Echoes of Colonialism: The Struggle for Space and Speech in Academic Institutions

a reply to: Dandandat3

You seem to be missing the forest for the trees here, and your attempt to simplify this issue to a mere mismanagement of reservations not only shows a lack of understanding but also a dismissive attitude towards the principles of free expression. This isn't a trivial case of "first come, first serve" that you're trying to make it out to be; it's a calculated exploitation of university policies, deliberately timed to silence a specific political group. It's not about being "mean-spirited" or not; it's about using administrative tools to strategically block dissent, which is antithetical to the very essence of academic freedom.

To suggest that the pro-Palestine group should just "reserve next time" completely glosses over the manipulative tactics used here. This isn’t some playground squabble where you shake it off and wait for your next turn; this is a systematic suppression of a voice in a setting that's supposed to champion open dialogue and debate. Your casual dismissal of this as part of life's ups and downs is not only patronizing but also dangerously negligent of the real issue: the weaponization of procedural rules to enforce ideological conformity.

Moreover, framing this as a simple life lesson is an insult to the intelligence of everyone involved. This isn’t about learning to navigate university bureaucracy; it's about recognizing and confronting the misuse of that bureaucracy to undermine fundamental rights. If you think this is just about following rules, then you're either not paying attention or you're wilfully ignoring the broader implications of such actions. Either way, it's clear you've not grasped the severity of what's at stake here, which is the integrity of academic freedom and the equitable treatment of all voices on campus.

a reply to: BigRedChew

You do realize that Jews can and do want to expess themselves too. They have the right to free speech as well. They aren't animals.

You are trying to pick which groups are more worth of expressing themselves and deciding the other group shouldn't.

Thats what the rules are for; so we don't have to arbitrarily choose who is more worthy ... the group that signs up first wins. Simply, easy and no need to choose who has a better reason to expess themselves.



"planned spontaneous events" is an oxymoron. If the events are planned then they aren't spontaneous, a part of that planning should be to reserve the spot.

In fact according to your story the event was planned to such a detail that after learning of the event another group had time and forethought to reserve the spot first.... that really doesn't sound spontaneous at all.




And by the by; it's not condescending and dismissive for someone to disagree with your interpretations of reality. That's life too; not everyone is going to agree with you, it doesn't mean they are being condescension.

a reply to: Dandandat3

Your points misunderstand and misrepresent the issues so profoundly that it's hard to believe we’re discussing the same situation. Your assertion that this debate is about who "wins" the right to speak based on reservation timeliness is a gross simplification of the fundamental principles of free speech and equality in an academic environment.

Firstly, the concept of “planned spontaneous events” is not an oxymoron within the context of university free speech policies. These policies are designed to allow students to express urgent or timely political and social concerns without the bureaucratic hurdle of reservations, which is crucial in a dynamic academic environment where issues evolve rapidly. The pro-Palestine group’s demonstration falls precisely under this policy intent—mobilizing quickly in response to ongoing or emergent issues without weeks of prior planning.

Secondly, suggesting that the Jewish groups simply exercised their right to free speech by reserving the space first is to blatantly ignore the strategic manipulation involved. This isn’t about free speech; it’s about leveraging procedural rules in a way that effectively silences a specific group during a critical time. The fact that another group could pre-emptively reserve the space upon learning of the pro-Palestine event indicates a use of foreknowledge and reservation systems not to promote their own expression, but to block that of others.

To reduce this issue to a first-come, first-served model not only trivializes the critical importance of equal access to free expression but also ignores the responsibility of an educational institution to foster an environment where all voices, not just the quickest or the most strategically cunning, are heard. Your point about not having to "choose who has a better reason to express themselves" misses the core of free speech—it should not be about competition for resources, but about ensuring all voices are equitably heard.

You’ve framed this situation as a simple procedural matter, but in doing so, you’ve ignored the larger ethical and philosophical implications—namely, the undermining of the very democratic ideals that underpin our society and academic institutions. This isn’t about one group being "more worthy" than another; it’s about recognizing and rectifying manipulations of the system that threaten the foundational principles of fairness and open dialogue. To overlook this is not just naive; it’s an abdication of our collective responsibility to uphold the integrity of free expression in any meaningful form.

a reply to: BigRedChew

You keep going around in circles.

Everyone has the right to free experience and apparently there is limited space for free expression on the grounds of universities. Some system needs to be in place to meter out the time when disparate groups can use the limited space. A reservation system when there is contention and an open system when there is not sounds like a good policy.

What's your alternative?



Tangent but:

Firstly, the concept of “planned spontaneous events” is not an oxymoron within the context of university free speech policies. These policies are designed to allow students to express urgent or timely political and social concerns without the bureaucratic hurdle of reservations, which is crucial in a dynamic academic environment where issues evolve rapidly. The pro-Palestine group’s demonstration falls precisely under this policy intent—mobilizing quickly in response to ongoing or emergent issues without weeks of prior planning.

If the Jewish groups had time to reserve the spot out from under the Pro-Palestinian group ... then the Pro-Palestinian group had time to reserve the spot as well.



Also Jews can at times feel the need to express urgent or timely political and social concerns ... I'd imagine when Pro-Palestinian groups urgently and timely express their political and social concerns about the jews might be one of those times. What you see as a strategic attempt to ban the second group could just be the first group trying to ensure that they can express their urgent and timely political and social concerns.

a reply to: BigRedChew

So you are an anonymous poster on a website that is a pseudo lawyer from a Progressive University that hates Jews.

Thanks you for introducing yourself.

I hope that between your fake persona and your AI posts that you go far here.

/sarcasm

originally posted by: BigRedChew
a reply to: Dandandat3

It's important to consider the context and purpose of the university's policy on permitless gatherings. This policy was specifically designed to support spontaneous student expression, reflecting a commitment to free speech on campus. The pro-Palestine group was acting entirely within the spirit and letter of this policy by planning a permitless demonstration in the designated area. This approach is rooted in the principle that a university campus should be a place where ideas and viewpoints can be freely expressed without the need for bureaucratic hurdles.

When the rival group used the reservation system to preemptively block the demonstration, it wasn't merely a matter of being "organized" but rather a strategic use of rules to suppress a particular viewpoint. This action goes beyond a simple reservation conflict; it reflects a deeper issue of how administrative rules can be manipulated to favor certain groups or perspectives over others, which is reminiscent of colonial tactics that control and restrict spaces to maintain power.

Describing this as colonialism highlights the systemic nature of such actions, where power dynamics are used to control spaces and limit the freedoms of certain groups under the guise of following rules. This isn't about having "thin skin"; it's about recognizing and challenging how systems can be skewed to suppress minority voices and maintain the status quo.

Moving forward, while it might be practical to reserve spaces to avoid such conflicts, it’s also crucial to address and possibly revise university policies that allow for such manipulations, ensuring they uphold the true spirit of free expression and equitable access for all student groups.

Sound like the school didn't care too much for the rights of terrorists...Palestinians have...were..and will always be terrorists since they have never changed their ways. There is no country recognized as Palestine...the Palestinians are all descendants of Jordanian refugees.. they are squatting on land that has never belonged to them.the other Arab countries around them despise them unless they are Iran...they used to be know as Philistines...which back in the day was .as bad as a word as racist or homophobe used to be.
So many bleeding hearts wanting to embrace terrorists who can't wait to stop those same hearts from beating.
If Israel wasn't in the picture all of those same Palestinians would be murdering each other until one faction gained power...and then Jordan or Egypt would be the new Israel.

originally posted by: BigRedChew
a reply to: Dandandat3

Your points misunderstand and misrepresent the issues so profoundly that it's hard to believe we’re discussing the same situation. Your assertion that this debate is about who "wins" the right to speak based on reservation timeliness is a gross simplification of the fundamental principles of free speech and equality in an academic environment.

Firstly, the concept of “planned spontaneous events” is not an oxymoron within the context of university free speech policies. These policies are designed to allow students to express urgent or timely political and social concerns without the bureaucratic hurdle of reservations, which is crucial in a dynamic academic environment where issues evolve rapidly. The pro-Palestine group’s demonstration falls precisely under this policy intent—mobilizing quickly in response to ongoing or emergent issues without weeks of prior planning.

Secondly, suggesting that the Jewish groups simply exercised their right to free speech by reserving the space first is to blatantly ignore the strategic manipulation involved. This isn’t about free speech; it’s about leveraging procedural rules in a way that effectively silences a specific group during a critical time. The fact that another group could pre-emptively reserve the space upon learning of the pro-Palestine event indicates a use of foreknowledge and reservation systems not to promote their own expression, but to block that of others.

To reduce this issue to a first-come, first-served model not only trivializes the critical importance of equal access to free expression but also ignores the responsibility of an educational institution to foster an environment where all voices, not just the quickest or the most strategically cunning, are heard. Your point about not having to "choose who has a better reason to express themselves" misses the core of free speech—it should not be about competition for resources, but about ensuring all voices are equitably heard.

You’ve framed this situation as a simple procedural matter, but in doing so, you’ve ignored the larger ethical and philosophical implications—namely, the undermining of the very democratic ideals that underpin our society and academic institutions. This isn’t about one group being "more worthy" than another; it’s about recognizing and rectifying manipulations of the system that threaten the foundational principles of fairness and open dialogue. To overlook this is not just naive; it’s an abdication of our collective responsibility to uphold the integrity of free expression in any meaningful form.

Ummmm... you don't happen to be Alejandro Mayorkas..right?
You sound exactly like him every time a GOP congressman calls him out on all of his bullsh#t.

a reply to: BigRedChew

So 10 years later you are still butt hurt because your jew-hate group didn't properly reserve space in a school, and another group got to use it instead. 10 years later, and your post is still hitting all the woke/dei/socialist buzzwords that the college indoctrinated you with. Shake it all off. Especially shake off the 'colonialism' crap. It's a sure sign of indoctrination.

a reply to: BigRedChew

Did your mother have any children that lived?

Asking for a friend...

a reply to: BigRedChew

Again. We only have your word it’s was “Zionists”. Lots of things can be reserved for various reasons. Which happens everyday without “zionists”. From weddings to anniversaries. When such things are “crashed” explains why the cops could be called.

If they wanted the space, they should have reserved it in accordance to policy. Pretty simple.