UT Pro-Palestine Protest Thread

[Blotto 23418]

25 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

also shag carpet and a conversation pit.

 

built in the 50's

I believe that's known as a shagging pit. 

[Brisketexan 104462]

Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

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

 

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

[bolverk 29359]

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/

[Dahobbs 17420]

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. 

[Make em eat Taco Bell 1549]

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.  

[Skipper 6088]

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.

 

 

[texashorne 1177]

29 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

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

 

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

[Dahobbs 17420]

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 April 30 by Dahobbs

[Skipper 6088]

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.

[Skipper 6088]

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.

[InkaUtexas 25423]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

But then where do I put the hi-fi?

Is this your staff?

[Frank Drebin 5625]

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.

[InkaUtexas 25423]

51 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

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

 

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

[jimmyjazz 45512]

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.

[Incredulity 11532]

1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

Is this your staff?

the thought of watching that TV gives me a headache.

[Foosters 17691]

17 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.

 

 

I saw what happened the last time a large group of people wearing MAGA gear marched on a building. We can't let that happen again, obviously, so we should start cracking skulls when they start to gather.

Ok, I'm sold.

[Incredulity 11532]

54 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

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

 

"self advocate"

Thats not going to be a problem.

[Deej 76510]

1 hour ago, Nicole44 said:

rather try to find a missing autistic boy

He's in Town Lake, isn't he? 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11796]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

But then where do I put the hi-fi?

Needs more macrame, IMO.  Like a swing.

[Dahobbs 17420]

2 minutes ago, Skipper said:

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.

I don't care if an "encampment was coming." You don't get to shut down free speech based on what you think will happen. Period. 

As I said last week, once the protesters get violent, threatening, or violate reasonable restrictions, then you can act more forcefully. Not before then. I'm still not convinced that "no tents" is a reasonable restriction. And, the 2019 Texas law makes the protests at UT, and the restrictions the University can reasonably put in place, in a significantly different posture than the protests at other campuses. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

4 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

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.

The protests were shutdown before they were started. There was zero evidence because nothing had happened yet. Riot police because a few people are wearing masks is hardly a reasonable or appropriate response. I'll also add that prior case law on mask restrictions being reasonable I'd argue has questionable relevance in the post-Covid era. 

[Skipper 6088]

6 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I saw what happened the last time a large group of people wearing MAGA gear marched on a building. We can't let that happen again, obviously, so we should start cracking skulls when they start to gather.

Ok, I'm sold.

MAGA gathers on campus intentionally violating policy I would be the first one cheering on the police beating their ass and calling bullshit if they were treated differently.

[jimmyjazz 45512]

How in the blue hell is it legal or even desirable to ban facemasks on campus?  Has anyone been paying attention the last four years?

[Chuckie Finster 22583]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm still not convinced that "no tents" is a reasonable restriction. 

Turning the south mall into a tent village is a pretty strong red line for me, regardless of the cause.  Genuinely surprised that so many on here don't seem to care. 

[hayden_horn 11360]

if only the protesters would stop nonviolently breaking stupid rules. it's almost like stupid rules are put in place to be broken so those making the rules can make some examples or of the rule breakers

don't yall see the protesters are making the cops do this???

[Dahobbs 17420]

4 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Turning the south mall into a tent village is a pretty strong red line for me, regardless of the cause.  Genuinely surprised that so many on here don't seem to care. 

Why? It is a public forum under Texas law. If the tents aren't disrupting class, I'm failing to see the issue. Now, if you're talking about staying overnight and essentially living on campus, yes, that would be a problem. Tents during the middle of the day? That doesn't seem like a clear cut reasonable restriction to me. 

Edited April 30 by Dahobbs

[Frank Drebin 5625]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

How in the blue hell is it legal or even desirable to ban facemasks on campus?  Has anyone been paying attention the last four years?

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/232/205/2521217/

Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kerik (2d Cir. 2004)

[Chuckie Finster 22583]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Why? It is a public forum under Texas law. If the tents aren't disrupting class, I'm failing to see the issue. Now, if you're talking about staying overnight and essentially living on campus, yes, that would be a problem. Tents during the middle of the day? That doesn't seem like a clear cut reasonable restriction to me. 

... do you think these kids put up tents with the intention to take them down at the end of each day ?

[Frank Drebin 5625]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Why? It is a public forum under Texas law. If the tents aren't disrupting class, I'm failing to see the issue. Now, if you're talking about staying overnight and essentially living on campus, yes, that would be a problem. Tents during the middle of the day? That doesn't seem like a clear cut reasonable restriction to me. 

You may not like them.  But those bans and the bans on masks are very likely enforceable by a reviewing court.

[jimmyjazz 45512]

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

... do you think these kids put up tents with the intention to take them down at the end of each day ?

I'm not fond of the no-tent "rule", but why not (and I know this is crazy talk) wait until they refuse to take down the few tents that were actually up?

[Skipper 6088]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

if only the protesters would stop nonviolently breaking stupid rules. it's almost like stupid rules are put in place to be broken so those seeing the rules can mccabe some examples

don't yall see the protesters are making the cops do this???

If your position is Texas not allowing the South Mall to turn into a tent city is a "stupid rule" - I had to tell you that I'm confident you have an extreme minority position.

[jimmyjazz 45512]

2 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/232/205/2521217/

Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kerik (2d Cir. 2004)

2002?  Really?  Again, did you pay attention to what happened in spring 2020?  Were facemasks BANNED then, or were they eventually REQUIRED?

[Skipper 6088]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not fond of the no-tent "rule", but why not (and I know this is crazy talk) wait until they refuse to take down the few tents that were actually up?

Ummm.... That's exactly what happened yesterday dude.   

[Mikey4 2476]

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm still not convinced that "no tents" is a reasonable restriction. 

How is "no tents" a restriction on free speech at all? Do your protest. Just don't set up tents.

[jimmyjazz 45512]

Just now, Skipper said:

If your position is Texas not allowing the South Mall to turn into a tent city is a "stupid rule" - I had to tell you that I'm confident you have an extreme minority position.

NOBODY TRIED TO TURN IT INTO A TENT CITY.

For fuck's sake.  Respond to the action, not the imagined action.

[Skipper 6088]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

2002?  Really?  Again, did you pay attention to what happened in spring 2020?  Were facemasks BANNED then, or were they eventually REQUIRED?

Of all things can we leave COVID nonsense out of this thread.  JFC

[jimmyjazz 45512]

Just now, Skipper said:

Ummm.... That's exactly what happened yesterday dude.   

Overnight camping.  That's the pearl-clutching of the day.  Try to keep up.

[BabaYaga 15202]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

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

 

[Frank Drebin 5625]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

2002?  Really?  Again, did you pay attention to what happened in spring 2020?  Were facemasks BANNED then, or were they eventually REQUIRED?

You think we are still in the spring of 2020?

Of course not.  If a pandemic was going on, that would be a factor.  It isn't.  

[Alien Octopus 499]

2 hours 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.

Oh so this solely about 1A. Lock thread.

 

I am not overstating anything. The SJP funds these groups. There is a very long history of this NGO inciting violence and making lethal threats against Jews. The ADL has an extensive list that is public. The source of funding for these groups is an NGO that is funded by the Muslim Brotherhood Qatar. You can do a simple search of the campus student committees and the SJP and see for yourself. As for peacefully stating their position, the next time they do that will be the first time. 

[jimmyjazz 45512]

Just now, Frank Drebin said:

You think we are still in the spring of 2020?

Of course not.  If a pandemic was going on, that would be a factor.  It isn't.  

No, I'm pushing back on the idea that facemasks should be banned, given that they weren't.  Keep up, sack.

[Frank Drebin 5625]

2 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

How is "no tents" a restriction on free speech at all? Do your protest. Just don't set up tents.

Exactly.  The issue with tents is that by setting them up, you are excluding others from using the public space.  You are literally occupying public space.

You can certainly occupy whatever public space you want with your body.  You don't get to use your body to occupy a public space and then a tent to occupy or reserve additional public space.

I can't go wheel in my deer blind that's on a trailer either. 

[Brisketexan 104462]

7 minutes ago, Skipper said:

If your position is Texas not allowing the South Mall to turn into a tent city is a "stupid rule" - I had to tell you that I'm confident you have an extreme minority position.

Really?  Because we allow portions of campus and other state property to be turned into a "tent city" with great frequency and regularity.  Or, perhaps you've never been on campus on a football weekend, with tents all over?  Now, all of those circumstances have a rule to protect the overriding interest of the state and the university to not be turned into a permanent/overnight encampment: tents can only go up at a certain time, and must be taken down by a certain time.  I'm sure that if you leave your tent up on a state lot after hours, and refuse to vacate, DPS will remove you and your tent.  But to argue that a blanket "no tents, ever, for any amount of time" rule is necessary to protect the interest of that public property flies in the face of the fact that we have a different rule when you're putting up a tent for the purpose of celebrating longhorn football.

A rule that says "no tents can remain after hours/no overnight camping" would make perfect sense, and would almost certainly be enforceable as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.  The fact that I can put up a picture of the university and state property covered in tents on other dates for a different purpose demonstrates that the university actually does not need or enforce a strict "no tents ever" policy.  Nor should it.  Because that blanket policy would be dumb as hell.

Edited April 30 by Brisketexan

[Frank Drebin 5625]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

No, I'm pushing back on the idea that facemasks should be banned, given that they weren't.  Keep up, sack.

They are now.  Keep up.

They can challenge it in court.  But right now, in 2024, you cannot wear face masks in these protests.  Maybe a court will determine that restriction is overly broad.  But I doubt it.

[YGIFS 19449]

So there is no sex in the GW champagne tent?  

[Brisketexan 104462]

4 minutes ago, Alien Octopus said:

As for peacefully stating their position, the next time they do that will be the first time. 

Really.....so you didn't hear any statements, see any signs, etc. from the UT student protests that peacefully stated their position?  Way to tell us that you haven't seen any of the photos or video.

[Frank Drebin 5625]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Really?  Because we allow portions of campus and other state property to be turned into a "tent city" with great frequency and regularity.  Or, perhaps you've never been on campus on a football weekend, with tents all over?  Now, all of those circumstances have a rule to protect the overriding interest of the state and the university to not be turned into a permanent/overnight encampment: tents can only go up at a certain time, and must be taken down by a certain time.  I'm sure that if you leave your tent up on a state lot after hours, and refuse to vacate, DPS will remove you and your tent.  But to argue that a blanket "no tents, ever, for any amount of time" rule is necessary to protect the interest of that public property flies in the face of the fact that we have a different rule when you're putting up a tent for the purpose of celebrating longhorn football.

A rule that says "no tents can remain after hours/no overnight camping" would make perfect sense, and would almost certainly be enforceable as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.  The fact that I can put up a picture of the university and state property covered in tents on other dates for a different purpose demonstrates that the university actually does not need or enforce a strict "no tents ever" policy.  Nor should it.  Because that blanket policy would be dumb as hell.

Aren't tailgate tents permitted and paid for and only in designated spots?

Or do people just throw them up ad hoc on South Mall grass?  Been years since I have been to a game.

[Longhorn94 2427]

look... part of the point of a protest is to make everyone uncomfortable. if setting up tents is a violation of the rule and it was intentional, then yes, the protesters are pushing the boundaries and trying to make people uncomfortable. they are pushing for a response. its kind of the point of the protest. it draws attention in general and then specifically to their cause. i think its predictable and reasonable. its also reasonable for the police to break it up and enforce the rules. its predictable and reasonable. but at no time should either side become violent. its just not worth it to either side. the police should persist in a peaceful and patient manner for as long as it takes to enforce the rules until the protesters comply, including arrests. but they shouldn't be in riot gear. they shouldn't use pepper spray. they shouldn't forcibly remove anyone. they should keep doing everything they can in a peaceful way to enforce the rules. use your words. use reason and logic. and use patience. also, be smart. eventually they will comply and follow the rules. all of this applies to the protesters too. no violence. just peaceful protests. pushing the boundaries and knowing that you might get arrested. its part of the process. escalating and threatening on both sides is the worst thing you could do.

 

I do the same thing with my kids. I don't beat them or hit them or force them to do something. I am more determined and patient than they are. I diffuse the situation and wait for them to comply with my request. I never give in and I never get violent. I am pleasantly persistent. but I also listen to them and make them feel valued. what is the point? what message are you trying to communicate? how can we assist you with accomplishing your goal of having your message heard? sure it takes longer than cracking skulls but it usually ends in lessons learned on boths sides.

[F250 28659]

35 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

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

It means stay off the ledge.

[Skipper 6088]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Really?  Because we allow portions of campus and other state property to be turned into a "tent city" with great frequency and regularity.  Or, perhaps you've never been on campus on a football weekend, with tents all over?  Now, all of those circumstances have a rule to protect the overriding interest of the state and the university to not be turned into a permanent/overnight encampment: tents can only go up at a certain time, and must be taken down by a certain time.  I'm sure that if you leave your tent up on a state lot after hours, and refuse to vacate, DPS will remove you and your tent.  But to argue that a blanket "no tents, ever, for any amount of time" rule is necessary to protect the interest of that public property flies in the face of the fact that we have a different rule when you're putting up a tent for the purpose of celebrating longhorn football.

A rule that says "no tents can remain after hours/no overnight camping" would make perfect sense, and would almost certainly be enforceable as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.  The fact that I can put up a picture of the university and state property covered in tents on other dates for a different purpose demonstrates that the university actually does not need or enforce a strict "no tents ever" policy.  Nor should it.  Because that blanket policy would be dumb as hell.

JFC Brisket. This isn't a law school exam.   If "the cops shouldn't have arrested them until 10PM" is the hill you are going to die on, fine.   But we all know damn well their goal was to push past the line in the sand and get arrested yesterday whether that happened at 2PM or 10PM.   There is exactly a zero percent chance they picked up their tent and went home at sundown.

Edited April 30 by Skipper