• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

College student suspended for calling blacks ugly....

I figured you were not making up the article referenced, but you most assuredly are making up the title of this thread.

Now that you've found the article, what do you want to say about it? Should he have been suspended for longer?
 
Last edited:
It doesn't say that he called them "ugly". He said: "They matter, they’re just not hot."

This is a very different thing. People and objects can be aesthetically pleasing without being sexually attractive.

I wonder if he'd still have gotten suspended if he'd qualified his response by saying that he didn't personally find them hot, instead of simply saying that they're not hot?
 
Last edited:
On the social media app Yik Yak, a post read "#blackwomenmatter." Pryor responded with, "They matter, they're just not hot."

Did mouse thread indeed.

On the other hand I am failing to see why this should get 6 month suspension. Or even 21.
 
College student suspended for calling blacks ugly.... let me guess, microagression? or do I need to read the article?
 
"I have considered your request carefully, and I see no grounds for appeal. In your own words, you accepted responsibility for your comment, which you deemed hurtful and distasteful, and stated you deserve to be held accountable for your actions," a Colorado College official wrote Pryor in a letter posted by the College Fix.

Young young man.

I wonder what kind of standards this college uses to judge such hmm actions. Like bunch of people get together and go like .. So, what do you think Frank?
 
Pryor says he immediately regretted his remark. “I was ashamed, because some people were clearly upset,” Pryor told The College Fix. “So I deleted it.”

Sounds like he agrees with the assessment. Except for the consequences part.
 
Pryor says he immediately regretted his remark. “I was ashamed, because some people were clearly upset,” Pryor told The College Fix. “So I deleted it.”

Sounds like he agrees with the assessment. Except for the consequences part.

What assessment? That it was "hurtful" and "distasteful"? I tell you something. When I fart on crowded bus I also feel ashamed, and will try to hold next one, but I do not think its hurtful nor distasteful. Hurtful ok, we can get some data on this, but distasteful? wtf is that?

I suspect he "agreed" because he was either told to (apologize its the right thing to do) or he was simply pressured by peers. When he was posting it he probably did not think it was hurtful and distasteful. I do not think it is. That hatters gonna hate and carebears gonna cry, well, as I said .. young young man.
 
What assessment? That it was "hurtful" and "distasteful"? I tell you something. When I fart on crowded bus I also feel ashamed, and will try to hold next one, but I do not think its hurtful nor distasteful. Hurtful ok, we can get some data on this, but distasteful? wtf is that?

I'm not quite certain the analogy works, but if you have willful control over fart production, and releasing the foul stench on the bus reveals something about your character and motivations, then I suppose we can run with it.

So, you fart on the bus. We (the other people on the bus and the driver) worry that you might not be the sort of person we want to ride the bus with. It seems natural to ask you to get off the bus as punishment.
 
I'm not quite certain the analogy works, but if you have willful control over fart production, and releasing the foul stench on the bus reveals something about your character and motivations, then I suppose we can run with it.

So, you fart on the bus. We (the other people on the bus and the driver) worry that you might not be the sort of person we want to ride the bus with. It seems natural to ask you to get off the bus as punishment.

Well, yes that is their right. But there is a teacher on the bus. Its a school trip. This teacher is in charge and, among other things, will prevent said lynching. I mean, unless there is rule I cant fart on the bus how will you get me off without resorting to power or authority? So now we have this teacher who is authority. On what standards he operates? We know the standards of the crowd .. there are none, written and/or agreed upon. They do not like something and that is enough.

That was my question. Standards upon which the said college operates. I hope its not lynch mob and I also hope its written.
 
I'm not quite certain the analogy works, but if you have willful control over fart production, and releasing the foul stench on the bus reveals something about your character and motivations, then I suppose we can run with it.

So, you fart on the bus. We (the other people on the bus and the driver) worry that you might not be the sort of person we want to ride the bus with. It seems natural to ask you to get off the bus as punishment.

You've NEVER had a fart slip the gate without intent?
 
Especially when trying to go for silent one but something goes wrong ..

It was argued that Thaddeus Pryor agreed with the assessment of Colorado College official in reply to Pryor's appeal:

In your own words, you accepted responsibility for your comment, which you deemed hurtful and distasteful ...

Responsibility for action is given so we are left with deemed hurtful and distasteful. I have already pointed out how problematic this is, especially without knowing code of conduct at the College Thaddeus Pryor certainly, not seemingly, agreed to follow when he signed up.

Lets look at this in different way. The college official? lol Like 11 year old .. Your appeal is refused because you "called it" already. First who calls it gets it and there is no taking back.
 
You've NEVER had a fart slip the gate without intent?

That's where the analogy breaks. I've never sent a tweet without intent. I might change my mind and regret it later, but typing a message and sending it hardly counts as an uncontrolled biological process.
 
The punishment seems quite a bit excessive, but it's all too typical of today's "can't offend anyone" college campuses.
 
That's where the analogy breaks. I've never sent a tweet without intent. I might change my mind and regret it later, but typing a message and sending it hardly counts as an uncontrolled biological process.

A cursory examination of the Twitterverse proves you wrong. :p
 
The punishment seems quite a bit excessive, but it's all too typical of today's "can't offend anyone" college campuses.

The comment does come across as insensitive and dickish to me though given the context under which it was announced. It wasn't like he was just on a dating forum discussing his dating preferences, or something. He specifically replied to a hashtag that is used to advocate for people who have died. Maybe the punishment was excessive -- especially given that they were originally going for 21 months and also considering that he deleted the comment -- but it shouldn't have just been ignored, either. He definitely seems like he was in the wrong on this one. I think it would have been sufficient to have to both apologize and explain the comment in front of all the Black students who objected to it, including taking questions, perhaps for the length of a class period. If he is really responsible then that should be sufficient. If it became a pattern, then more serious measures could be ratcheted up.
 
Last edited:
What assessment? That it was "hurtful" and "distasteful"? I tell you something. When I fart on crowded bus I also feel ashamed, and will try to hold next one, but I do not think its hurtful nor distasteful. Hurtful ok, we can get some data on this, but distasteful? wtf is that?

I suspect he "agreed" because he was either told to (apologize its the right thing to do) or he was simply pressured by peers. When he was posting it he probably did not think it was hurtful and distasteful. I do not think it is. That hatters gonna hate and carebears gonna cry, well, as I said .. young young man.

The difference is that a fart is an involuntary bodily action, whereas a post involves some level of thought.

Why do you think it isn't hurtful or distasteful? It was said against a hashtag used to advocate for people who have died. It wasn't just said in something random.
 
The difference is that a fart is an involuntary bodily action, whereas a post involves some level of thought.

Why do you think it isn't hurtful or distasteful? It was said against a hashtag used to advocate for people who have died. It wasn't just said in something random.

Fart fart fart .. I can take it back no problem at all, if its causing so many troubles.

Now, why do I think? What does it matter? Was it hurtful? Do you make such claim? Prove it? And distasteful? I dunno what to say because that word is not in my vocabulary ~ I dont use it.

The real question is, and I hinted at it several times, what kind of code of conduct been broken and how college officials determined responsibility and handed out punishment.

To me, it looks like it went in similar fashion like here:

So, what do you think Frank?

and Frank without proof knows its hurtful and according to his vocabulary distasteful.

Do you think I am close to reality?
 
The difference is that a fart is an involuntary bodily action, whereas a post involves some level of thought.

Why do you think it isn't hurtful or distasteful? It was said against a hashtag used to advocate for people who have died. It wasn't just said in something random.

And ? Reread again. While agreeing with the hashtag it simply stated he doe snot find black women good looking. It is distasteful yes, but how the **** is that a ground for 6 months suspension ? Or even 21 ? I have no idea about your college and school but a suspension so long was reserved only for incredibly bad incident. Not distasteful qips. What sort of free speech are you entertaining there when such a simple sentence garner 6 months ?
 
Maybe the punishment was excessive -- especially given that they were originally going for 21 months and also considering that he deleted the comment -- but it shouldn't have just been ignored, either.

Why shouldn't it have been ignored? Seriously, I honestly don't understand why he's being subjected to disciplinary action.

I don't see how the posting of his personal opinions on an anonymous internet service are any business of the college.

He could have been posting highly vitriolic Nazi propagana and, as far as I'm concerned, it still wouldn't be any business of the college. (Unless of course he was making references to the college in his posts, or posting as part of a school project, or directing his comments to university staff or students.)

But maybe there's something I'm missing. The article linked to in the OP seems to skip over a couple of important details.

It says that the social media service is anonymous, so why was he, specifically, accused of posting almost all of the offensive messages?

What did the numerous other offensive messages say, and has anyone else gotten into trouble for posting them?

And why, having seen the huge over-reaction occurring as a result of these messages, would he admit that any of them had been posted by him?
 
And ? Reread again. While agreeing with the hashtag it simply stated he doe snot find black women good looking. It is distasteful yes, but how the **** is that a ground for 6 months suspension ? Or even 21 ? I have no idea about your college and school but a suspension so long was reserved only for incredibly bad incident. Not distasteful qips. What sort of free speech are you entertaining there when such a simple sentence garner 6 months ?

Look at my other post. I said that the 6 or 21 month penalty was excessive.
 
Last edited:
Why shouldn't it have been ignored? Seriously, I honestly don't understand why he's being subjected to disciplinary action.

I don't see how the posting of his personal opinions on an anonymous internet service are any business of the college.

He could have been posting highly vitriolic Nazi propagana and, as far as I'm concerned, it still wouldn't be any business of the college. (Unless of course he was making references to the college in his posts, or posting as part of a school project, or directing his comments to university staff or students.)

But maybe there's something I'm missing. The article linked to in the OP seems to skip over a couple of important details.

It says that the social media service is anonymous, so why was he, specifically, accused of posting almost all of the offensive messages?

What did the numerous other offensive messages say, and has anyone else gotten into trouble for posting them?

And why, having seen the huge over-reaction occurring as a result of these messages, would he admit that any of them had been posted by him?

It seems the messages must have affected a lot of people there. The focused nature of the app ("10 mile radius") would tend to concentrate the message on the college community, which has a degree of closer knitting. Therefore it would be different from a post simply fired off to some random corner of the Internet. I have not used this app, though, so I am not sure of all the details of exactly how it works. That would need to be examined. If the app sends messages on an individual basis, then it could look like it's addressed to individual students.

But yes, a big question is how many of the other messages were or were not attributable to him. If he was posting lots and lots of racist messages and they were showing up to lots of people, that could be a more significant problem than just 1 message. So either he is not admitting to them or they don't all come from him -- resolution of this cannot be had with the information at hand.

ADDITION: Also, for whatever its worth, I have found the code of conduct for the college:
https://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/studentguide/pathfinder/code-of-conduct/
https://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/studentguide/pathfinder/code-of-conduct/policies.html

Although, of course, this doesn't tell what the specific section the student was charged under was. But two things look interesting:

Abusive Behavior: The college prohibits abusive behavior, which is any act that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student or group, or which destroys or removes public or private property, or which produces ridicule, embarrassment, harassment, intimidation or other similar result. Spectators at athletic events should convey enthusiasm and team support; demeaning, disrespectful or vulgar behavior may be found to be in violation of this policy.

Collusion: Collusion is action or inaction by someone who is aware of a policy violation and does nothing to address the behavior. This includes assisting in the violation of a policy, as well as knowingly failing to take preventative measures relative to violations of policy. Students are expected to confront their peers and/or remove themselves from the situation, then report the information to a conduct authority for action.

Putting the first with the second suggests that if a student is "embarrassed" or "ridiculed" by the behavior, then they must report that behavior as a disciplinary violation.
 
Last edited:
Also this part, thanks for the find btw:

Students may be summarily dismissed from Colorado College by the president of the college, the vice president for student life/dean of students, or the dean’s designee if the student's conduct is not in the best interest of the college or their behavior is deemed in violation of these standards.

To me that is basically anything. Fart on bus is surely not in the best interest of the college.

Under Student Conduct Policies - https://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/studentguide/pathfinder/code-of-conduct/policies.html

there is not much beyond:

We expect that all students treat themselves and others with respect as demonstrated through their behaviors and interactions and inappropriate conduct that is disorderly, disruptive, or indecent while on- or off-campus is prohibited.

yet again so vague that its up to the judge and/or jury, seems to me. Microagression after all?
 
It was off campus speech, and he should win a lawsuit if he files one.
 
The comment does come across as insensitive and dickish to me though given the context under which it was announced. It wasn't like he was just on a dating forum discussing his dating preferences, or something. He specifically replied to a hashtag that is used to advocate for people who have died.

I don't know if you're right about that last part. #BlackWomenMatter? That is not the same as #BlackLivesMatter.

And if students could get suspended for insensitive and dickish behavior back when I was in college, I would never have graduated.

I think it would have been sufficient to have to both apologize and explain the comment in front of all the Black students who objected to it, including taking questions, perhaps for the length of a class period. If he is really responsible then that should be sufficient. If it became a pattern, then more serious measures could be ratcheted up.

This seems reasonable.
 
I call these "dead mouse" threads, like the little offerings cats bring home.

I vote for this! Two thumbs up. This "Dead Mouse Thread" is so much more worthy of meme-ification than "Rule of So". (Don't be too heartened by that. I've been trying to get "Sea Lions" meme-ified, but it's never caught on. See my sig.)

/end derail
 
It was off campus speech, and he should win a lawsuit if he files one.

Well, it wasn't off-campus. And it's a private institution. The lawsuit has little hope of succeeding.

I'm always torn on the issue of "free speech" by "anonymous". But users of the app get it for that reason, evidently, so I fall on the side of this being a tangential free speech issue. The non-profit that's arguing his case is going that route: they mention in their code, somewhere, that all students have the right to free speech and they're playing that as a contractual obligation.

Does anyone use Yik Yak (of the posters). There are conflicting claims between 1.5 mile radius and 10 mile radius. Just curious.
 
The comment does come across as insensitive and dickish to me though given the context under which it was announced. It wasn't like he was just on a dating forum discussing his dating preferences, or something. He specifically replied to a hashtag that is used to advocate for people who have died. Maybe the punishment was excessive -- especially given that they were originally going for 21 months and also considering that he deleted the comment -- but it shouldn't have just been ignored, either. He definitely seems like he was in the wrong on this one. I think it would have been sufficient to have to both apologize and explain the comment in front of all the Black students who objected to it, including taking questions, perhaps for the length of a class period. If he is really responsible then that should be sufficient. If it became a pattern, then more serious measures could be ratcheted up.

If it was his first offence, crucifixion would have been sufficient
 
And ? Reread again. While agreeing with the hashtag it simply stated he doe snot find black women good looking. It is distasteful yes, but how the **** is that a ground for 6 months suspension ? Or even 21 ? I have no idea about your college and school but a suspension so long was reserved only for incredibly bad incident. Not distasteful qips. What sort of free speech are you entertaining there when such a simple sentence garner 6 months ?

I imagine he'd be expelled for calling a guy a douchebag.
 
Does internet-speech only count as off-campus speech if it wasn't posted while physically on the campus?

I don't know. Let's ask the Supreme Court when it gets there. I'd think the geographic restrictions would pretty much guarantee that he was physically "on campus". That's really what I was responding to. I think the argument has to go along the lines of free speech, regardless of where and how it was posted. This was a comment made in his off-campus life (can't really say "private", can we?), e.g. a personal opinion/thought.

It'd be an interesting case. The app has nothing to do with the college, but the app's design is so that within that area, it could only be received by subscribers/purchasers at the college.
 
The app isn't supposed to work in schools etc. They are deemed safe areas, or something, and the phone's GPS will recognise this fact based on a database of these safe zones.
 
The college has been described as a "coeducational liberal arts college in the tradition of Oberlin College" which may explain the extreme reaction to an innocuous comment and complete lack of common sense displayed by the Administrative Gestapo. Would the punishment have been the same if he had posted that he thought black women WERE hot? Could he have posted anything about the black women without being punished? He has now been educated that the minefield of oversensitive groups with the general term #xxxxlivesmatter should be assiduously avoided and the group diatribes completely ignored.
 
I'm confused: what did he do wrong? Since when is stating an aesthetic preference grounds for discipline? I think all Jackson Pollack paintings are ugly. Would that get me suspended at a modern art college? I think skinny fashion models aren't "hot". Am I not allowed to say that?
 
Back
Top Bottom