UO Student Collective member explains protest at State of Univ speech

Update: Thanks to a reader for pointing me to another opinion piece in the Emerald on this. It’s not clear if the student is a member of the collective, but she is supportive:

On Oct. 13, University of Oregon President Michael Schill wrote an opinion column for the New York Times on the protest that happened earlier this month. His column criticized the students who interrupted his State of the University Address, stating that silencing him was not a proper form of protest. Schill ignores the position of power he has as the university president and dismisses the different set of regulations that are given to him as a leader of this institution.

In his column, Schill wrote, “One of the students who stormed the stage during my talk told the news media to ‘expect resistance to anyone who opposes us.’ That is awfully close to the language and practices of those the students say they vehemently oppose.” The reality is that these students are marginalized students from an institution that Schill leads. They demand respect and fair treatment after almost a century of neglect. The protester said this because they were done with the mistreatment and wanted to make it clear that they will continue to fight for the rights of all marginalized students on campus. ….

In the Emerald here:

“Nothing about us without us.” That’s what 80+ students and I chanted as we took the stage on Oct. 6. President Schill has ignored student concerns for a long time, so we decided to protest in a way that he simply could not overlook. …

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to UO Student Collective member explains protest at State of Univ speech

  1. Conservative duck says:

    “President Schill has ignored student concerns for a long time…”
    Oh? How long?
    “…the LGBTQA3 put on a protest in Johnson Hall last April. President Schill came to meet with them ”
    So…what, a couple months?
    “…he has condemned and neglected the voices of marginalized students on campus…”
    Source? Sounds like he is open to dialogue, what from the attending your protests and all.
    “…while ensuring our campus is a safe space for local Nazis such as Jimmy Marr…”
    Interesting that you mention this while linking to and article titled, “White nationalists visit UO; don’t find any support”.
    “…released a list of 22 demands…”
    Most of which are ludicrous and should never be seriously considered.
    1. “Keep out law enforcement, so that laws aren’t enforced” + “Special treatment for students of one particular subgroup”
    2. “Establish a UO sanctioned removal of genuine law enforcement” + “Special treatment for students of one particular subgroup”
    3. “Prioritize resources for illegal immigrant non-Americans” + “Special treatment for students of one particular subgroup”
    4. “Limit the free speech of anyone willing to complain or point any of this out”
    5. “Bring back the bias silence tool”
    6. “Bring back the bias silence tool”
    7. “Special treatment for students of one particular subgroup”
    8. “Special treatment for students of one particular subgroup” + “Move the prayer room” (that exists, already, IN THE EMU no less)
    9. Finally something most everyone can agree on
    10. lol, “we have no idea how business works”
    11. Why? What would that benefit the university?
    12. Unfortunately, inflation is a one-way street
    13. Why don’t you? Why don’t you name “the names of white supremacy”, whatever the hell that is? Why is “white nationalism” a problem and not any other color? Should Schill label “brown nationalism” as hate speech too? I thought the left was all about “equality”?
    14. lol, “we have no idea how business works”
    15. Another genuine grievance that would get wide-spread consideration if not outright support
    16. How much carbon emission does the U of O produce currently, exactly? Do we have numbers, data? If so,
    Pointless number between 16 and 17: “Special treatment for students of one particular subgroup”
    17. “Special treatment for students of one particular subgroup”
    18. …like expanded hours? What is wrong with the current offering, exactly?
    19. Why? To what benefit? Designed by who? Representing which culture, exactly? Do I get to bring my culture to the table, or am I there to shut up and “learn” like a good little ally?
    20. Not listed. Should we be taking this group seriously when they can’t even handle their own 22 bullet point list?
    21. “Bring back the bias silence tool”
    22. “Special treatment for students of one particular subgroup”

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +7 (from 21 votes)
  2. LArdman says:

    Modern day forensic speech:
    “No one may speak until I get my way!”

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +9 (from 9 votes)
  3. Mario Savio RIP says:

    I thought Schill’s statement was quite self-serving but the student response leaves me even more depressed with its offensive demands. I went through the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley as an undergrad and the People’s Park troubles as a grad student but I do not recall the rhetoric reaching the lows that I see in both pieces.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.