U. Missouri Issue

[Justanothergrad]

I'm a bit confused about what is going on with this story; I haven't been able to find a clear answer. Race/Social Justice issues in this country are a major hot topic and important that we are aware of in our day to day practice.

The football players alleged racial discrimination or insensitivity (which of the two was not entirely clear to me) and refused to play practice until the president resigned. Several faculty stood in support of them and called for walk-outs. The president just resigned this morning acknowledging the controversy. What is confusing to me is what the controversy actually is. Does anyone know/have a better grasp? Was there some sort of trigger event or a series of events? I want to make sure I'm aware of this situation given the potential reactions my clients may have thinking back to other similar events in the last few years.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted343839]

It's hard to describe a campus climate in purely objective terms, so without being there, it's difficult to really know the context. But try this Washington Post piece - it paints a more vivid picture than most of the coverage I've seen: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-in-mo-after-swastika-drawn-with-human-feces/

 

[AcronymAllergy]

My limited/cursory understanding, perhaps similar to what's mentioned in the link MamaPhD posted, is that rather than a single event, the calls for resignation are due to a series of ongoing events and a racially discriminative and insensitive atmosphere that the students feel the current (or now former) president didn't do enough to address. The swastika in feces may have just been the final straw.

 

[GoPokes]

Also want to mention the graduate student who went on a hunger strike for a few days before the athletes joined in. Great to see courage bring forth change.

 

[Justanothergrad]

It's hard to describe a campus climate in purely objective terms, so without being there, it's difficult to really know the context. But try this Washington Post piece - it paints a more vivid picture than most of the coverage I've seen: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-in-mo-after-swastika-drawn-with-human-feces/

Thanks. That probably has the best collection of information that I've seen.



After reading it I have a concern. There are clearly some racially-based acts of discrimination going on (in addition to being proximal to the Michael Brown incident that more than surely provided a keyed up environment) that are spurring this whole incident, but I'm having a hard time reconciling the need for social justice with the appropriateness of the calls. From my reading it seems as though the school has denounced racism and it sounds like kicked out people that they have been able to identify as taking part of racist behaviors. I'm sure that the school could do more (as we all could), but I'm also concerned about the flip side. Social justice, to me, reflects a broad achievement and not specific to a single group or person. If I, or anyone else, was in the presidents place, what would be considered sufficient/insufficient to demonstrate action?

I would hate to think that people are losing their jobs without a deep discourse about what steps they didn't take/where they fell short. I think that, particularly in this case, stands out as something we (as a profession and as individuals) need to spend a lot of time thinking about- what constitutes inexcusable action and what defines problematic inaction. The later seems far more ambiguous, and central to this issue.

 

[deleted343839]

From my reading it seems as though the school has denounced racism and it sounds like kicked out people that they have been able to identify as taking part of racist behaviors.

Those are very safe, "low hanging fruit" responses. It appears there was converging sentiment among students and faculty that Tim Wolfe's leadership was inadequate, however well intentioned his statements might have been.

Social justice, to me, reflects a broad achievement and not specific to a single group or person. If I, or anyone else, was in the presidents place, what would be considered sufficient/insufficient to demonstrate action?

What would be considered sufficient? Clearly more than what was done. It is a president's job not to act as an individual but rather to mobilize people and resources to solve complex problems. If there were large-scale coordinated efforts to address the escalating problems on that campus, it's not clear what those were or how the leadership learned from them.

I would hate to think that people are losing their jobs without a deep discourse about what steps they didn't take/where they fell short.

The discourse has been ongoing, and it's not about to be over. Tim Wolfe will have ample opportunities to tell his side of the story. But for now a critical mass has acted to prioritize the campus community's need for different leadership above Wolfe's need for a job.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Thanks. That probably has the best collection of information that I've seen.



After reading it I have a concern. There are clearly some racially-based acts of discrimination going on (in addition to being proximal to the Michael Brown incident that more than surely provided a keyed up environment) that are spurring this whole incident, but I'm having a hard time reconciling the need for social justice with the appropriateness of the calls. From my reading it seems as though the school has denounced racism and it sounds like kicked out people that they have been able to identify as taking part of racist behaviors. I'm sure that the school could do more (as we all could), but I'm also concerned about the flip side. Social justice, to me, reflects a broad achievement and not specific to a single group or person. If I, or anyone else, was in the presidents place, what would be considered sufficient/insufficient to demonstrate action?

I would hate to think that people are losing their jobs without a deep discourse about what steps they didn't take/where they fell short. I think that, particularly in this case, stands out as something we (as a profession and as individuals) need to spend a lot of time thinking about- what constitutes inexcusable action and what defines problematic inaction. The later seems far more ambiguous, and central to this issue.

The way I take it is if you are the guy or gal in charge and things aren't going well, you get the blame. That's why they get paid the big bucks. Whether or not it was his fault or he should have done something different doesn't matter too much because life is not fair. Things appear to be coming to a head with the tensions from both a racial and an economic standpoint throughout the nation. As mental health professionals, we have to recognize that this pressure affects our patients and take steps to alleviate or ameliorate that. One only needs to look at the upcoming presidential election for a reflection of some of the forces at play here. I tend to be an observer that sees both (or more side) to every issue and from my stance it looks like everyone is getting further and further apart and more and more frustrated.

 

[cara susanna]

Both Wolfe and Loftin have resigned

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/e...ns-after-mounting-protests-over-racism/106512