. If a white guys is yelling at only black people it is racist same would go for anyone targeting Jews. “Destroy Israel” yeah that doesn’t come off as antisemitic at all…

if Nigeria was a racist military dictatorship and blacks were wholly in favor of it, then shouting at pro Nigerian blacks (once properly identified) is not racist against blacks.  If a regular black guy (Jew in our case) is randomly walking down the street and is attacked verbally or physically, that's obviously wrong. And finally, wanting to destroy Nigeria is not hateful of blacks, especially if Nigeria was formed on top of a native Euro-white population and expelled.  Make sense? 

 

[wildcat09 29146]

11 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Brisket, you're an attorney and you know better than this.  There is a difference between what a private university like Chicago or Northwestern can do and what a public university like UT can do.  If UT chooses not to enforce its rules against this group because they are protesting for a 'good cause' then UT can't enforce its rules against any group.  Otherwise, that would be viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the first amendment.  It's all or nothing when it comes to enforcing the rules as a public institution, and it sounds like this group intended to and did violate UT's rules.    

Arguing that UT had to crack down on speech harder than private institutions specifically because of its public status sure is a take. 

[Brisketexan 104226]

4 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

I agree with this first part but you lose me here. If a white guys is yelling at only black people it is racist same would go for anyone targeting Jews. “Destroy Israel” yeah that doesn’t come off as antisemitic at all…

Racist speech, so long as it doesn't call for violence or make specific threats of violence to individuals and the like - abhorrent as it is - is generally going to be protected speech as well.  To be clear, antisemitic speech, so long as it remains non-violent in its messaging, is legal.  I hate it.  I don't agree with it.  But for the 1,000th time, we don't get to ban speech just because we don't agree with it and find it loathsome.

[TKthunder2 4973]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Racist speech, so long as it doesn't call for violence or make specific threats of violence to individuals and the like - abhorrent as it is - is generally going to be protected speech as well.  To be clear, antisemitic speech, so long as it remains non-violent in its messaging, is legal.  I hate it.  I don't agree with it.  But for the 1,000th time, we don't get to ban speech just because we don't agree with it and find it loathsome.

I didn’t argue that it wasn’t protected speech, only that I find this statement factually incorrect.

“but there is nothing antisemitic about being against Israel, shouting at Jewish students, or even wanting to destroy Israel. “
 

Like you said racist speech is protected but it’s still racist.

[Incredulity 11440]

5 minutes ago, Hate said:

Your office has a spiral staircase?

also shag carpet and a conversation pit.

 

built in the 50's

[Brisketexan 104226]

Just now, Incredulity said:

also shag carpet and a conversation pit.

 

built in the 50's

I.  Fucking.  Wish.  Would be the coolest office in town.

[troph 24498]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Of course it doesn't protect ALL speech (we've already discussed the fact that it doesn't protect calls for violence, direct threats, and the like -- to the extent that any of those happen, the individual speaker is subject to having their speech shut down).  But he posters I have pointed to above are not attacking the speakers because of a specific call for violence, but rather because those speakers "support" a regime they hate, call for the end of Israel, etc.  I may agree that those positions are shitty....but "shitty" is not an exception to the First Amendment.  That's what the problem is here -- content-based repression of speech, across the board (again, they aren't just nabbing someone who said "kill that jew over there" or something like that.  They're shutting down the entire protest).

 

And mine.  I am confident that's exactly what happened, AND Hartzell was told that if he wants to keep his fucking job, he needs to say it was all his idea.

Once you have experience with how this particular governor's office works, you know that's exactly what happened.

I would expect from moment one there were violations that were not merely insignificant violations of first amendment laws by the protesters and I would not be surprised at all if some of it was intentional. Hell the president of Chicago is essentially putting his campus assemblers on blast for exactly that.

You know I’m reasonable and progressive and as an attorney very pro-first amendment and anti-fascist. 

this situation has been completely fucked up on both sides. It’s not black and white the assemblers are right and the government is wrong. That said I still lean heavily toward the assemblers POV here just not 100%. 
 

Edited April 30 by troph

[InkaUtexas 25289]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I.  Fucking.  Wish.  Would be the coolest office in town.

Better have a wet bar.

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Arguing that UT had to crack down on speech harder than private institutions specifically because of its public status sure is a take. 

Nothing in my statement leads to this conclusion.  UT "cracking down" on impermissible actions regardless of whether it agrees with the content of the speech related to those actions is the opposite.  Private institutions can choose whether to crack down on speech.  UT doesn't get to pick and choose.  If someone or a group is violating UT's rules, they need to act regardless of the content of that speech.  Otherwise, UT has just creating the playbook for every other group to come onto campus and violate UT's rules.  

[Brisketexan 104226]

1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

Better have a wet bar.

But then where do I put the hi-fi?

[Mikey4 2476]

25 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

But there is this need to attack any opinion that doesn’t align with the group. And we all know mobs and groups aren’t exactly the sharpest people.

Exactly why I avoid CR and generally avoid DT as well. 

Edited April 30 by Mikey4

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Your blanket statement is false.  If UT chooses to waive a rule in the interest of keeping the peace, that is not dispositive as to all future actions (regardless of viewpoint).  It can be evidence, yes, which is why a well-run entity documents the action, the reasoning therefor, and all communications with the protesting group to that effect.   And further, the mechanism of enforcement is also quite discretionary.  One doesn't have to go right to "deploy a Roman phalanx with tear gas and truncheons."

To the first part of your response: even if UT can choose to waive its rules in the interest of keeping the peace, all that does is create the playbook for every other group to come to campus and violate UT's rules.  Are you the KKK and you want to protest against the abolition of slavery in violation of UT's rules?  Tell them you are going to violate the rules ahead of time and occupy campus.  Start at Greg, move to the South Mall, and set up a tent encampment.  Make sure to wear your masks. 

To the second part of your response: I agree that using mounted troopers and anti-riot tactics created some awful images, but I'm curious about how you would prefer UT to have acted.  Do they send a couple of low-paid dean of students admins to try and disperse the crowd?  Send the entirety of the UTPD police force to that one area of campus and still be out numbered?    

[bolverk 29261]

1 hour ago, HendersonHorns said:

I think this one goes with your examples. 
 

 

 

1 hour ago, lucious leftfoot said:

Exactly. 
 

I’m sure a sizable percentage of the participants saw what happened at Columbia last night and thought, oh cool.  
 

You should go join them. This obviously means a lot to you. We could use some boots on the ground reporting. 

 

1 hour ago, lucious leftfoot said:

Do you think it has nothing to do with protests “sticking” and escalating on campuses around the country? I think Hartzell didn’t want the hassle, embarrassment and ultimately danger of a potential tent city of militant protestors established on campus. Columbia is a bit of a vindication for him honestly. Hands off and disregarding the rules leads to fucked up shit happening. 
 

Maybe those guys know to follow the rules around protesting?  I have no idea but they do wear nice, pressed khakis with a tucked in polo.

 

39 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If anyone thinks the situation at Columbia has gotten to where it is now because officials ignored it you haven't paid any attention to it. Officials there escalated the situation same as Hartzell did at UT.

 

36 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Brisket, you're an attorney and you know better than this.  There is a difference between what a private university like Chicago or Northwestern can do and what a public university like UT can do.  If UT chooses not to enforce its rules against this group because they are protesting for a 'good cause' then UT can't enforce its rules against any group.  Otherwise, that would be viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the first amendment.  It's all or nothing when it comes to enforcing the rules as a public institution, and it sounds like this group intended to and did violate UT's rules.    

 

It's becoming increasingly difficult to muddle through all the various hot takes about other places to find information about what's happening on OUR university campus. Anyone who'd like to discuss protests NOT taking place on the UT campus, please feel free to do so in this brand new thread.

Thank you.

[956 Worldwide 34241]

I regret to inform you all that there are no sex tents at the GWU protests.

 

[Brisketexan 104226]

Just now, Longhornfan1024 said:

To the first part of your response: even if UT can choose to waive its rules in the interest of keeping the peace, all that does is create the playbook for every other group to come to campus and violate UT's rules.  Are you the KKK and you want to protest against the abolition of slavery in violation of UT's rules?  Tell them you are going to violate the rules ahead of time and occupy campus.  Start at Greg, move to the South Mall, and set up a tent encampment.  Make sure to wear your masks. 

To the second part of your response: I agree that using mounted troopers and anti-riot tactics created some awful images, but I'm curious about how you would prefer UT to have acted.  Do they send a couple of low-paid dean of students admins to try and disperse the crowd?  Send the entirety of the UTPD police force to that one area of campus and still be out numbered?    

The playbook has existed for years.  It's just that this regime doesn't want to follow it.  The playbook is: take incremental steps.  Start with non-uniformed administrators/officials visiting with the protest leaders to discuss the process, and obtain clarity.  Then, have a handful of uniformed campus police do the same.  Issue a direct warning and directive, ideally telling the protesters how they can continue the protest within the rules (e.g., "based on your current intentions as you have stated them, so long as you remove the tents, remove face coverings, and leave by 10:00 pm, being free to return when campus opens at 7:00 am, we will not take any action to disperse the protest.")  You then obtain the response from the protesters.  Then you send out a larger group of police to disperse them.  If/when the protesters respond with violence (throwing rocks, etc.), then you bring in a larger show of force in riot gear.  

That is a solid evidentiary record to demonstrate that you have attempted to accommodate all reasonable First Amendment protected activity.

And you should do that with every group.  Yes, including the KKK.