They did attack his character as well as call him as a racist and try to get him sacked for not complying. He was told by police to stay off of campus for him own safety as well.

OK they didnt hog tie him up and carry him off campus but it doesn't seem like much of a choice to me. These people trying to pass themselves off as liberals is laughable. . As are the so called liberals defending them.

Imagine being worried about forced racial segregation and losing your job, what a snow flake eh?

Ok I finally just read about this to see how much these people have been lying.

So, why are you lying?

Plus the fact that TheMadcap and every other outraged conservative who has written about this case has LIED about what the initial letter said. If it's such an obvious case of coercion then why the need to dress it up?

It's clear that Professor Honky McWhiterson overreacted and others overreacted to the overreaction. Then alt-right dip****s showed up and started calling in death threats.

Exactly. Nobody is defending the overreaction by the students, but to pretend that the professor is completely blameless while making up lies about the sequence of events is why the people on the professors side don't get any benefit of the doubt here. He completely overreacted to the initial email and then took his case to the right wing media to be heard when he didn't get the response he wanted.

Listen to this or don't, it doesn't matter (though the topics presented on this podcast tend to be quite compelling) but Thomas at Serious Inquiries Only cites his sources very well, and you can find them at the bottom of this post.

http://seriouspod.com/sio48-whats-re...green-college/

How did he over react?

He was asked to leave campus because of the color of his skin. Then when he refused they tried to get him sacked and accused him of being racist. How can you say he is over reacting after they tried to take away his livelihood?

Yeah, see, the facepalming corollary I'm discovering is seeing where they're getting their info from. I was looking for a plain news story outlining the 5 Ws and had to scroll past all the conservitard outlets and blogs. Googling this is a teleportation device straight to the heart of the derposphere.

You guys just can't help yourself, huh?

This is a lie.

Ok, reading more the entire thing seems to be an Onion article.

He called the request "oppression" which is complete bull**** and insulting to people who have actually experienced oppression.

He overreacted way before that happened. His letter was stupid and insulting. Come on.

This is wrong. The people leaving campus were indeed white, but they were to attend a seminar on anti-racism "from a majority perspective." There is nothing about white people staying home or being asked to leave. The program was held off campus.

And this:

"And because many of us are mixed, and may not wholly identify ourselves with one community or the other, we invite each person to attend the program of their choice, wherever they feel most comfortable."

Ok. I listened to that and I admit I was wrong about that one aspect. (I don't agree with your characterization of what happened either though)

I read multiple reports from varied sources seeming to suggest this was more widespread than it turns out that it was and that all white students/faculty were strongly suggested to leave. I also heard the professor tell an anecdote about another white professor reading the email wrong, going to the wrong venue, and being told essentially "you are free to stay but you probably shouldn't stay."

But clearly the media tends to sensationalism and laziness and I should have dug further myself. Mea culpa.

This move to have the meeting off campus was still done symbolically and to me the question of "what exactly was this meant to symbolize?" remains.

The NYT?

https://nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opini...n-its-own.html

The students reaction of calling him a racist nazi , asking for him to lose his job , patrolling the college with baseball bats and the fact that the police told him not to go onto campus for his own safety proves there was no over reaction on his part.

The email looked innocuous enough but its clear that even though people were given the choice whether to be on campus or not , refusal to do so would have dire consequences.

Had the students just ignored him allowed him to remain on campus then yes you could say he was over reacting and he would have looked a bit silly.

Sources for your first paragraph please.

Wrt to the last paragprah, the professor was intentionally inflammatory with his original response email. He could have written a response directly to the author of the original email, but instead replied to all faculty and staff of the campus in order to be the big man who got the last word about what he was being forced to do.

The escalation came from the professor, plain and simple. The backlash afterwards was unnecessary, but you don't get to pour gasoline on a match and then whine about how the fire is too hot.

Every time some cries sharia law is going to take over America its a real thing.

Lol.

"She was basically asking for it.... did you see what she was wearing?"

Dafuq are you talking about? The professor escalated the situation. That doesn't mean he deserved abuse. What is does mean is all the talking points of "Professor under attack for refusing decree that he must leave campus for being white." Is bull****, and consciously going onto right wing "news" shows to peddle that narrative is a HIM problem, not a THEM problem.

There was nothing wrong with the original email and based on an interview that he did it seems that the right wing media came to him. Not the other way around. (Tucker Carlson in one of his interviews explained why he had asked him to come of the program)

His only crime was overstating the cost associated with not leaving campus. Clearly, as there were only 200 seats for the entire campus, people wouldn't have been demonized for not going. (And it was the crime of the rest of the media to pick this up and run with it)

Grunching like every post in this thread except this one.

I find this to be a really tough question. I think it is very close to the line and I could easily respect either view on it. My instinct on anything I think is close to the line would be to make it not a crime if given the choice.

I think it's very clear that her conduct is immoral. If she had just encouraged him to commit suicide I would say that I definitely don't think it should be illegal. The part that makes me view it as close to the line is the fact that he texted her that he had gotten out of the car and she texted back "Get back in." (or something to that effect).

I think a reasonable person could consider that reckless and dangerous conduct.

I also think it is an interesting question whether it matters how she encouraged him to kill himself. For example, what if her boyfriend texts her "how many sleeping pills is the right number to take for the right dose" and she replies "25", given that we accept the rather unlikely scenario that he won't know she is lying?

Should knowingly providing someone false information that leads to their death be illegal?

Again it probably depends on the situation. If I post here "taking 100 sleeping pills will give you a nice mellow high" I probably shouldn't be legally responsible if someone tries it, but on the other hand if I say that to someone who I actually expect to act on it, the answer may be different.

This is all a lot of words to say that I think the question is basically unanswerable. My inclination with something like this would be to err on the side of "not a crime".

That is complete and utter bull****. He was reacting to the Day of Absence email, not to any of the other things that happened later.

First off, remember that people have been LYING about this email. Now the email "looks innocuous" but there was a sinister unwritten threat? Excuse me if I don't believe that bull****.

You are using events that happened after his dumb letter to excuse his reaction. That's not how time works.

To be fair, spacetime is a complicated beast.

This was supposed to be your sweet refutation?

THAT IS AN OP-ED FOR ****S SAKE YOU PROVE MY POINT.

Yeah, the professor described his actions as active protesting. So it goes beyond just voicing his opinion even with the campus wide reply email.

And obviously he has a right to protest it, but that changes the narrative greatly.

There are 2 true things in every one of these cases:

1. Sure, the college kids are overreacting, but,

2. They're not reacting to NOTHING. There's ALWAYS some fire beneath the smoke.