skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for Stanley

( Stanley )

Comments made by Stanley

Sorting Through Race Relations At UCSD

To currentgrad: I think you may have misunderstood me.

Your suggestion that I said the "Compton Cookout" was "OK" was a misreading of my views. I think the "Compton Cookout" was completely wrong and disgusting.

Actually I find a very large part of what is generally accepted in popular culture to be completely wrong and disgusting. I have not owned a television for many years. I see maybe one or two selected movies per year. I will not watch a boxing match because it strikes me as inhumane. And I certainly did not think the "Compton Cookout" was "OK", as you put it,

However I think UCSD is being unfairly used here. UCSD cannot be held accountable for the actions of a few kids at a non-sanctioned event where the U. really had no moral or legal jurisdiction.

Of course, if you have specific allegations of UCSD wrongdoing, you should vigorously pursue them.

Instead you make the "boiling point" argument, and drift insensibly into a fuzzy rant about economic injustice in general.

I agree.

Life is unfair.

Good luck with your crusade.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité,

February 26, 2010 at 10:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorting Through Race Relations At UCSD

In my opinion, the handling of this incident by Chancellor Fox and VC Rue was abysmally bad and did much more harm than good.

1. Information published on the net suggests that these UC top administrators did not diligently check their facts before reacting. They appear not to have known about the involvement of the above mentioned African-American entertainer in putting on the event, for example.

2. Fox and Rue were well-aware that the event had no official connection with the University, but decided to drag the University's good name into the matter anyway. On a YouTube video Rue can be heard saying they have "moral authority" in this matter. ? What makes them think they are so morally superior? Why did they choose to involve the university's reputation in this off-campus, non-sanctioned matter? What right did they really have to do that?

3. Fox and Rue then chose to react with total negativity. They chose to assume the worst about any UCSD students who were involved, giving no one the benefit of the doubt. The "morally" self-rightous UC administrators chose to make very negative judgments about the few young UC students involved in the party. Specifically, they chose to ASSUME these actions could only have been the result of blatant intentional racism on the part of the few students at the party. Fox and Rue ignored the possibility that the students may have been ignorant of the implications of their actions, or that the students may have different connection with this culture. (Remember that young people today purchase and enjoy popular cultural art created by African American entertainers who routinely use this culture as a expressive vehicle.) But rather than to try to understand the matter from the perspective of the few party-goers, Fox and Rue elected to subject the matter to the most negative interpretation possible.

(One thing which hasn't been reported is that the Koala event, (and the Koala is certainly a enterprise in its own right with no apparent good reason for existing), but in any event the Koala's show was probably in my opinion in part at least a reaction to the heavy-handed approach adopted to the party by Fox and Rue.)

4. Having decided to interpret the matter with maximal-negativity, Fox and Rue seem (to me) to have decided to foment the maximum amount of counter-negatively within the UCSD community, even going so far as to invite the broader public to the "UCSD community" teach in.

5. UCSD has done remarkable things to promote social justice, most notably through the Preuss School. (Thanks to the very hard work and very generous financial support of many individuals in our community.) But rather than to stress the positive, these two top UCSD administrators elected to take actions stressing the negative and which would only drag the university's name through the mud and ultimately do much more harm than good vis-a-vis promoting social justice on campus.

February 25, 2010 at 10:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )