Marquette University honors ’70s cop-killer Assata Shakur with mural

[GGGG]

Does Sykes still not realize that this chick has been fired?  Why is he intent on inflaming a controversy where none really exists...or if it does, it really isn't that big of one?  (I know and you know the answer to that question...)

[tower912]

To borrow another lyric from another of my favorite bands, Gaelic Storm, "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story."

[mu-rara]

Do you have a basis for this claim?

I have a theory that many conservatives on this board don't comment on posts like this.  They know they will be shouted down and it's  not worth the psychic energy loss.   I on the other hand.......

Maybe we should run a poll to validate (or not) my theory?

[jsglow]

Does Sykes still not realize that this chick has been fired?  Why is he intent on inflaming a controversy where none really exists...or if it does, it really isn't that big of one?  (I know and you know the answer to that question...)

Or that Bartlow was hired well before Lovell took over!

Look, I generally agree with guys like Charlie on most political issues.  I proudly admit to being right of center.  But this is just crazy and to paint MU's administration as some leftist group is simply flat out wrong.  I can't and won't repeat some of the comments I've heard about the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center but ask all to note Marquette's actions since Sunday.  She was literally 'perp walked' within 48 hours of Mike learning about the mural.  

WTF Charlie?  I'm starting to think he's a Badger sympathizer.  

[tower912]

I have a theory that many conservatives on this board don't comment on posts like this.  They know they will be shouted down and it's  not worth the psychic energy loss.   I on the other hand.......

Maybe we should run a poll to validate (or not) my theory?

I would have made the same assertion about liberals.   

[drewm88]

I have a theory that many conservatives on this board don't comment on posts like this.  They know they will be shouted down and it's  not worth the psychic energy loss.   I on the other hand.......

Maybe we should run a poll to validate (or not) my theory?

Are you saying that nobody wants to put in the effort to back up a claim because they assume nobody will listen/care anyway? If so, I can accept that.

But if you're different, as you imply, I'd love to hear your basis for the original claim (if you support it.)

Finally, I'm not sure a poll of "is it worth the effort to supply sources to back up your assertions on Scoop?" is going to help with anything.

[Benny B]

Just a thought here....

A) It's virtually unequivocal that Bartlow was intimately aware of Shakur's background and the controversy surrounding her actions.

B) It is pretty clear to me that she either selected - or at the very least, proposed - Shakur as the subject for the mural on her own.

C) What remains unknown are Bartlow's specific motives for selecting or proposing Shakur.

It can be reasonably surmised that Bartlow "commissioned" the AKA's for the mural.  The question is why the AKA's?  Bartlow doesn't appear to be a woman of color according to her LinkedIn photo.  She's not a member of (or advisor to) AKA as far as I can tell.

Is it too much of a stretch to believe that, at best, Bartlow commissioned the AKA's because her mural subject was a black woman, and who better to help with a mural of a black woman than a sorority of black women?  The AKA's have gone on record saying that they knew nothing of Shakur's background, and nobody seems to be contesting this.  So it is probably fair to say that Bartlow didn't brief the AKA's on Shakur.  Even if she didn't commission the Shakur mural as some sort of protest or F-U, she had to know that it was just a matter of time before someone saw the attribution and looked up the name.  Either way, she used a group of unsuspecting college students to help her with a mural in a university building of a subject whom she knew was a cop killer.

Sure, you would think that one of the AKA's would have looked up Shakur's history.  But again... why the AKAs?  Did she see AKA and think to herself... "they're educated black women, so they probably won't have any problem if they find out Shakur's a cop killer," or did she assume the AKA's would be the least likely to ask any questions.  Worse yet... did she at all contemplate simply throwing the AKA's under the bus should the s__ ever hit the fan?

How is this not racial exploitation?  Is anyone going to argue that she didn't choose the AKA's based on the color of their skin, and potentially put them in harm's way, simply to advance her own cause?

[jsglow]

Pretty good stuff Benny.  In my conversations over the past couple of days no one has said a cross word about the sorority.  So you might be onto something.

[warriorchick]

Just a thought here....

A) It's virtually unequivocal that Bartlow was intimately aware of Shakur's background and the controversy surrounding her actions.

B) It is pretty clear to me that she either selected - or at the very least, proposed - Shakur as the subject for the mural on her own.

C) What remains unknown are Bartlow's specific motives for selecting or proposing Shakur.

It can be reasonably surmised that Bartlow "commissioned" the AKA's for the mural.  The question is why the AKA's?  Bartlow doesn't appear to be a woman of color according to her LinkedIn photo.  She's not a member of (or advisor to) AKA as far as I can tell.

Is it too much of a stretch to believe that, at best, Bartlow commissioned the AKA's because her mural subject was a black woman, and who better to help with a mural of a black woman than a sorority of black women?  The AKA's have gone on record saying that they knew nothing of Shakur's background, and nobody seems to be contesting this.  So it is probably fair to say that Bartlow didn't brief the AKA's on Shakur.  Even if she didn't commission the Shakur mural as some sort of protest or F-U, she had to know that it was just a matter of time before someone saw the attribution and looked up the name.  Either way, she used a group of unsuspecting college students to help her with a mural in a university building of a subject whom she knew was a cop killer.

Sure, you would think that one of the AKA's would have looked up Shakur's history.  But again... why the AKAs?  Did she see AKA and think to herself... "they're educated black women, so they probably won't have any problem if they find out Shakur's a cop killer," or did she assume the AKA's would be the least likely to ask any questions.  Worse yet... did she at all contemplate simply throwing the AKA's under the bus should the s__ ever hit the fan?

How is this not racial exploitation?  Is anyone going to argue that she didn't choose the AKA's based on the color of their skin, and potentially put them in harm's way, simply to advance her own cause?

I am not totally convinced that whoever at AKA gave the go-ahead to fund this project didn't know who Assata Shakur was.

I only see three possible scenarios here:

1.  AKA knew who Assata Shakur was, and approved it anyway (perhaps they thought Marquette had finally become "enlightened").
2.  They didn't know who Assata Shakur was, and didn't ask, because they didn't want to appear that they weren't familiar with a person who was being touted as an African-American hero. In other words, the Emperor wasn't wearing any clothes.
3.  They didn't know who Assata Shakur was, and but gave Bartlow the money anyway.  This one makes the least amount of sense to me, because why would you fund a mural that honors a person you have never heard of?

[mu03eng]

To borrow another lyric from another of my favorite bands, Gaelic Storm, "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story."

Damn it Tower, I love you so damn much

[Sir Lawrence]

Or that Bartlow was hired well before Lovell took over!

Look, I generally agree with guys like Charlie on most political issues.  I proudly admit to being right of center.  But this is just crazy and to paint MU's administration as some leftist group is simply flat out wrong.  I can't and won't repeat some of the comments I've heard about the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center but ask all to note Marquette's actions since Sunday.  She was literally 'perp walked' within 48 hours of Mike learning about the mural.  

WTF Charlie?  I'm starting to think he's a Badger sympathizer.  

Glow, because it's entertainment.  Sykes doesn't particularly care what all the facts are.  He cherry picks what allows him to present the most palatable porridge for his audience (and ratings).  I listen to him too, when Chicago sports radio ceases to hold my interest.  Whenever I have "inside" information on one of his topics (for example, when he's discussing an event that my firm is working on) I find that his information is half baked, or lacks context.  Keep that in mind if you are tempted to use him as a source.  

[mu03eng]

Just a thought here....

A) It's virtually unequivocal that Bartlow was intimately aware of Shakur's background and the controversy surrounding her actions.

B) It is pretty clear to me that she either selected - or at the very least, proposed - Shakur as the subject for the mural on her own.

C) What remains unknown are Bartlow's specific motives for selecting or proposing Shakur.

It can be reasonably surmised that Bartlow "commissioned" the AKA's for the mural.  The question is why the AKA's?  Bartlow doesn't appear to be a woman of color according to her LinkedIn photo.  She's not a member of (or advisor to) AKA as far as I can tell.

Is it too much of a stretch to believe that, at best, Bartlow commissioned the AKA's because her mural subject was a black woman, and who better to help with a mural of a black woman than a sorority of black women?  The AKA's have gone on record saying that they knew nothing of Shakur's background, and nobody seems to be contesting this.  So it is probably fair to say that Bartlow didn't brief the AKA's on Shakur.  Even if she didn't commission the Shakur mural as some sort of protest or F-U, she had to know that it was just a matter of time before someone saw the attribution and looked up the name.  Either way, she used a group of unsuspecting college students to help her with a mural in a university building of a subject whom she knew was a cop killer.

Sure, you would think that one of the AKA's would have looked up Shakur's history.  But again... why the AKAs?  Did she see AKA and think to herself... "they're educated black women, so they probably won't have any problem if they find out Shakur's a cop killer," or did she assume the AKA's would be the least likely to ask any questions.  Worse yet... did she at all contemplate simply throwing the AKA's under the bus should the s__ ever hit the fan?

How is this not racial exploitation?  Is anyone going to argue that she didn't choose the AKA's based on the color of their skin, and potentially put them in harm's way, simply to advance her own cause?

That aside(not dismissing, I agree with you) but how does someone like Bartlow get to the point to be able to do this.  Based on all of the information, it seems she intentionally did that and there is no way she thought this would end without controversy.  Additionally, to be this radical, people had to have seen similar behavior along her climb of the academic ladder.  One doesn't wake up one day and decide to venerate a cop killer and terrorist without some sort of smaller radical statements.  I'm all for academic freedom but have we created a system that generates these type of thinkers?

For the record I'd be saying the same thing if there was a professor that got a mural put up to venerate someone who blew up an abortion clinic or something.

Bottom line, is this the type of person we want in a teaching profession, and if not what is the system doing to promote this?

[mu03eng]

Glow, because it's entertainment.  Sykes doesn't particularly care what all the facts are.  He cherry picks what allows him to present the most palatable porridge for his audience (and ratings).  I listen to him too, when Chicago sports radio ceases to hold my interest.  Whenever I have "inside" information on one of his topics (for example, when he's discussing an event that my firm is working on) I find that his information is half baked, or lacks context.  Keep that in mind if you are tempted to use him as a source.  

Agree with this, like any other media or commentary person, Sykes is trying to drive revenue which means listeners/readers.  He picks topics in which he can frame an argument that the majority who are not "in the know" will agree with his position and continue to listen.

It's simple math (tin foil hat time), there are far more people in this state that are predisposed to dislike or think the worst of Marquette than support Marquette.  This is especially true within the demographic Sykes is looking to pluck (men 18-5).  So Sykes will always pick on Marquette and "assume" the worst because it gives him the bigger audience than if he had a nuanced conversation.

[warriorchick]

That aside(not dismissing, I agree with you) but how does someone like Bartlow get to the point to be able to do this.  Based on all of the information, it seems she intentionally did that and there is no way she thought this would end without controversy.  Additionally, to be this radical, people had to have seen similar behavior along her climb of the academic ladder.  One doesn't wake up one day and decide to venerate a cop killer and terrorist without some sort of smaller radical statements.  I'm all for academic freedom but have we created a system that generates these type of thinkers?

For the record I'd be saying the same thing if there was a professor that got a mural put up to venerate someone who blew up an abortion clinic or something.

Bottom line, is this the type of person we want in a teaching profession, and if not what is the system doing to promote this?

Just my theory, but I can imagine that she has gotten tons of pushback from various Marquette factions ever since she accepted the position.  Think about it:  In theory, if you follow all of the Catholic Church's doctrines to the letter, there is no need for a Gender and Sexuality Resource Center at Marquette. I imagine that she has not particularly enjoyed her job at times.  I am sure she is still pissed over the whole FemSex thing.

Gadflies like her enjoy pushing people's buttons.  My guess is that when the whole concept of this mural was in its infancy, she thought, "Either I will get away with it, or I will go out in a blaze of glory."  My prediction is she will end up at some NFP or think tank where she will be hailed as a brilliant trailblazer.

[Eldon]

That looks like a standard CV of someone running a gender and sexuality resource center on a college campus.  What does publishing her CV show?  Anyone who completed a PhD in critical lit, sociology, X studies, is likely going to be a left-wing radical.  I mean, it comes with the territory.  You will not find a moderate director of a Gender and Sexuality Resource Center on any college campus.  I think Sykes is trying to rile people up, which I think is unfortunate.

Also, McAdams is hardly the lone conservative professor on campus, he is simply the most outspoken.  Many of the B-school faculty are unabashedly right of center, at least on fiscal issues (and likely some social issues).  And that is pretty much the norm on all college campuses.  Sykes seemingly lamenting the fact that a radical ran the Gender Resource Center strikes me as analogous to complaining about an ardent pro-capitalist finance professor running the Applied Investment Management program.  I don't mean to say that B-school profs are just as far to the right of the center as GSRC directors are to the left of it.  Rather, I'm simply trying to point out that this woman's CV should match your expectations.  Otherwise, your expectations need to be revised.

[warriorchick]

That looks like a standard CV of someone running a gender and sexuality resource center on a college campus.  What does publishing her CV show?  Anyone who completed a PhD in critical lit, sociology, X studies, is likely going to be a left-wing radical.  I mean, it comes with the territory.  You will not find a moderate director of a Gender and Sexuality Resource Center on any college campus.  I think Sykes is trying to rile people up, which I think is unfortunate.

Also, McAdams is hardly the lone conservative professor on campus, he is simply the most outspoken.  Many of the B-school faculty are unabashedly right of center, at least on fiscal issues (and likely some social issues).  And that is pretty much the norm on all college campuses.  Sykes seemingly lamenting the fact that a radical ran the Gender Resource Center strikes me as analogous to complaining about an ardent pro-capitalist finance professor running the Applied Investment Management program.  I don't mean to say that B-school profs are just as far to the right of the center as GSRC directors are to the left of it.  Rather, I'm simply trying to point out that this woman's CV should match your expectations.  Otherwise, your expectations need to be revised.

You are dead on.  I don't expect them to hire someone whose Doctoral Thesis was titled "Praying the Gay Away: Sexuality and Spirituality in a Moral Society".

[rocket surgeon]

I have a theory that many conservatives on this board don't comment on posts like this.  They know they will be shouted down and it's  not worth the psychic energy loss.   I on the other hand.......

Maybe we should run a poll to validate (or not) my theory?

you hit it for me.  some people just want this to go away.  so shut up-nothing to see here.  on the other hand, some of this discussion can be therapeutic.  not in a gloating way at all, but i think many people are a little shocked that marquette has gone this far.  how far? well, this far.  what is the value of having a gender and whatever club. can't this be lumped into  another sociology-based study group or club or resource center?  i know, i know, they fired her already.  i also realize this is a university and therefore a place for an exchange of ideas, lifestyles...but how far does a jesuit university need to go?  i don't know the answer to that, but that is why people are continuing to talk about this.  people are just trying to make sense out of this.   

[brandx]

you hit it for me.  some people just want this to go away.  so shut up-nothing to see here.  on the other hand, some of this discussion can be therapeutic.  not in a gloating way at all, but i think many people are a little shocked that marquette has gone this far.  how far? well, this far.  what is the value of having a gender and whatever club. can't this be lumped into  another sociology-based study group or club or resource center?  i know, i know, they fired her already.  i also realize this is a university and therefore a place for an exchange of ideas, lifestyles...but how far does a jesuit university need to go?  i don't know the answer to that, but that is why people are continuing to talk about this.  people are just trying to make sense out of this.   

You do realize this is already page 11 of this thread

[Benny B]

Also, McAdams is hardly the lone conservative professor on campus, he is simply the most outspoken.  Many of the B-school faculty are unabashedly right of center, at least on fiscal issues (and likely some social issues).  And that is pretty much the norm on all college campuses.

My favorite moments in Straz Hall were listening to Steve Lysonski (an unapologetic Pac-NW-bred liberal and professor of marketing) have a political conversation with any of his colleagues.  It was typically Lysonski venting about whatever Bush did that week and the other professors egging him on for their own enjoyment.  I swear that you could say "Bush is a goddamn idiot" or "Bush is a great president" and get the exact same reaction out of him either way.

[tower912]

Pretty sure that no one drove Dr. Christopher Wolfe out of MU and he is quite conservative.   Unabashedly.  One of my favorite profs at MU.    However, my recollection of him is that it would have been out of character for him to publicly go after a TA.

Neither of these recent dismissals had anything to do with the respective professors political views.    Both were due entirely to their actions.   

[tower912]

Damn it Tower, I love you so damn much

I love you, too.   Just not in that way. 

[warriorchick]

I love you, too.   Just not in that way. 

Ms. Bartlow on line 1 for you.

[rocket surgeon]

You do realize this is already page 11 of this thread

umm-yes

as i was saying, some people just want this to go away. so shut up-nothing to see here

[mu03eng]

I love you, too.   Just not in that way. 

Not in the "you quote music lyrics from a band I really like and you are a reasonable, open minded person with a degree from the same place and are obsessed with Marquette basketball" kind of way???  What way do you love me, cause now I'm scared.

[tower912]

Not in the "you quote music lyrics from a band I really like and you are a reasonable, open minded person with a degree from the same place and are obsessed with Marquette basketball" kind of way???  What way do you love me, cause now I'm scared.

OK, EXACTLY in that way.   I thought you were getting frisky.