TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by TC on Nov 13, 2015 13:11:36 GMT -5
Could you point out what you're referencing here? The only thing I see is the woman who is on that committee basically saying she wants some action. I don't think that relates whatsoever to Yale. - “We’re tired of dialogue. We want tangible change. There are so many things that can be done with the stroke of a pen. I don’t think we realize that.” - Event coordinator Crystal Walker (SFS ’16) Literally that statement could have come from any decade, almost any cause - from the 60's, the 70's, or even a group of students trying to save The Pub. It's someone wanting change. You can't tie that in to the narrative of "college students can't deal with opposing viewpoints".
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,774
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Nov 13, 2015 13:15:49 GMT -5
Could someone explain precisely what Thomas Mulledy is guilty of, at least in the court of millenial opinion?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Nov 13, 2015 13:19:53 GMT -5
"Let the Wookie win...."
Good night folks. Russky wins Hoyatalk for the week. See ya Monday.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 13, 2015 13:22:52 GMT -5
Could someone explain precisely what Thomas Mulledy is guilty of, at least in the court of millenial opinion? www.thehoya.com/georgetown-financed-by-slave-trading/The short according to the article -- In 1838, Mulledy sold off the 272 slaves owned by the area Jesuits to Louisiana plantations. These people were uprooted from their lives - the youngest was 9 months old, the oldest 75 years old - and sent to the deepest part of the south. Part of the proceeds were used to construct buildings on campus, including Mulledy Hall. Even at the time his actions were condemned by fellow Jesuits: “No one does this sort of thing except evil persons … who care about nothing but money. … I tell you this will be a tragic and disgraceful affair.” Apparently, even Mulledy came to questions his actions.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Nov 13, 2015 13:25:53 GMT -5
Could someone explain precisely what Thomas Mulledy is guilty of, at least in the court of millenial opinion? Come on! It's not that he was a slaveowner or was a man who made money off the slave trade, its that he -- as a representative of the university --financed its operations by directly facilitating the sale of humans. That's qualitatively different than being a donor whose money came from slavery. This was a rep of the institution.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 13, 2015 13:38:27 GMT -5
You would think that such socially aware and motivated students would have done a little research before choosing such a racist fortress to pursue their educations...
There is an old saying that goes kind of like "when you have nothing to worry about, you tend to worry about nothing..."
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,877
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Nov 13, 2015 13:47:54 GMT -5
I don't have any objection to changing the name of the building, but was there any talk of this before the Missouri and Yale stuff hit the news? If not, it's hard not to see this as a copycat attention grab, i.e., "Let's find something with a racist tie-in on campus so we can get on the news and feel important too!" So rather than concede to a demand that you admittedly have no strong feelings about -- and potentially diffuse the situation -- you would suggest stonewalling the students because of your perception that they are doing it for the "wrong reasons"? That's not even close to what I said. I have no problem changing the name of a building, especially a building I've never even heard of. My point was along the lines of what others have made: that this sit-in appears to be manufactured rage built on the insanity that is happening at Yale. I see that there has been some discussion about this issue in the past, which makes me a little more willing to give the kids some leeway, but I still think the sit-in is over the top.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 13, 2015 13:49:23 GMT -5
You would think that such socially aware and motivated students would have done a little research before choosing such a racist fortress to pursue their educations... There is an old saying that goes kind of like "when you have nothing to worry about, you tend to worry about nothing..." The responses to these students on this board and in the media drips with dismissive disdain. Must suck to be a millennial. If we aren't dumping on them for being naive selfie-obsessed snapchatters who don't care about anything outside their bubble, we're dumping on them for engaging politically in the wrong manner, for the wrong causes or for the wrong motivations when they do try to engage in a larger discussion. I'd probably be pretty upset too if every time I had a view point about something it was immediately dismissed as a "non-issue" or as "nothing" or as me just being "too sensitive."
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,774
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Nov 13, 2015 14:08:15 GMT -5
This was a rep of the institution. And therein lies the problem--Thomas Mulledy was not acting as the president of Georgetown College, but as the Provincial of the Maryland Province, answerable only to the Superior General and Pope Gregory XVI. This was a decision regarding slaves owned by Jesuits, not by the College, but this too gets murky because the College and the order were very intertwined. The College was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Provincial, so to speak. Mulledy was cited by Rome not for having sold the slaves but in redirecting funds to keep the College from going insolvent--but again, this is where the Rector - President - Provincial issue gets even murkier. Rome had directed the slaves to be sold, McSherry set the wheels in motion and died before he could sell them, and Mulledy took the money and kept the college up and running instead of putting it to the intended use--ironically, to educate other Jesuits. The point that the millenials fail to grasp (and let's be fair, the faculty and administrators don't quite have a handle on it either) is the confluence of the College, the Order, and the Church in this decision. He wasn't going to repatriate the slaves (in 1830's Washington, that was grounds for imprisonment and the real threat of civil unrest) and he was not going to disobey the directive of his past provincial, much less Rome. So, this question follows: what should he have done, and what were the consequences of those actions?
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 13, 2015 14:19:51 GMT -5
This was a rep of the institution. And therein lies the problem--Thomas Mulledy was not acting as the president of Georgetown College, but as the Provincial of the Maryland Province, answerable only to the Superior General and Pope Gregory XVI. This was a decision regarding slaves owned by Jesuits, not by the College, but this too gets murky because the College and the order were very intertwined. The College was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Provincial, so to speak. Mulledy was cited by Rome not for having sold the slaves but in redirecting funds to keep the College from going insolvent--but again, this is where the Rector - President - Provincial issue gets even murkier. Rome had directed the slaves to be sold, McSherry set the wheels in motion and died before he could sell them, and Mulledy took the money and kept the college up and running instead of putting it to the intended use--ironically, to educate other Jesuits. The point that the millenials fail to grasp (and let's be fair, the faculty and administrators don't quite have a handle on it either) is the confluence of the College, the Order, and the Church in this decision. He wasn't going to repatriate the slaves (in 1830's Washington, that was grounds for imprisonment and the real threat of civil unrest) and he was not going to disobey the directive of his past provincial, much less Rome. So, this question follows: what should he have done, and what were the consequences of those actions? For starters, not name the building after himself.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 13, 2015 14:21:19 GMT -5
This was a rep of the institution. And therein lies the problem--Thomas Mulledy was not acting as the president of Georgetown College, but as the Provincial of the Maryland Province, answerable only to the Superior General and Pope Gregory XVI. This was a decision regarding slaves owned by Jesuits, not by the College, but this too gets murky because the College and the order were very intertwined. The College was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Provincial, so to speak. Mulledy was cited by Rome not for having sold the slaves but in redirecting funds to keep the College from going insolvent--but again, this is where the Rector - President - Provincial issue gets even murkier. Rome had directed the slaves to be sold, McSherry set the wheels in motion and died before he could sell them, and Mulledy took the money and kept the college up and running instead of putting it to the intended use--ironically, to educate other Jesuits. The point that the millenials fail to grasp (and let's be fair, the faculty and administrators don't quite have a handle on it either) is the confluence of the College, the Order, and the Church in this decision. He wasn't going to repatriate the slaves (in 1830's Washington, that was grounds for imprisonment and the real threat of civil unrest) and he was not going to disobey the directive of his past provincial, much less Rome. So, this question follows: what should he have done, and what were the consequences of those actions? DFW--How dare you inject facts into a perfectly good campaign of outrage? You know damn well he did it while wearing a Hoya sweatshirt and singing the alma mater...
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 13, 2015 14:26:02 GMT -5
And therein lies the problem--Thomas Mulledy was not acting as the president of Georgetown College, but as the Provincial of the Maryland Province, answerable only to the Superior General and Pope Gregory XVI. This was a decision regarding slaves owned by Jesuits, not by the College, but this too gets murky because the College and the order were very intertwined. The College was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Provincial, so to speak. Mulledy was cited by Rome not for having sold the slaves but in redirecting funds to keep the College from going insolvent--but again, this is where the Rector - President - Provincial issue gets even murkier. Rome had directed the slaves to be sold, McSherry set the wheels in motion and died before he could sell them, and Mulledy took the money and kept the college up and running instead of putting it to the intended use--ironically, to educate other Jesuits. The point that the millenials fail to grasp (and let's be fair, the faculty and administrators don't quite have a handle on it either) is the confluence of the College, the Order, and the Church in this decision. He wasn't going to repatriate the slaves (in 1830's Washington, that was grounds for imprisonment and the real threat of civil unrest) and he was not going to disobey the directive of his past provincial, much less Rome. So, this question follows: what should he have done, and what were the consequences of those actions? DFW--How dare you inject facts into a perfectly good campaign of outrage? You know damn well he did it while wearing a Hoya sweatshirt and singing the alma mater... DFW - As a serious question - what is the source material for these facts? I would ask the same for the differing account given in both the Hoya and the Voice, but I don't think their authors are among us.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Nov 13, 2015 14:27:24 GMT -5
I agree, the real issue is that the students who don't want a building named after a guy who sold slaves to fund Georgetown are missing the nuance of the situation and difficult position he was in.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 13, 2015 14:36:09 GMT -5
Without offering any opinion as to the merits of the request, I am left with the overwhelming sense that this is a copycat protest. Anyone really concerned with the issue would know that President DeGioia was already working to change the name. However, as the cameras rolled in Missouri and at Yale, it became irresistible not to demand change "right now" so they could participate in the "cause du jour".
Now a perfectly well-intentioned President may have to sit back a bit on the change these kids demand, and no one vehemently opposes, just so as to not look buffaloed.
And while impending old age has sapped my memory, I couldn't tell you where Mulledy Hall is on a bet.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by TC on Nov 13, 2015 14:36:25 GMT -5
|
|
blueeagle
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Win or lose, it's the school we choose.
Posts: 492
|
Post by blueeagle on Nov 13, 2015 14:55:19 GMT -5
I do know what reactionary means, and I think you know exactly what I meant by derivative as well. Though reactionary has been used to refer to an ultraconservative point of view, I have used it (as it has been used by many) to refer to negative political extremism. Others on the board have used the term copycat in case you were looking for further clarification.
Disagreement does not mean disrespect.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 13, 2015 15:12:00 GMT -5
I do know what reactionary means, and I think you know exactly what I meant by derivative as well. Though reactionary has been used to refer to an ultraconservative point of view, I have used it (as it has been used by many) to refer to negative political extremism. Others on the board have used the term copycat in case you were looking for further clarification. Disagreement does not mean disrespect. I'm honestly not trying to be disrespectful, but there is something amusing about consistently referring to the students' viewpoint as "reactionary" while it is your viewpoint -- or at least that expressed by many in this thread criticizing the students -- that would typically be described as reactionary. As you will note, I didn't disagree with your sentiment that some of the students may have derivative motivations. I just said that didn't necessarily or entirely invalidate the underlying point.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Nov 13, 2015 15:16:05 GMT -5
This was a rep of the institution. And therein lies the problem--Thomas Mulledy was not acting as the president of Georgetown College, but as the Provincial of the Maryland Province, answerable only to the Superior General and Pope Gregory XVI. This was a decision regarding slaves owned by Jesuits, not by the College, but this too gets murky because the College and the order were very intertwined. The College was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Provincial, so to speak. Mulledy was cited by Rome not for having sold the slaves but in redirecting funds to keep the College from going insolvent--but again, this is where the Rector - President - Provincial issue gets even murkier. Rome had directed the slaves to be sold, McSherry set the wheels in motion and died before he could sell them, and Mulledy took the money and kept the college up and running instead of putting it to the intended use--ironically, to educate other Jesuits. The point that the millenials fail to grasp (and let's be fair, the faculty and administrators don't quite have a handle on it either) is the confluence of the College, the Order, and the Church in this decision. He wasn't going to repatriate the slaves (in 1830's Washington, that was grounds for imprisonment and the real threat of civil unrest) and he was not going to disobey the directive of his past provincial, much less Rome. So, this question follows: what should he have done, and what were the consequences of those actions? I don't think you've really disproved that he was acting on behalf of the institution. The organizational structure was muddled but the facts are that slaves were sold under his watch and the money was used by those with control over the university to benefit it. Right? I'm not sure its relevant that the school was a subsidiary (in modern terms) of another organization. If he was acting on behalf of the province and the province controlled the school -- and the money then went to the school -- well, he was acting for the school. Or, at a minimum, its a distinction that makes no difference to the present debate. Maybe he had no choice. Maybe others made the decision. Maybe he was following orders and obeying the law. But none of that means we should celebrate the man, and by extension, these particular decisions. Isn't that the simple point? I'm not trying to throw him in jail.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,774
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Nov 13, 2015 15:28:20 GMT -5
I don't think you've really disproved that he was acting on behalf of the institution. The organizational structure was muddled but the facts are that slaves were sold under his watch and the money was used by those with control over the university to benefit it. Right? No. The slaves were the "property" (as cruelly defined in those days) of the Jesuits, not the College. Almost all the slaves in question were in Jesuit-owned plantations in southern Maryland, not at the College. He would have made the sale as the provincial, not the college president, since the slaves were not of the College. DFW - As a serious question - what is the source material for these facts? I would ask the same for the differing account given in both the Hoya and the Voice, but I don't think their authors are among us. Here's a start: tinyurl.com/p469uuh
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 13, 2015 15:48:23 GMT -5
Anyone know how the sit-in at Holy Cross is going?
|
|