This morning at Guilford (received via email):

What: STUDENT WALK OUT
When:Thursday 10:15, Walk out of classes at 10:15 and assemble in front of Founders Hall

Statement from Student Group:
"We, as students who belong to this Community, believe it is
imperative that we respond to the violence that occurred late Friday night (1/19).

We DEMAND that our community (administration included):
- Speak the TRUTH
- Work against VIOLENCE
- Uphold QUAKER VALUES
- Acknowledge this is a HATE CRIME

Comments

[Jim Rosenberg]

Unfair, and unwise. Surely, a lesson from the Duke Lacrosse case is to let outrage and indignation knock a few times before inviting it in. For now, I don't see why we need any more than the "Anti Beating The Holy Crap Out Of People" Team. Can't we all run a few plays on that team for a while before going back to our regular clubs?

[Juan Vasquez]

Good for them. Calling for accountability and Quaker values at a Quaker University seems very reasonable.

[ZhaK]

Maybe the students who live there have seen behavior that people in the wider community have not witnessed and which led up to this event. Maybe those who live closest are a little uneasy that they may be misrepresented as violent reactionary brawlers because of the actions of a few. Maybe some of them are even a little afraid. Looks like this is a student conceived, student led, student activity. Last I heard students have the same free speech rights as the rest of American citizens (except for those going to UNCG).

[Matt Hill Comer]

Haha, very funny ZhaK.

The UNCG "Free Speech Zones" no longer exist as they were unconstitutional. I implore you to go and find the new policies regarding on campus demonstrations and other events. I'm sure you'll find the facts there.

PS - I was on the committee which eventually got rid of the free speech "zones." UNCG students have all the rights of any other student at any other university. UNCG Administration was wrong and they have been corrected (either that or they were gonna get slapped with a lawsuit).

[Jim Rosenberg]

Criticism is a byproduct, not a threat to the right of free speech.

Guilford College has both a history and apparent commitment to doing the right thing. Breaking ranks with the College so early and without a clear and compelling reason has the effect of diluting, not strengthening the voices opposing this kind of conduct. I'm sure it can be slided thin enough to fall apart -- anything can, but there is strength in standing together.

[Ed Cone]

Jim, I'm not sure where the students are "breaking ranks" with the college? The demand to "acknowledge" the nature of the crime may be premature, but the expression of concern and support for the school's values is not.

[Jim Rosenberg]

It's hard for me to read that short statement as anything close to support, Ed. It's called a WALK OUT. It explicitly points a DEMANDING finger at the administration. It asks for acknowledgment of HATE CRIME status before the facts have been determined. If that wasn't a dig at the failure of the administration to be even more aggressive, then I just got it 100% wrong and I'm sorry. Don't you think it was, though?

[The CA]

It's not Quaker like to presume guilt before a trial. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. One great thing about Guilford when I went there was a more thoughtful, less knee jerk liberalism than the low level dribble that dominates most college campuses these days. Even though I didn't agree with it, I respected the process and the way my classmates handled their politics.

This latest demand to "acknowledge" the event as a "hate crime" at this point does not follow that tradition and contradicts the preceding point in the declaration. There is certainly more to this story than we know at this point. I also think a "walk out" is as dumb as the hippies protesting two weeks ago in the middle of the street. It accomplishes nothing and has no cause/effect relationship to the goal that is desired.

[Ed Cone]

Again, Jim, I don't know that it is a protest against the administration as much as a recognition of the seriousness of the events.

I agree that the admin seems to have done a good job, but if I was a student I doubt I'd just sit tight and not be heard just because the grownups in charge were on the case.

Students protest. When I was at a Quaker college you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a candlelight vigil or somesuch thing.

[Jim Rosenberg]

Please don't infantilize my point by noting that "students protest." I get that, on account of I'm not a total moron. Even though protests are natural, I care about the contours of that landscape. You'll recall that a significant part of opposition to the TRC process was based on public perception that it was merely an attempt by "hippies" to relive the glory days of 60's activism. Florence Gatten fired off that shot without mincing words. We've heard this cry repeatedly on a broad range of issues -- increasing lately with the downtown antiwar protests. It matters. I care whether Guilford College, an institution I respect, ends up presenting to the public a unified stand against brutish thuggery or a factional turf war between True Believers and SuperDuper Extra-True Believers. For once, on something, I'd like to see someone resist the temptation to draw lines, make ultimatums, and make grandstand plays. I'm not saying the Guilford students are doing this. I'm asking them not to and explaining why.

[Ed Cone]

Jim, certainly did not mean to "infantilize" your point. I just don't know that today's protest was "unfair, and unwise," as you put it.

Something really bad happened at Guilford. The exact details are not yet established beyond dispute, but unlike the Duke case, the bad thing is known to have happened, and I think the students have every reason to assemble and voice their fears and distress.

[Jim Rosenberg]

You are talking in generalities, Ed. I oppose forcing the issue of whether this is a hate crime. Address yourself to my point, please.

[Ed Cone]

I already did address it, Jim, in my first comment in this thread -- actually, before you addressed it by name.

You made a broad statement that the protest was unfair and unwise; I disagreed, while noting at the same time that I had reservations about the hate crime language. Not sure what you're banging on me for.

[Jim Rosenberg]

I'm banging on you because I have the sense you are trying to have it all ways. I'm wishing you would join me in saying "Enough!" Maybe that's not fair -- and even if it is, I'm sure it's magnified by my boiled-over frustration that the only thing anyone gets excited about around here is lobbing grenades. This Guilford College event feels to me like the proverbial back-breaking straw. Two weeks from now, if this event exists primarily as a bitter battle about the value and definition of "hate crimes," I'll just find it very discouraging. This isn't an "issue." There is no "Pro Bashing In People's Faces" viewpoint. What I wish is that instead of "walking out," the students would "walk over" to the administration and join them in a unified front. I wish that in just one of these media events, the parties could find a way to move forward together so we can see how it's done. I thought Guilford College would be that place, and I'll be disappointed if that doesn't happen. Sorry to tee up your head; I'm also getting my period.

[Ed Cone]

Having preemptively and sincerely agreed that a rush to judgment on the possible "hate crime" aspect of the violence is Not A Good Thing, I will say that I am nowhere near as focused as you are on that one aspect of the larger situation, Jim.

I went to a Quaker school, and the values matter to me immensely. The beatings, whatever their motivation, represent a terrible violation of the ethos of a Quaker education. It is not just a physical attack, it's an attack on the spirit and meaning of the place.

Where you see another sloganeering mob eager to politicize a situation, I see kids who believe that something very important has been damaged, and who are gathering in the tradition of their school to confront that damage. Yes, they overstate an aspect of their case, but it seems to me that you are focused on that tree and not the forest.

[ZhaK]

The Society of Friends has a time honored and longstanding history of resolving human differences with respect and rationality. It is this process that they are just beginning at Guilford. Rather than rush to adopt one perspective for the sake of presenting a united front, the Friends encourage individuals to individually explore, to contemplate, and then to participate. Expression is valued. From this process they build consensus which is not the enforced will of the majority on the minority or the whining minority wringing platitudes from the majority. It is a wholehearted effort to find agreement among all participants.

Consensus is hard. Respect for perspectives is hard. It requires, patience. It requires detachment.

I have confidence that the students, the ministry, the administrators, and the faculty at Guilford will follow this path and that individuals will be stronger for having the whole experience.

[Jim Rosenberg]

I had no idea how Quaker you were, but I knew thee was always right.

[ZhaK]

Actually I'm a Buddhist but a frequent attender of the Guilford silent meeting.

[Joseph]

The walk-out is the fruit of protest-lovin' immaturity, and is designed to point a finger in a situation where finger-pointing helps no one. It's amazing how you claim to see into their souls, Ed, and see that what they're really expressing is solidarity with the institution. The kids holding signs reading "Cover Up" and calling the Dean of Campus Life a "Liar" tell a different story.

I hope that adults in the community can model something other than overreaction and a desperate need to be needed and/or right as the College makes an earnest effort to work through this.