Thanks Jim and Anon. Both of your posts make me pause to think about the difference between the incidents. I guess I'm just wondering how some things set us off, and others don't, when perhaps there's a connection between these things.

I confess I am still learning about where people draw the line with whether or not one's speech reflects the individual or an organization to which the individual belongs. I guess the football players sign something that says they are always representing the University...even on their Facebook pages....? (I don't know, Jim).

I do question the level of threat between a Facebook page (is he *really* going to go after the President Elect?) and the racial slurs/imagery at a ghetto party. Let me just ask, for conversation, what is the difference in level of threat? There are indeed people who are targets in both scenarios, no?

With respect to the ghetto parties, I turn back to Bob Jensen's article, who noted: "While the thoughtless actions of young adults acting out the racism of the culture are disturbing, the thoughtful, but depoliticized, response from the law school is distressing. The actions of both groups in this affair are a painful reminder of the depth of white society's commitment to white supremacy. . . .

The e-mail suggests that the partygoers didn't consider "the potential harm they were causing to UT Law" by doing something that could make some people "feel uncomfortable simply because of who they are." Most would agree that it's important at a public institution of higher education for all people to feel accepted as part of the university community, but the real harm is not to the institution but to the people who are targeted. By highlighting the effect of this on "UT Law," Sager risks elevating the institution above the principles involved and may well leave people wondering if the university isn't worried most about its image."

There is an increase in "noose" occurrences since the Jena Six Trials. I There's an article about how this is not so surprising in a time where Black-face parties and mock slave auctions run rampant on college campuses:
http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_9814.shtml

What's your analysis of the first amendment issues here, Adria? I think that the general right of a student to make an ass of himself isn't in question, but insofar as he is a member of a "team" with an ethical code of conduct, there are no problems (I presume he signed something along the way?).

Were there athletes at the Ghetto Fab Party?

His original status message: "all the hunters gather up, we have a @%#@ in the whitehouse"
I don't think the party comes anywhere near the level of calling the president elect a 'coon' and threatening him with violence?