Gwmayhem wrote:

GWRising, I also hope that GW will develop policies to support this cause.  But even if they didn't, the messaging still plays a proactive role.  

Do I think that there are large numbers of people who need to be reminded about BLM?  How about every single day!  If this issue is ever going to improve, then publicity can't go away within a few days or weeks from the next tragedy.  This is has been the pattern so it's clear that more has to be done.  After George Floyd's senseless murder, for the first time ever, countless numbers of people of all races were marching in support of BLM, in the midst of a pandemic no less.  

There was a day and age where smoking cigarettes was far more prevalent than it is today.  Once the health risks became known, the messaging began.  The commercials,  The Surgeon General's warning.  The messaging wasn't said once or twice or three times and then went away.  It was said loudly enough and often enough that many people started to pay attention and subsequently change their behavior (quit smoking).  I realize this isn't an exact parallel but similarly, people in this country will need to be reminded again and again how unfairly some people are treated for absolutely no other reason than the color of their skin.  And yes, simultaneous to this effort, there should be a number of policy changes from as you say, economic, educational and housing reform.  Personally, I'd add police reform as well.

I won't get into a lengthy discussion with you about why BLM and not other causes.  I will say that where the subject of abortion rights is a controversial one, the subject of black or brown skinned people being grossly mistreated should not be considered controversial.  And, it would be hard to argue that while the LGTBQ community is by no means treated perfectly, more progress has been made this century in certain states than ever before, from relationship recognition laws to nondiscrimination protection.

I am not looking to argue here, I am really not. However, when you say "even if they (GW) didn't (support policies to support this cause), the messaging still plays a proactive role" wouldn't that be the height of hypocrisy? Do as I say but not as I do?

As for other causes, can't GW walk and chew gum at the same time? Or can they only be singularly focused on one unjust cause to the exclusion of all others? 


 

GWRising, not a question of walking and chewing gum at the same time.  GW can and should support causes which are universally supported.  Would anyone object to finding a cure for cancer?  Or feeding the homeless?  Or fair treatment of black and brown skinned individuals?  

I believe you're conflating the discussion by bringing in more controversial topics such as abortion laws.  The country is divided enough about this (though a CBS poll earlier this year reports that less than 1/3 of all Americans would like to overturn Roe vs. Wade) that it would be too controversial for GW to passionately endorse either side.  

Just because every worthy cause can not appear on the basketball court does not mean that the school can't take a proactive stand in some other way.  Having Black Lives Matter on the court is not penalizing other worthy causes.  IMO, the only line which needs to be drawn is to differentiate between controversial causes where the school should not endorse one side out of respect for the other side, and causes which are universally accepted and are not at all adversarial.

GWRising, Jews aren't getting shot daily in America for driving/walking/standing on the street.

Take your politics and "social awareness" elsewhere. This is for discussions about GW Basketball.

Let us know how you think GW has been rising like your namesake when we've been rock bottom for the last 4 years!

Joel Joseph wrote:

GWRising, Jews aren't getting shot daily in America for driving/walking/standing on the street.

Take your politics and "social awareness" elsewhere. This is for discussions about GW Basketball.

Let us know how you think GW has been rising like your namesake when we've been rock bottom for the last 4 years!

Joel must have his head so far up his ass he hasn't heard about the Pittsburgh Synagogue, Jersey City, Poway, Monsey etc.. No, you are right Joel they weren't driving/walking/standing on the street. Just sitting in a house of worship or their own home.  

Last edited by GWRising (11/09/2020 6:19 pm)

Keep up the great analogies Rising. Let's not forget those in the LBGQT, Hispanic, Muslim, etc communities. Also, we can reach back in time and address the Japanese, Chinese, American Indian, Irish Catholic, etc communities.
Discussion was about the BLM movement and the underlying racial bias that seems to still exist today within American society.
 

Thanks for the SNL clip 22. The part about Chris Christie was especially hilarious considering his relationship to Trump.

Some (Rising) want to bring up other groups who have been victimized by hatred and violence (too many to name). To those I say "All Lives Matter" can't exist and be true until "Black Lives Matter".

The election results won't be the cure all and change our Country overnight, but it does give many hope and the sense that we are now pointing in the right direction.

Dr Mike wrote:

Let me shed some light how major universities manage building signage, posters, messaging, inside and outside.  

The outside of the building is entirely managed and determined by the university leadership. University President and team decide on what message, logo, etc. is appropriate for the outside of the building that is consistent with the institutional mission. The outside is considered institutional institutional public messaging.  

The inside of the building, messaging, logos, signage, sponsors, etc. in this case the Smith Center, is solely determined by the athletic director. The athletic director in  sense owns this inside space.

Now, to get inside the venue where signage and in this case BLM is posted, requires purchasing a game ticket. Hence, if the person does not like the messaging they do not buy a game ticket nd as we say no harm no foul. 

So, outside building signage and messaging the university. Inside the athletic facility, the athletic director. 

What none of us know, the opinion of all the student athletes from all the different sports that host events in the Smith Center. It is possible the athletes voted overwhelmingly for the BLM signage or its possible the vote was not overwhelming but the AD decided it was necessary.

Now, many of the post are true about other marginalized groups. How the AD manages this will determined her future. And, her future will also be determined when the time comes to remove the BLM signage. 

Again, the many post should not be discounted. When universities and in this case the athletic department act without policy and process, they get in serious trouble. We can all hope athletic department policy exist,  but I suspect it does not.      

Dr. Mike, I am telling you with a virtual certainty there is absolutely no way the Athletic Director made this decision on her own and without consulting across campus. I base this on many many years of understanding how GW works and how the athletic department interacts with the rest of campus. This decision went right to the top.

22ndandF wrote:

GWRising wrote:

22ndandF wrote:

I understand some people don't like the BLM movement for a variety of reasons. I'd just ask that those opposed to the BLM movement, have a little empathy for black people.  Please read on before you get angry with me. 

I feel it's completely understood by black community that there's also a lot of hatred and discrimination in the US directed at Mexicans, Asians, Islamic, Jewish people, LGBQT, and others.  I understand that many opponents/critics of the BLM movement feel their values (and even their standing in the community) are somehow being undermined by the BLM movement.  I also understand that many of these same people, feel the BLM movement diminishes the attention to the plights of others.  I also feel it's painful, exhausting, dehumanizing and insulting to black people to have to explain or justify the BLM movement (including putting the BLM symbol on the court of the Smith Center). 

The Smith Center is a place where so many great black athletes come to play basketball, and I feel it's the decent thing to do to send them the message that GW has their backs. So I am exceedingly happy that GW has made the decision to support the BLM movement in this manner.

On a related note, did anyone see Dave Chappelle's monologue to open SNL this past week? I feel it's very funny and worth the watch, especially if you watch it in it's entirety. 

Here's a link to it on Youtube.   He uses some language, so if you are easily offended by some bad words, I would suggest that you do not click on the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un_VvR_WqNs
 

I don't disagree with much of what you have said except for this - the BLM Movement is not a static meaning "equality" or "social justice" means exactly the same thing to all people even within the Black community. So when people criticize BLM it may be for a whole panoply of different associated reasons unrelated to the basic premise of basic human equality and justice. For example, it may be that someone agrees that no one should ever treat any human being like George Floyd was treated but does not agree that we should de-fund the police as a result. It may be that hiring practices need to be modified to identify and attract qualified candidates but no one is going to agree to have quotas or set asides. It may be that we need to fund our HBCUs to a greater extent and incentivize businesses to move into certain communities, but a firm "no" to reparations. It may be that anti-semitism or marxism espoused by some of the ostensible leaders of the BLM organization are a problem. One of the problems we have in our discourse is that there seem to be only two boxes on this issue and I for one think people are much more nuanced in 2020 and there are probably fifty boxes or more than span all races, religions, ages etc. The idea that you must agree with everything or you agree with nothing is very unfortunate as is the notion that because you agree with that you must agree with something else.

My point is this .... do I think GW cares about BLM? Yes to some degree. But based on actions, I believe they (the institution) care more about letting the world know that they care about BLM than actually doing something more to make a difference right here in this community. Window dressing is the term I would use. And if folks are honest when the novelty of the BLM court messaging wears off, they'll be left right where they started if nothing else is done.

This is a serious issue that deserves serious action in so many areas - health, education, employment, housing etc. It demands serious actions not slogans or repackaged messaging. I would remind you that in the 1960s they didn't call it BLM but it was BLM then too. Nearly, 60 years later here we are. If you let GW or anyone get off on the cheap with slogans, you can expect BLM to unfortunately continue to be an issue for many years to come.


 

GWRising, I feel all the points you made are valid, and I also agree with some of your criticisms of the BLM.  I would point out that I don't think there's complete uniformity of thought/position among BLM leaders on their platform, just like most political parties, organizations, and families don't agree on everything.  And I feel it may not be fair to take the extreme positions (like hatred of police) of a very few and paint the larger BLM with their thoughts.  Instead of parsing every position and trying to make some people feel terrible, maybe generally supporting the BLM would be a nice thing to do. It doesn't mean you have to agree with everything.  And regarding GW, of course there's work to do, but I was very happy they at least did this.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I bet the black basketball players who play on that court feel a little better about things when they see the court today.  Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts and also for thinking about what I wrote.

So here's the larger issue to me that needs to be solved. I agree with your statement that not everyone agrees with everything espoused by some in BLM movement. But the problem is also that not everyone who has an issue with one or more aspects of BLM is against everything BLM stands for or is against its core message. Often, we seem to be judged by our extremes on every issue. Like I mentioned before, we unfortunately have come to a place in this country where you either believe in everything or you believe in nothing. The ideological extremists almost always ruin most movements. So I think when most (not all) people question BLM, they are not questioning the fundamental premise of equality and justice for Black Americans or denying there is any problem but rather are challenging some of the policies or associated impacts that have bubbled up from the BLM movement that are positioned rightly or wrongly as foundational pillars of the movement. For example, I personally think that you can make police reforms without de-funding the police, that you can make educational and economic opportunities available to improve conditions without reparations. And some of my ideas for educational and economic opportunities might be more progressive than even some in the BLM want. But the response might be for some or maybe many that because I am against reparations or de-funding the police, I am against basic equality and social justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. My questioning of BLM logo has more to do with GW's time-earned reputation for phony initiatives and much less to do with the logo itself. 

But until we come to a place in this country where we can be less soundbite/message focused and more nuanced in our thinking toward real and demonstrable change in actions, we will continue to push potential allies out of the tent who don't believe in 100% of the entire message. 
 

Last edited by GWRising (11/11/2020 11:33 am)

I don't disagree Gwmayhem. However, I would tell you that I think unless someone has been living under a rock the past 6 months, the awareness that there is a significant problem is or should be there. What has been missing is action. The problem is out in the open now. Adding additional awareness at this point has far less return than action.