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

[Jay Bee]

Fire them all!!!!!!!!!

[4everwarriors]

And what about all those students who were honing their masturbation skills as part of the FEMSEX practicum? No doubt they are worked into a lather about this! We need to lend them a hand and probe this very deeply and thoroughly.

Finally, we need to know who fingered Susannah Bartlow. Something is definitely fishy in all this.

Yeah but, some of these students are masturbatin' at only a 3rd grade level, hey?

[keefe]

Yeah but, some of these students are masterbatin' at only a 3rd grade level, hey?

You know, if McAdams hadn't fingered Bartlow and brought this whole issue to a climax the level of masturbation proficiency among Marquette coeds could have reached a fevered pitch.

[naginiF]

It was for a voluntary workshop.  Not a class for credit. 

It was pointed out to me that I was too tired and cranky to see the subtle jocularity in another exchange tonight (guilty as charged).  are you saying that the case here, or are you saying the post is even more on point.

*Looong week and not at my best on seeing subtleties*

[muwarrior69]

Nobody is "justifying his murder."  Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.

Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life? To disappear the mural with no engagement or conversation was to deny the role of such symbols in the social critique of police and to selectively erase some difficult histories while leaving others untouched. For a university to adopt a position informed solely by police is problematic in that they are but one stakeholder in our community. Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.

When Officer Foester pulled them over on the Turnpike it was in the dark of night. He had no idea what color or who they were. Yet he was gunned down in cold blood. I'm a resident and native of New Jersey and perhaps just a little too close of the issue at hand. Talk about erasing some difficult histories, she was found guilty in a court of law so in my book the University just didn't take a position informed solely by the police and quite frankly there is nothing to debate. Obviously they did not teach that to the students, as the sorority said they had no idea she killed a cop. So to me they are justifying it in the name of police brutality which has absolutely nothing to do with this officers death.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Before the fact this is most certainly true.  The difficulty, though, is sticking to the plan when actually facing the heat.  Actual heat is much hotter than would-be heat from elsewhere.

I'd hardly classify a couple of unpersuasive letters from no-name A&S faculty lefties as "heat."

[GGGG]

Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life? To disappear the mural with no engagement or conversation was to deny the role of such symbols in the social critique of police and to selectively erase some difficult histories while leaving others untouched. For a university to adopt a position informed solely by police is problematic in that they are but one stakeholder in our community. Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.

When Officer Foester pulled them over on the Turnpike it was in the dark of night. He had no idea what color or who they were. Yet he was gunned down in cold blood. I'm a resident and native of New Jersey and perhaps just a little too close of the issue at hand. Talk about erasing some difficult histories, she was found guilty in a court of law so in my book the University just didn't take a position informed solely by the police and quite frankly there is nothing to debate. Obviously they did not teach that to the students, as the sorority said they had no idea she killed a cop. So to me they are justifying it in the name of police brutality which has absolutely nothing to do with this officers death.

Again, you are reading into it what you want to read into it.  I don't see a single passage you quoted as "justifying his murder."

I am seeing both saying that there should have been a more intellectual discussion about who she was and if the mural should have been taken down in the first place.  While I sympathize with their point in general, in this case it is just too "out there."

That's the role that faculty play.  They don't have to deal with the external issues that the University is facing, so they can say this stuff with little consequence to them.

[forgetful]

I will admit that I didn't read the entire 14 page thread on this, but a few initial posts caught my attention and I wanted to comment on them.  

First, let me also be clear that I though this was a bad idea to have painted on a wall, because of sensitivities, but we would be right in revisiting Assata as a person.  There is a different side to the story than the wikipedia article.

It is well known that Assata was a target of secret surveillance programs by J. Edgar Hoover and that he was specifically targeting black organizations.  She was falsely accused of crimes 6 times with manufactured data to try and get her in jail.

It was those that led her to flee police.  The shootout is heavily contested.  All forensic evidence say she never held nor shot a gun at the scene of the shootout.  The FBI forensic evidence indicated that she had her hands up and was surrendering when she was shot twice, with the second shot being into her back.

The officer who told the story of her starting the gunfight has admitted to making the entire story up.

Prior to her court case she spent 4-years in jail awaiting trial.  2-years of it in solitary for no actual reason.  After trying to acquire evidence against her and not being able to show that she even held a gun at the shootout, they went to trial by handpicking a jury composed of close friends and family members of the deceased state trooper.

She was convicted.  If this side of the story is correct then she should be more celebrated as an individual.  Unfortunately there is no way to know for sure.  The lack of evidence and the rigged jury though are a matter of public record.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

That's the role that faculty play.  They don't have to deal with the external issues that the University is facing, so they can say this stuff with little consequence to them.

Interesting you say that with so much confidence, given the administration's position on free speech.

[GGGG]

Interesting you say that with so much confidence, given the administration's position on free speech.

I don't know what you mean by that.

EDIT:  Oh McAdams?  McAdams wasn't a free speech issue.  Never was. 

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I don't know what you mean by that.

EDIT:  Oh McAdams?  McAdams wasn't a free speech issue.  Never was. 

You're right, just a professor fired for what he wrote.  Just saying that if I were a professor is have serious concerns about serving about serving as a check on the administration by speaking out.

[GGGG]

You're right, just a professor fired for what he wrote.  Just saying that if I were a professor is have serious concerns about serving about serving as a check on the administration by speaking out.

He was fired for calling out a student in his blog after being warned not to.  Keep pretending that didn't happen.

Marquette has plenty of right-leaning professors that have published all sorts of stuff and managed to keep their jobs.  Marquette recently had a left-leaning director who authorized a mural of a controversial figure along with one of her quotes, and she was fired.

So I think it is pretty obvious to me why people were let go, and it wasn't simply because they said or wrote the wrong thing.

[Eldon]

I'd hardly classify a couple of unpersuasive letters from no-name A&S faculty lefties as "heat."

These people have a 20-year old unquenchable desire to see themselves as Bobby Kennedy reincarnate.  I wouldn't underestimate their perseverance.

[GGGG]

These people have a 20-year old unquenchable desire to see themselves as Bobby Kennedy reincarnate.  I wouldn't underestimate their perseverance.

But they have no power.  Lovell can get the new Provost to run interference, and as long as he keeps raising money, the basketball team wins, and enrollment is up, no one is going to care.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

He was fired for calling out a student in his blog after being warned not to.  Keep pretending that didn't happen.

Marquette has plenty of right-leaning professors that have published all sorts of stuff and managed to keep their jobs.  Marquette recently had a left-leaning director who authorized a mural of a controversial figure along with one of her quotes, and she was fired.

So I think it is pretty obvious to me why people were let go, and it wasn't simply because they said or wrote the wrong thing.

Oh, I get it. You can say whatever you like as long as you don't do it in a way that the administration disagrees with: seems like a bright line rule.

[GGGG]

Oh, I get it. You can say whatever you like as long as you don't do it in a way that the administration disagrees with: seems like a bright line rule.

No, you can say what you want as long as you don't call out students in your blog after being warned not to - and after McAdams admitted he was wrong.  Pretty simple.

I mean, do you think the administration likes the letters these faculty are sending around?  I doubt it.  Will the authors be fired?  Not a chance.

You can continue to see this as a left/right issue, but you would be wrong.  If you can't see the substantive differences between the two instances, I have no idea what to say. 

[Eldon]

I will admit that I didn't read the entire 14 page thread on this, but a few initial posts caught my attention and I wanted to comment on them.  

First, let me also be clear that I though this was a bad idea to have painted on a wall, because of sensitivities, but we would be right in revisiting Assata as a person.  There is a different side to the story than the wikipedia article.

It is well known that Assata was a target of secret surveillance programs by J. Edgar Hoover and that he was specifically targeting black organizations.  She was falsely accused of crimes 6 times with manufactured data to try and get her in jail.

It was those that led her to flee police.  The shootout is heavily contested.  All forensic evidence say she never held nor shot a gun at the scene of the shootout.  The FBI forensic evidence indicated that she had her hands up and was surrendering when she was shot twice, with the second shot being into her back.

The officer who told the story of her starting the gunfight has admitted to making the entire story up.

Prior to her court case she spent 4-years in jail awaiting trial.  2-years of it in solitary for no actual reason.  After trying to acquire evidence against her and not being able to show that she even held a gun at the shootout, they went to trial by handpicking a jury composed of close friends and family members of the deceased state trooper.

She was convicted.  If this side of the story is correct then she should be more celebrated as an individual.  Unfortunately there is no way to know for sure.  The lack of evidence and the rigged jury though are a matter of public record.

Is the FBI aware of all of this?  Because they added her to the most wanted list in 2013.  

[Ellenson Guerrero]

No, you can say what you want as long as you don't call out students in your blog after being warned not to - and after McAdams admitted he was wrong.  Pretty simple.

I mean, do you think the administration likes the letters these faculty are sending around?  I doubt it.  Will the authors be fired?  Not a chance.

You can continue to see this as a left/right issue, but you would be wrong.  If you can't see the substantive differences between the two instances, I have no idea what to say. 

I see this as a free speech issue.  McAdams shouldn't have been fired and I'm not sure this woman should have either.  The problem with the McAdams firing is that it injected the administration into left/right debate over legitimate academic discussion, with the university taking sides.  Now the campus's liberals shouldn't be surprised by the university's actions here. When the university's rule of decision is the court of public opinion, the results can be disheartening.

[jsglow]

Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life? To disappear the mural with no engagement or conversation was to deny the role of such symbols in the social critique of police and to selectively erase some difficult histories while leaving others untouched. For a university to adopt a position informed solely by police is problematic in that they are but one stakeholder in our community. Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.

When Officer Foester pulled them over on the Turnpike it was in the dark of night. He had no idea what color or who they were. Yet he was gunned down in cold blood. I'm a resident and native of New Jersey and perhaps just a little too close of the issue at hand. Talk about erasing some difficult histories, she was found guilty in a court of law so in my book the University just didn't take a position informed solely by the police and quite frankly there is nothing to debate. Obviously they did not teach that to the students, as the sorority said they had no idea she killed a cop. So to me they are justifying it in the name of police brutality which has absolutely nothing to do with this officers death.

She was convicted of murder in a lawful court by her peers serving on the jury.  There is no need for further debate.  Our society has correctly classified Shakur as a felon.  And we don't honor felons with murals.  That's it.  No further discussion warranted.  The crazed liberal faculty can go pound sand.  My God, this isn't Berkeley.

[jsglow]

I see this as a free speech issue.  McAdams shouldn't have been fired and I'm not sure this woman should have either.  The problem with the McAdams firing is that it injected the administration into left/right debate over legitimate academic discussion, with the university taking sides.  Now the campus's liberals shouldn't be surprised by the university's actions here. When the university's rule of decision is the court of public opinion, the results can be disheartening.

As do some others.  Just not Marquette's administration.

[GGGG]

I see this as a free speech issue.  McAdams shouldn't have been fired and I'm not sure this woman should have either.  The problem with the McAdams firing is that it injected the administration into left/right debate over legitimate academic discussion, with the university taking sides.  

No it didn't.  It was a workplace issue.  Not a free speech one.

[GGGG]

She was convicted of murder in a lawful court by her peers serving on the jury.  There is no need for further debate.  Our society has correctly classified Shakur as a felon.  And we don't honor felons with murals.  That's it.  No further discussion warranted.  The crazed liberal faculty can go pound sand.  My God, this isn't Berkeley.

Jesus was a criminal.  MLK was a criminal.  George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. were treasonous.

We honor criminals all the time.  I think you need to draw a different line in the sand other than "well, she was convicted." 

[Ellenson Guerrero]

No it didn't.  It was a workplace issue.  Not a free speech one.

I'll take your ipse dixit statement for what it's worth.

[GGGG]

I'll take your ipse dixit statement for what it's worth.

Hey, I actually had to look that one up!  Have a nice weekend.

[keefe]

Jesus was a criminal.  MLK was a criminal.  George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. were treasonous.