update: according to flagamuffin's link
- UT chapter chair Lorenzo Garcia claims he canceled the event out of fears the university would retaliate against the group’s members, “and that the protest against the event could create a safety issue for our volunteers.”
This is clearly protected speech. If the administration is smart they say that they find the event appalling and leave it alone. Pro-social student groups should round up as many "illegals" as they can and donate the proceeds to a charity that helps migrants. They should also wear tee-shirts and be very vocal about what they are going to do with their proceeds. If the conservatives welch and refuse to honor the rules of the game and give up the gift certificate than they lose.
I can understand how the adage "Any publicity is good publicity" is useful and appropriate for a celebrity or even some brand, but in this context it makes me pretty uncomfortable seeing the same approach used for a student-run political organization. I know that's nothing new, really, but this is just a bizarre thing, to literally ACT out some dumbed-down version of deportation and make a game out of segregation that is typically performed under threat of force by the state doesn't seem very collegiate. The only interesting part is why this activity is even being performed, why this group feels it necessary to do it. It doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion of immigration at all.
The legality of it has nothing to do with whether or not it's moral and good, and politics is all about deciding what's right or wrong. This event wouldn't be effective if nobody thought there was anything wrong with it. Yes. To the fullest extent. Nobody in this thread is debating whether or not they have a legal right to promote violent border control. We just think they're assholes. They, you, or anyone else shouldn't be surprised or indignant when we call them assholes. The corollary to speech is response. So when they promote violent solutions, it shouldn't be surprising or even objectionable that they receive threats of a response in kind. I never made a literal equivalency between those two, and it's disingenuous to suggest that I did.That's quite a stretch. Last I checked deportation is legal and authorized, and there's nothing wrong with staging reenactments to try and encourage increased enforcement of immigration laws.
You can put it in terms of violence and aggressor, but only to the extent that all law enforcement is violence.
That doesn't mean that members of our society can't advocate for increased enforcement or additional laws.
Just because immigration is a racially-charged issue doesn't mean that advocating for deportation = advocating lynching.
Why do you think legality has any moral weight at all? I'm not obliged to support their right to expression. In fact, as they are essentially my enemy, I'm obliged to oppose them and their propaganda efforts at every turn. It is only the government that must protect their freedom of expression. If the policy they promote is outrageous, I will be outraged at them. They aren't absolved of responsibility for the things they say simply because they have a legal right to say them. I'm not "framing their event in terms of 'violence' and 'aggressor'," that's objectively what it is. As for the University's official reaction to their protest, it's really irrelevant. Ultimately the event was only canceled out of fear of physical confrontation with counterprotestors, which I'm totally fine with. Yeah, that's definitely better. I'd also addI agree with you, but I do think legality has an affect on how innocent the event is, and how we should choose to react to it. In my mind, there's a huge difference between advocating for increased law enforcement and advocating for increased violence of an illegal sort.
I know, but neither is anyone (bar a couple posts) going out of their way to support the students' right to expression of their opinion.
I see a lot of misplaced outrage in this post, and in the media attention being given these students. If you are against deportation, go be outraged at that, organize protests and events to raise awareness. I find it downright silly to be outraged at these students and to frame their event in terms of "violence" and "aggressor" when they're simply describing something legal and common.
does this equation work any better? innocence(advocating deportation) ≈ innocence(advocating lynching)
innocence(advocating deportation) ≈ innocence(advocating lynching) ≈ innocence(advocating rape)
I dunno, if I were an actual illegal immigrant in that sort of environment, I'd probably want out of that situation pronto from being uncomfortable. Hell, as a legal immigrant, I know I'd want to be out of that situation pronto. It's intentionally antagonistic.They aren't hurting anyone
I understand that the Texan contention with Mexico has deep roots but fuck, way to be shitty. For hundreds of years.
Mental stress is pain, in my opinion. I'm Black, and if there were a "Catch the Blacks" campaign, which could totally exist a while back, I'd feel terrified. Yeah, this example isn't as good because you can't really tell who's an illegal immigrant and who isn't, as opposed to a Black person - but if you can tell me that feeling like you're constantly being hunted doesn't hurt you in any way, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. Of course they can make a point about it, if they feel passionately. But I guess my final point is, just because you feel so strongly about something, doesn't mean that this is the right way to go about telling the world.
So, causing undesirable mental states in other people shouldn't be allowed? That's a very slippery slope. These students aren't literally going and assaulting immigrants on campus. They aren't making citizen's arrests or throwing paint on people to 'mark' them for a hunt. What they're doing is theater. They're creating a simulation of something they would like to happen because they feel strongly that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to stay in the country. That's a form of political protest and we are obligated to protect it even if it makes people uncomfortable. Should abortion protesters be banned from showing images of fetuses because it might make mothers feel sad?
Should anti-hunger organizations be banned from showing starving children because it makes obese viewers feel guilty?
Or, something more akin to this situation - should we avoid reminding drug users that they could get arrested because that paranoia might upset them?
Like I said, they're allowed to make their point. People aren't going to be fond of how they're doing it, but that's what they're going for, in a Westboro Baptist Church sort of way. Either way, it's a pretty dick move. Also this is theater as well. But, you know, probably not a good idea to go around doing that nowadays.
I agree, it is a dick move and it's very rude - definitely not the best way to get people talking about this topic. I guess I'm just a little pissed to see the media and the university so concerned about offending people that they won't stop to defend their own students doing their thing. Universities are supposed to be places where people can try out new ideas and be passionate about things and, yes, be assholes sometimes. Offending people is allowed I wish I could just scream that from the rooftops sometimes.
That last point I most certainly agree with. Currently in Uni - it's like a little bubble, and in the bubble is a crockpot of different ideas and ideologies. They're trying it out. At least the experimentation is happening now and not when there can be major consequences for their actions.