Wednesday, December 18, 2002

Hmmm. Curious

Reading the online chat of the SCTimes editorial by Mike Sawin is quote interesting. There are several comments made by one person going as Yoda which indicates the issue now is the pro-Second Amendment literature the College Republicans had from the JPFO. At one point I've read the point of the professors' objection to be the flag itself (thus the request/order to remove it); then it was the implied endorsement of Republicans by Israel; then it was anti-Semitic to suggest guns might have helped defend against the Holocaust (a position taken by some of the JPFO's literature); and now this discussion suggests the point is use of Israel to push a pro-gun view. Yoda also brings up repeated picture-taking by the photographer-student, a story not reported in either the AP or SCTimes reports. (Please note, the Times does not continue to run their stories more than three days old; the WCCO report has more details than the one stored at the StarTribune.) I've heard this from people defending the professors, though try as I will I can find no right to not be photographed in my copy of the Constitution.

So which is it, and which of these is being used to justify both the kerfuffle between student and professor, and the subsequent behavior of the VP for Student Life?

Also worth noting, at two or three points Yoda brings up facts that have not been publicly released. S/He claims not to be affiliated with SCSU. So how does Yoda know these things??? The Times' chat areas have been a topic of debate on campus, as campus leftists view their anonymity as leading to irresponsible speech. (I guess only responsible speech is free?) Wonder if Yoda and others are using anonymity now to slip their justifications into the discussion? Could be.