Re: Effectual Demonstration at Rutgers (fwd)

Elizabeth C King (
14 Feb 1995 00:23:07 -0500

In article <>, Stephen Lajoie <> wrote:
>In article <3ho5qt$>,
>Elizabeth C King <> wrote:
>>In article <3ho0kt$>,
>>Ted Krueger <krueger@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>>>In article <3hisbu$>,
>>>Insomniac <> wrote:

>>>>Ruining a basketball game, OTOH, may not be nice to the fans, but
>>>>basketball is not the primary goal of an institution of higher learning.

>>>But ensuring that the president of the college speaks only politically
>>>correct words, even in a closed meeting is the primary goal of an
>>>institution of higher learning?

>>Making sure the president of a college isn't a racist seems to be a
>>pretty good thing. Unfortunately, one of the only ways to know if
>>someone is racist is by the words they speak. Personally, from the
>>little that I do know on this case, the president probably isn't racist.
>>At least, I don't think that there is enough evidence to fire him. But,
>>what if there were enough evidence?

>Anyone who wants to fire someone at a univerity because of an idea, an
>opinion, a study, or because they mis-spoke can not say they ever had an
>eduation at a University.

I guess you would back him up if he belonged to NAMBLA and accidently let
it slip that he thought that the age of consent for boys should be around
the age of six. Why does everything have to be all or nothing? I agree
he shouldn't be fired for his statement (from what I know). But, some
statements, ideas, etc. are both politically incorrect AND PROOF of
racism. This, although pretty good evidence, is not proof of racism on
the part of the president.

"Let there be songs to fill the air." GD