377
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

One example, from just up the Ivy-garlanded I-95, at Brown University, was announced just hours before Shafik again called in the police. Brown’s governing body agreed to vote on a proposal that would divest the school’s endowment of companies affiliated with Israel in a meeting in October. The proposal is based on a 2020 Advisory Committee on Corporation Responsibility in Investment Practices that identified and recommended divestment from “companies that facilitate the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory,” per the Brown Daily Herald.

In exchange, the university’s nonviolent student protesters agreed to vacate their encampment by 5 p.m. that afternoon.

...

Another plausible outcome from California: When a similar encampment went up a few days ago at the University of California, Irvine, it seemed likely that police might sweep the protesters away. Orange County sheriff’s deputies began to appear in riot gear near the protest.

But, rather than traffic in vague allegations of misconduct before hiding behind a belligerent mayor and an aggressive police force, like Shafik, the UC–Irvine administration took a much different tack. “UC Irvine respects the rights of any students to engage in free speech and expression including lawful protest,” the school said in a prepared statement. This, remember, is at a public school, where keeping public police forces away is more challenging than a private enclave like Columbia.

And in fact, Irvine’s mayor did get involved in the action. Not long after that, Mayor Farrah N. Khan issued a resounding statement declaring that she would not tolerate any violation of students’ free speech or right to assembly. “I am asking our law enforcement to stand down. I will not tolerate any violations to our students’ rights to peacefully assemble and protest.” She asked the deputies to leave, and they did.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240502114414/https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/columbia-student-protests-nypd-shafik-escalation.html

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 152 points 2 months ago

Cops love to beat up people protesting genocide but they won’t run into a classroom of kids being murdered because they’re too afraid.

[-] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago

Well that's obviously because one group is preaching no violence and one is shooting everyone and everything.

So of course the police attack the easier target.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

so we need to shoot guns to be listened to, ok got it.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago
[-] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago

Maybe the solution is to have peaceful armed demonstrators 🤔

[-] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago

It's worked in the past. Force is the only language that bullies and thugs understand. "Moral high ground" isn't going to do it when the state can just shoot you and get away with it.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago

Worked for the Black Panthers

[-] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago

Well... right up until it didn't.

But I can't help thinking a parade of armed college students marching through the quad could change a lot of views on the 2A very quickly.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Seeing as we still have capitalism and racism I wouldn't quite say it worked, but yeah it made people take them more seriously and we would do well to study how exactly it failed

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

Can't help but wonder what would happen if Columbia's students were armed.

I know there's a guy who said something about this once, a long time ago. German fellow with a big beard. Wrote a few economics texts. Gah, it escapes me.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] [email protected] 52 points 2 months ago

Divested from Israel. The answer is that they should have divested from Israel.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

I'm only vaguely keeping up with the news (I have PTSD relating to war/violence). Can you help me understand how universities are invested in Israel? What would divesting mean?

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

To over-simplify, making sure that they don't accept donations, grants, etc. from companies or other third-parties that are involved with Israel. The article gives some brief details on how "divest from Israel" is the approach that Brown University actually took here.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

In addition to what @[email protected] said, a lot of universities have endowments that are invested in stocks, bonds, etc., to provide a baseline level of passive income. Divestment would mean getting rid of any existing investments and barring future investments in Israeli companies and companies that do extensive business with Israel. The result is to lower the access to cash and value of said companies.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

People have decided that its easier to appease the right wing media so they go after someone else than stand up to them. But in reality that just shows them that you're an easy target and makes things worse.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

this article fails to mention to stop funding genocide.

i think that would have been effective.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
377 points (96.5% liked)

politics

18138 readers
4234 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS