Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
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 by lucious leftfoot
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 6
Posted
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.  

Posted (edited)
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 by Longhornfan1024
Posted (edited)
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!!!)

AP23133793238534-768x512.jpg

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 by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
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.

6cdbd26f-2673-4698-b015-a863eb3978bf_text.gif.33b9aa2efd50bec9a23c27b20d2deaa3.gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
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.”

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
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. 

Posted
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.  

Posted
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. 

Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
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.    

Posted
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. 

Posted
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.

Posted
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…

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
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."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
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?

  • Haha 3
Posted
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? 

 

Posted
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. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
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 by troph
Posted
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.  

Posted (edited)
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 by Mikey4
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
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?    

Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

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

image.thumb.jpeg.46830855547b8051645800d219eaab6d.jpeg 

And had you told college-Brisket "hey, you can go to this protest, but we have a strict rule against you getting laid".......

no-randy-jackson.png

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

A bit earlier, I was listening to the Texas Standard and a KUT reporter who was being interviewed said at least 10 protestors who'd been arrested had to get medical attention. One apparently had been struck by a DPS motorcycle, and another may have had a "bad reaction to chemicals" (pepper spray?). 

More detailed information I came across:

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/29/university-texas-pro-palestinian-protest-arrest/

Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

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.

And, to be really clear on this, last week the administration told the protesters they could not hold their event at all. And, according to Hartzell's own words, he did it on the basis the term "occupy" in a social media post indicated a clear desire to violate campus rules. That reasoning is more than a bit suspect. And obviously the message of "no" provided zero guidance on how the protest could proceed within the rules. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
32 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

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.

it's not racist or antisemitic to shout at Jewish students. They are fair game and it's not because they are Jewish but showing signs of being pro Israel such as a sign or wearing the Israeli flag. Then again, calling them "kike" is too much and racist, but "Zionazi" is ok with me.  

Posted
28 minutes ago, troph said:

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.

I read the U of Chicago statement many praised.  I think there is a reasonable argument it is the correct approach.  I also think it's 50/50 whether they end up requesting the police take action before this is over.  They took a strong position without drawing any clear lines in the sand.  I know how that works with my kids.  Personally I prefer UF's statement that their campus isn't a daycare.

For anyone saying what has happened on other campuses is irrelevant to the discussion of what is going on at UT's campus I completely disagree.  Those campuses are real world examples of what has happened when you let "protestors" violate university policies without consequence.  It is absolutely a critical piece of the analysis.  Because that reality100% influenced this universities response.  Like others have said, there have been protests for months without issue.  Only recently have the protestors decided they weren't getting enough attention and ramped things up.   And by the way, UT is absolutely not alone in taking a firm stance this week regarding encampments.  If people want to focus on what happened last week, fine, I'll agree the response was probably over the top.   But Texas made it abundantly clear no encampments were permitted.  Those students yesterday intentionally crossed that line and Texas didn't blink.   

There are reasonable discussions and debate to be had around first amendment and what the line should be but I don't think it's a coincidence that those most outraged screaming "fascism" over and over are a combination of those that have been the most critical of Israel for months on this forum and those so obsessed with MAGA/Abbot that they look at any excuse to yell at the clouds.  I doubt many have the same energy if police cleared out the KKK after setting up tents on campus.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
29 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

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

image.thumb.jpeg.46830855547b8051645800d219eaab6d.jpeg 

After seeing pictures of the protestors I am relieved there is no sex being had

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Skipper said:

I read the U of Chicago statement many praised.  I think there is a reasonable argument it is the correct approach.  I also think it's 50/50 whether they end up requesting the police take action before this is over.  They took a strong position without drawing any clear lines in the sand.  I know how that works with my kids.  Personally I prefer UF's statement that their campus isn't a daycare.

For anyone saying what has happened on other campuses is irrelevant to the discussion of what is going on at UT's campus I completely disagree.  Those campuses are real world examples of what has happened when you let "protestors" violate university policies without consequence.  It is absolutely a critical piece of the analysis.  Because that reality100% influenced this universities response.  Like others have said, there have been protests for months without issue.  Only recently have the protestors decided they weren't getting enough attention and ramped things up.   And by the way, UT is absolutely not alone in taking a firm stance this week regarding encampments.  If people want to focus on what happened last week, fine, I'll agree the response was probably over the top.   But Texas made it abundantly clear no encampments were permitted.  Those students yesterday intentionally crossed that line and Texas didn't blink.   

There are reasonable discussions and debate to be had around first amendment and what the line should be but I don't think it's a coincidence that those most outraged screaming "fascism" over and over are a combination of those that have been the most critical of Israel for months on this forum and those so obsessed with MAGA/Abbot that they look at any excuse to yell at the clouds.  I doubt many have the same energy if police cleared out the KKK after setting up tents on campus.

There was zero evidence of any substantial violation of campus rules last week when protected activity was violently stifled. I don't get how you just brush past that by saying "well, some stuff happened elsewhere." No shit things are more heated now AFTER what happened last week. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted
8 minutes ago, texashorne said:

After seeing pictures of the protestors I am relieved there is no sex being had

At least being considerate of hygiene is #2 on the list.

Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

There was zero evidence of any substantial violation of campus rules last week when protected activity was violently stifled. I don't get how you just brush past that by saying "well, some stuff happened elsewhere." No shit things are more heated now AFTER what happened last week. 

If you want to say the University jumped the gun last week, fine, but you all are living in a fantasy world if you don't think an 'encampment' was coming to campus if UT didn't act.  "Protestors" are trying to set them up all over the country this week.  You think this copycat tik tok generation was going to be content holding hands and singing kumbaya?

UT fucked up last week but I have zero problem with yesterday.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

There was zero evidence of any substantial violation of campus rules last week when protected activity was violently stifled. I don't get how you just brush past that by saying "well, some stuff happened elsewhere." No shit things are more heated now AFTER what happened last week. 

That is untrue.  Plenty last week were wearing masks/disguising their faces.  Which is against campus rules that have been posted many times in this thread.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
51 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

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

image.thumb.jpeg.46830855547b8051645800d219eaab6d.jpeg 

What the fuck is Revolutionary Optimism? Making sure your Che Guevarra is smiling?

Posted
3 hours 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.

Why would he do that?  He'd see it as being weak and hypocritical, and he'd be right in that assessment.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...