BYU Bans Protests on Y Mountain

[rongo]

34 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Exactly. If you want to chain yourself to my trees to keep my earth-killing loggers from chopping them down, go right ahead - just be prepared to peaceably go to jail for trespassing when the cops show up.

I don't think BYU is willing to discipline or press charges against protestors, though. At least not for gay issues. Which makes this belated reaction to the whole thing interesting, and puzzling. 

I wonder what spurred this at this specific time? 

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

MLK and his associates were indeed models of decorum.  They were studiously non-violent, the police and K-9s not so much.  Modern protests have been noteworthy for their extreme violence and crime.  In fact, they tend to deliberately throw MLK and his principles under the bus.

Utter rubbish.

No, they weren’t models of decorum. This weird idealistic sanitization of history needs to die. The Civil Rights movement caused huge economic upsets with their strikes and their protests, disrupted traffic to the point of paralyzation, and their marches had people outside the core group using the whole thing as cover to cause trouble and burn stuff and all the rest. Pretty much identical to the BLM protests.

This is how they were viewed at the time:

Like now, they blame everyone involved instead of focusing on bad actors.

That is from a Birmingham newspaper at the time. MLK was jailed in Birmingham because he didn’t have a parade permit. Those students didn’t get written approval either. Decorum? Seriously?

All of this has happened before and people will insist it is different this time because we teach propaganda instead of history.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

There are good and bad ways to protest.  Ones that changes minds and people can respect and ones that just makes people angry.  I have never heard of a case where a person was held up in traffic and delayed for work and decided to side with the protesters because they held up traffic.  For me, if I am made late due to selfishness and arrogance of protesters, they become my enemy.  I might have been sympathetic with their cause if they protested on the sidewalk. Once they infringe on my right to movement, their cause is dead to me.

 

Then you are not the kind of person they ever intend to reach. Again, same back in the Civil Rights movement. Why would I ever support their desire for equality? Those bastards are inconveniencing me!!!!!!

Edited January 14, 2022 by The Nehor

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

(1) A great university should be a place of free inquiry and a place of free expression;

Sure, but there's nothing inherently wrong with time/place/manner restrictions on freedom of expression. If you want to express yourself with a bullhorn, for example, I'm fine with my university saying you can't do that during the middle of my math professor's lecture.

 

Quote

(2) a private university which is owned and operated by a Church which has as a fundamental principle that the U.S. Constitution is inspired by God, might rightly have policies which treat the First Amendment to that Constitution with reverence -- including "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

BYU seems to be pretty tolerant, all things considered. And if, as a private university, BYU wishes to place a particular set of moral, philosophical, or religious teachings above a commitment to free expression, it has every right to do so.

There's no mistaking that BYU holds itself out as a Church school - and not one that's just loosely affiliated with its sponsoring religious organization. That's why many are attracted to it in the first place. So, in my mind, you pretty much know what you are getting when you sign up.

The freedom to associate voluntarily with others around common goals or beliefs is an integral part of a pluralistic and free society. If BYU isn't your cup of tea, so be it. If a student wants to go to a university where the First Amendment is sacrosanct, go to a public school. There are literally tons of good ones to choose from.

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Amulek

[california boy]

10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

My basic premise is EVERYONE should play by the same rules.  LGBT people and their supporters are not special.  They don't get a pass.  If a person really believes in the right of protest, that means they accept the rights of all views, even those they find offensive.  I believe most people who support this action of lighting the Y with rainbow colors and call it legit protest would not support a group of students who use the Y in a way to support racial hatred or white supremacy.   If that was to happen, they would demand BYU do something to stop that from happening again. It is easy to support protest rights if the issue is one they are sympathetic to or does not offend them.   Often they do not support protest rights of causes that deeply offend them.  

A person does not have a right to light up my house in rainbow colors without my permission.  It may not damage my property but they still do not have a right to use my private property for their cause, whatever that cause may be without permission first.  That is all I am say.  Get permission first.   I would think this is something that should be taught and understood by all people who are high school let alone college.

Oh Ok, I get it.  Is all the LGBT students have to do is to ask if they can light up the Y and you can guarantee that BYU would have no problem with that?  This is only about asking permission?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I don't think BYU is willing to discipline or press charges against protestors, though. At least not for gay issues. Which makes this belated reaction to the whole thing interesting, and puzzling. 

I think they will kick them out of BYU and refuse to transfer their records to any other college.  This is what Wilkinson did in the past.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I wonder what spurred this at this specific time? 

I am guessing Elder Hollands "Grab your muskest" talk at BYU.

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I don't think BYU is willing to discipline or press charges against protestors, though. At least not for gay issues. Which makes this belated reaction to the whole thing interesting, and puzzling. 

I wonder what spurred this at this specific time? 

I agree. It is almost like they have no idea about the Barbra Streisand Effect.

[california boy]

11 hours ago, kimpearson said:

So if someone went up and posted red, white, blue colors similar to a US flag on the Y for the fourth of July, many of you would rave and be excited.  I don't know why you just don't be honest and say you wish those darn queer students at BYU would just shut-up.  In fact those queer students shouldn't even be at BYU, if they aren't going to be quiet about it.  Just go back in the closet because you don't want to hear about it.  You queer students are lying about any kind of mistreatment at BYU.  Your pain and hurt is caused by your own sinful actions.

Because if you don't realize it, any queer person who read this discussion would feel like that is what you are saying using lots of code words so you can say you love queer students when you really don't.  Just my opinion.

I can't think of a more peaceful way of protesting than colored flashlights up on a hill away from campus.  No one is inconvenienced.  No property is damaged.  You don't even have to look up at the mountain if you don't want to. It is only making a statement that LGBT students exist at BYU and they want equal treatment.  Yet even this is not allowed at BYU.  It is clear that BYU wants the LGBT students to just go back in the closet because we don't want to hear that there are actually LGBT students at BYU.  

THIS makes the whole LGBT members are welcome in the Church as long as they abide by the Law of Chastity a big lie.  Clearly BYU is doing all it can to make sure LGBT students don't have a voice even if they are living the standards.  For me, this is just another indication that LGBT members aren't really welcome or tolerated.  It is a "Grab your muskets" move.  

If some straight guy lit up the Y with a "will you marry me proposal" everyone at BYU would be saying AH, isn't that sweet.  There would be no threat of retaliation for that. When BYU uses an excuse as flimsy as "safety" you know this is a rouse.  For decades, the student body hauled buckets of whitewash up the mountain annually to put a fresh coat of paint.  It was going on when my parents were at BYU.  It was still going on when I attended BYU.  WHERE WERE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY CONCERNS THEN as they trespassed each year on Federal lands to desecrate the environment?  And where were the "safety" concerns.

[california boy]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

There are good and bad ways to protest.  Ones that changes minds and people can respect and ones that just makes people angry.  I have never heard of a case where a person was held up in traffic and delayed for work and decided to side with the protesters because they held up traffic.  For me, if I am made late due to selfishness and arrogance of protesters, they become my enemy.  I might have been sympathetic with their cause if they protested on the sidewalk. Once they infringe on my right to movement, their cause is dead to me.

 

Yet none of your objections are true with this protest.  It is colored flashlights up on a mountain away from anyone. Is anyone holding up traffic?  Is anyone inconvenienced in the least?  Can you even think of a less intrusive protest than colored flashlights lighting up the Y miles away from campus?  Your objection is baloney.  What you really object to is LGBT students being heard in even the most peaceful unobtrusive protest possible.  So let's cut the crap of it being some kind of irresponsible protest.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I can't think of a more peaceful way of protesting than colored flashlights up on a hill away from campus.  No one is inconvenienced.  No property is damaged.  You don't even have to look up at the mountain if you don't want to. It is only making a statement that LGBT students exist at BYU and they want equal treatment.  Yet even this is not allowed at BYU.  It is clear that BYU wants the LGBT students to just go back in the closet because we don't want to hear that there are actually LGBT students at BYU.  

THIS makes the whole LGBT members are welcome in the Church as long as they abide by the Law of Chastity a big lie.  Clearly BYU is doing all it can to make sure LGBT students don't have a voice even if they are living the standards.  For me, this is just another indication that LGBT members aren't really welcome or tolerated.  It is a "Grab your muskets" move.  

If some straight guy lit up the Y with a "will you marry me proposal" everyone at BYU would be saying AH, isn't that sweet.  There would be no threat of retaliation for that. When BYU uses an excuse as flimsy as "safety" you know this is a rouse.  For decades, the student body hauled buckets of whitewash up the mountain annually to put a fresh coat of paint.  It was going on when my parents were at BYU.  It was still going on when I attended BYU.  WHERE WERE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY CONCERNS THEN as they trespassed each year on Federal lands to desecrate the environment?  And where were the "safety" concerns.

You're right, seems odd. And at first I didn't realize they all went there and coordinated each other with holding different colored flashlights. I'm assuming these were BYU students as well. So it seems to be very innocent. And a Christlike endeavor for those feeling ostracized. It even gave a good look to BYU as well. It's not saying marry these LGBTQ in the LDS temples. 

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think they will kick them out of BYU and refuse to transfer their records to any other college.  This is what Wilkinson did in the past.

Yes, and also Oaks, Holland, Bateman, and Samuelson. Things have changed a lot since then, though. 

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am guessing Elder Hollands "Grab your muskest" talk at BYU.

That was over half a year ago, though. I'm wondering why January 2022?

I think they should have made it clear when the first unauthorized Y lighting happened that it would not be tolerated --- and for all groups. No red, white and blue from private individuals; no blue line "support police." Nothing. But then they let it happen again. 

Gay pride month is June, and for some reason, the gay activists at BYU made October another gay pride month (I think it was "LGBT" awareness or something?). That's when the second lighting happened. I remember, because it was the Utah St. game and my family was in a hotel for family weekend at two of our kids' university when it happened. 

Unfortunately, I think BYU, if it's serious, is going to have to restrict any access to the Y (fencing), so that the Y is only lit at Homecoming like it used to be. Or hire guards.

Personally, I don't like the modern tendency to want the benefits of "protestor martyrdom" without any of the "martyr" things that go with it. The civil rights protestors were willing to (and did) go to jail, but in our modern era, activists want martyr status, but scream to high heaven if there are any arrests, expulsions, etc. If they want to force the Church's hand here, they need to be willing to be the martyrs and be arrested and/or expelled. But, I think BYU and the Church are terrified of the bad PR of doing this. Like I said, I hope that there is real resolve, and that there is a plan. I'm afraid it might be like FAIR/John Lynch's doubling down in defense of Kwaku-El, only to come out a couple of weeks later denouncing it, saying things like that should not be any part of FAIR's mission, etc. Obviously, the Church turned the screws in response to outcry (as it should have in that case. I thought the "This is the Show" experiment was a big mistake from the outset). 

I can see BYU/the Church wearing the hair shirt after outcry from enforcing this, like the team owner letting kids throw pies in his face for the camera in the Bruce Willis movie "The Kid." 

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

If some straight guy lit up the Y with a "will you marry me proposal" everyone at BYU would be saying AH, isn't that sweet.  There would be no threat of retaliation for that. 

I don't think this is true. Ironically, I think BYU would have been more strict about this, or a blue line lighting, or a MAGA lighting (as in --- swift and immediate condemnation), as opposed to the tacit approval that reigned with the gay lightings. I think the gay activists clearly had the upper psychological hand in the previous protests, as BYU looked terrified to engage at all. Which just emboldens and escalates things, until something gives. I just can't figure out what the escalation was right now. 🤷‍♂️

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, and also Oaks, Holland, Bateman, and Samuelson. Things have changed a lot since then, though. 

That was over half a year ago, though. I'm wondering why January 2022?

I think they should have made it clear when the first unauthorized Y lighting happened that it would not be tolerated --- and for all groups. No red, white and blue from private individuals; no blue line "support police." Nothing. But then they let it happen again. 

Gay pride month is June, and for some reason, the gay activists at BYU made October another gay pride month (I think it was "LGBT" awareness or something?). That's when the second lighting happened. I remember, because it was the Utah St. game and my family was in a hotel for family weekend at two of our kids' university when it happened. 

Unfortunately, I think BYU, if it's serious, is going to have to restrict any access to the Y (fencing), so that the Y is only lit at Homecoming like it used to be. Or hire guards.

Personally, I don't like the modern tendency to want the benefits of "protestor martyrdom" without any of the "martyr" things that go with it. The civil rights protestors were willing to (and did) go to jail, but in our modern era, activists want martyr status, but scream to high heaven if there are any arrests, expulsions, etc. If they want to force the Church's hand here, they need to be willing to be the martyrs and be arrested and/or expelled. But, I think BYU and the Church are terrified of the bad PR of doing this. Like I said, I hope that there is real resolve, and that there is a plan. I'm afraid it might be like FAIR/John Lynch's doubling down in defense of Kwaku-El, only to come out a couple of weeks later denouncing it, saying things like that should not be any part of FAIR's mission, etc. Obviously, the Church turned the screws in response to outcry (as it should have in that case. I thought the "This is the Show" experiment was a big mistake from the outset). 

I can see BYU/the Church wearing the hair shirt after outcry from enforcing this, like the team owner letting kids throw pies in his face for the camera in the Bruce Willis movie "The Kid." 

I think you bring up a good point that times have changed since Wilkinson.  But times have also changes since MLK times as well.  Social media provides much more pressure than sitting in a jail cell.  And who knows, maybe some of these activists are willing to go to jail.  Equal rights is a big motivator for people to fight for.  

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think this is true. Ironically, I think BYU would have been more strict about this, or a blue line lighting, or a MAGA lighting (as in --- swift and immediate condemnation), as opposed to the tacit approval that reigned with the gay lightings. I think the gay activists clearly had the upper psychological hand in the previous protests, as BYU looked terrified to engage at all. Which just emboldens and escalates things, until something gives. I just can't figure out what the escalation was right now. 🤷‍♂️

Maybe you are right.  But what is clear is that BYU is more than willing to target LGBT students who have cleverly figured out the most peaceful, least destructive protest it could possibly come up with.  And even that is just too much for some people on this board.

[bluebell]

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The church can do what it wants (and I’m sure they had some good lawyers look at the public access requirements for the Y), but arresting people for carrying colored flashlights to make a rainbow will make national headlines and won’t be a good look. 

It probably should just allow every group to use the Y to protest that wants to.  Nothing takes the wind out of self-righteous protesting like having to schedule the space with an event organizer and then work your pet protest time in with the pro-Trump, anti-vaccine, pro-SSM, anti-SSM, etc., crowd.

No one loves a cause like college kids.

[Tacenda]

Just now, bluebell said:

It probably should just allow every group to use the Y to protest that wants to.  Nothing takes the wind out of self-righteous protesting like having to schedule the space with an event organizer and then work your pet protest time in with the pro-Trump, anti-vaccine, pro-SSM, anti-SSM, etc., crowd.

No one loves a cause like college kids.

When it was mentioned there could be a MAGA protest or shout out, then I had to step back and rethink my initial response of being fine with it. The doors it could open is quite frightening.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Utter rubbish.

No, they weren’t models of decorum. This weird idealistic sanitization of history needs to die. The Civil Rights movement caused huge economic upsets with their strikes and their protests, disrupted traffic to the point of paralyzation, and their marches had people outside the core group using the whole thing as cover to cause trouble and burn stuff and all the rest. Pretty much identical to the BLM protests.

This is how they were viewed at the time:

Like now, they blame everyone involved instead of focusing on bad actors.

That is from a Birmingham newspaper at the time. MLK was jailed in Birmingham because he didn’t have a parade permit. Those students didn’t get written approval either. Decorum? Seriously?

All of this has happened before and people will insist it is different this time because we teach propaganda instead of history.

Researching history. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-violent-protests-change-politics
From the New Yorker. 

What we observe in the nineteen-sixties is that there was a nontrivial number of white moderates who were open to policies that advanced racial equality, and were also very concerned about order. The needle that civil-rights activists were trying to thread was: How do you advance racial equality, and capture the attention of often indifferent or hostile white moderates outside of the South, and at the same time grow a coalition of allies? And over time the strategy that evolved was one of nonviolent protest, which actively sought to trigger police chiefs like Bull Connor [in Birmingham, Alabama,] to engage in spectacles of violence that attracted national media and would, in the language of the nineteen-sixties, “shock the conscience of the nation.” So it isn’t just nonviolence that is effective, but nonviolence met with state and vigilante brutality that is effective.

The interesting thing to me that came out of this research was that civil-rights leaders were picking Birmingham and Selma specifically because they had police chiefs with hair-trigger tendencies toward violence. So there was this strategic use of violence by the civil-rights movement, but it was to be the object of violence, not the instigators of violence. At the same time, what was very hard about, with that strategy, is that you had images of people observing their kinfolk being brutalized on television, and that helped fire up a more militant wing of the civil-rights movement, which endorsed violence in self-defense and was much less committed to tactics of nonviolence. When we observed a wave of violent protests in the mid- to late sixties, those white moderates who supported the Democratic Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 defected to the Republican Party in 1968. So, when the state was employing violence and protesters were the targets of that violence, the strategy worked well, and when protesters engaged in violence—whether or not the state was—those voters moved to the law-and-order coalition.

Edited January 14, 2022 by bsjkki

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you bring up a good point that times have changed since Wilkinson.  But times have also changes since MLK times as well.  Social media provides much more pressure than sitting in a jail cell.  And who knows, maybe some of these activists are willing to go to jail.  Equal rights is a big motivator for people to fight for.  

I just want the "martyrs" to earn the "martyrdom."  Not get all the benefits with really no cost to them, through social media and media pressure only. 

In a game of chicken, you have to bring your best shot to bear. Since no one thinks expulsion is really in play (Talbot: "They are more scared of me than I am of them"), expulsions would get their attention and give them something to think very carefully about. 

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe you are right.  But what is clear is that BYU is more than willing to target LGBT students who have cleverly figured out the most peaceful, least destructive protest it could possibly come up with.  

I think the activists have won all the rounds so far; I have to tip my hat to them for their savvy read on the lay of the land.

If it were just that, that would be one thing, but they have also acted unbecoming with the counter protests (equally "peaceful" round-the-clock readings of the Proclamation), with shoutdowns, shrillness, and at times even "light" violence (grabbing mikes, taking down signs, arguing, etc.). They haven't been as willing to "just let them peacefully have their say" as they demand of others. 

I think the administration does need to do something with finality (fully capitulate, or escalate the price of protest so that they stop). These half measures can't last much longer, and apparently they sense that, throwing down the gauntlet on lighting the Y. 

 

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It probably should just allow every group to use the Y to protest that wants to.  Nothing takes the wind out of self-righteous protesting like having to schedule the space with an event organizer and then work your pet protest time in with the pro-Trump, anti-vaccine, pro-SSM, anti-SSM, etc., crowd.

No one loves a cause like college kids.

Ugh. Making a circus of the Y (which used to only be lit for Homecoming). I take the other extreme: they should have not allowed any protest speech involving the Y to any group on any side. That's much better than allowing a circus to ensue. 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Researching history. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-violent-protests-change-politics
From the New Yorker. 

What we observe in the nineteen-sixties is that there was a nontrivial number of white moderates who were open to policies that advanced racial equality, and were also very concerned about order. The needle that civil-rights activists were trying to thread was: How do you advance racial equality, and capture the attention of often indifferent or hostile white moderates outside of the South, and at the same time grow a coalition of allies? And over time the strategy that evolved was one of nonviolent protest, which actively sought to trigger police chiefs like Bull Connor [in Birmingham, Alabama,] to engage in spectacles of violence that attracted national media and would, in the language of the nineteen-sixties, “shock the conscience of the nation.” So it isn’t just nonviolence that is effective, but nonviolence met with state and vigilante brutality that is effective.

The interesting thing to me that came out of this research was that civil-rights leaders were picking Birmingham and Selma specifically because they had police chiefs with hair-trigger tendencies toward violence. So there was this strategic use of violence by the civil-rights movement, but it was to be the object of violence, not the instigators of violence. At the same time, what was very hard about, with that strategy, is that you had images of people observing their kinfolk being brutalized on television, and that helped fire up a more militant wing of the civil-rights movement, which endorsed violence in self-defense and was much less committed to tactics of nonviolence. When we observed a wave of violent protests in the mid- to late sixties, those white moderates who supported the Democratic Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 defected to the Republican Party in 1968. So, when the state was employing violence and protesters were the targets of that violence, the strategy worked well, and when protesters engaged in violence—whether or not the state was—those voters moved to the law-and-order coalition.

While true to an extent MLK was not impressed with white moderates.

Quote

 

I MUST make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

In your statement you asserted that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But can this assertion be logically made? Isn't this like condemning the robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical delvings precipitated the misguided popular mind to make him drink the hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because His unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to His will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see, as federal courts have consistently affirmed, that it is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth of time. I received a letter this morning from a white brother in Texas which said, "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but is it possible that you are in too great of a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity almost 2000 years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." All that is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.

 

This problem still persists to this day. I agree with you wanting equality but can you just calm down and let it happen more slowly without any disruption? Why kick up a fuss?

I expect some in the lgbtq community could express similar sentiments about straight moderates.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

Obviously, the Church turned the screws 

Not obvious to me, a FAIR member. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

That was over half a year ago, though. I'm wondering why January 2022?

Well Elder Holland is returning next week for a devotional. 

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

Unfortunately, I think BYU, if it's serious, is going to have to restrict any access to the Y (fencing), so that the Y is only lit at Homecoming like it used to be. Or hire guards.

 

I’m not sure that this is a legal course of action. The property belongs to BYU, but in order to get it, they have to maintain public access so…

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

I just want the "martyrs" to earn the "martyrdom."  Not get all the benefits with really no cost to them, through social media and media pressure only. 

In a game of chicken, you have to bring your best shot to bear. Since no one thinks expulsion is really in play (Talbot: "They are more scared of me than I am of them"), expulsions would get their attention and give them something to think very carefully about. 

They must SUFFER!!!!!!

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

Ugh. Making a circus of the Y (which used to only be lit for Homecoming). I take the other extreme: they should have not allowed any protest speech involving the Y to any group on any side. That's much better than allowing a circus to ensue. 

Well they can't go back in time, so the "should never have done it' option isn't on the table.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

When it was mentioned there could be a MAGA protest or shout out, then I had to step back and rethink my initial response of being fine with it. The doors it could open is quite frightening.

Yep.