Open Campus: The debate over the use of Howard's campus by neighbors

[Anonymous]

People stay focused and on topic here. Let’s all agree that some dog owners are entitled pricks. Many of them unfortunately happened to migrate to the District.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People stay focused and on topic here. Let’s all agree that some dog owners are entitled pricks. Many of them unfortunately happened to migrate to the District.

I'm in SoCal and I can unfortunately report that they're everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 issues being co-mingled on this thread.

1) white people allowed on a "traditionally black" campus

and

2) dogs being allowed on said campus.

I have a big problem if white people are not allowed, but I have no problem whatsoever with them banning dogs. In fact, I wish they would. If more places banned dogs then maybe entitled dog owners would stop thinking they must have a right to take Fido with them everywhere by default.

I think there are some AA people posting who genuinely don't have a problem with white people/neighbors on campus as long as they don't bring their dogs. There seem to be others (or one other) posting saying that it's more than the dogs, it's that the white people still aren't really welcome for whatever reason because it's offensive given the history.

Given that white people can enroll in and teach at Howard, it's obviously not true that white people aren't allowed on campus. Come on. The issue is dogs.

Another separate issue might be if there's a big influx of residents not connected to Howard, who suddenly decide to start using the quad like a park (dog or no). That would probably be an issue regardless of their color; but the fact that they are likely to be white gentrifiers would add to the tension, for obvious reasons.

If that were true then Howard students wouldn’t be tweeting “Dear White People...”. They’d be tweeting “Dear Asshat Dog Owners...” or “Dear POS Hipster that thinks the school should move...” But keep arguing it’s only about dogs...

Ok, the issue is white people with dog. Look, I'm not a huge fan of the "Dear White People" genre, but don't pretend you don't understand that it's different. Or, just admit you want to rehash the whole "reverse discrimination is the same as discrimination" argument, and I'll know you're arguing in bad faith.

I’m white and I think of it as just a Public Service Announcment. Why should I be offended? I’m a respectful dog owner. Only those who think the rules don’t apply to them would be offended.

Is it OK for an AA dog owner to walk their dog at Howard? Is it OK for a white dog owner to walk their dog at Howard? Be clear.

You're tiring. Will not argue with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 issues being co-mingled on this thread.

1) white people allowed on a "traditionally black" campus

and

2) dogs being allowed on said campus.

I have a big problem if white people are not allowed, but I have no problem whatsoever with them banning dogs. In fact, I wish they would. If more places banned dogs then maybe entitled dog owners would stop thinking they must have a right to take Fido with them everywhere by default.

I think there are some AA people posting who genuinely don't have a problem with white people/neighbors on campus as long as they don't bring their dogs. There seem to be others (or one other) posting saying that it's more than the dogs, it's that the white people still aren't really welcome for whatever reason because it's offensive given the history.

Given that white people can enroll in and teach at Howard, it's obviously not true that white people aren't allowed on campus. Come on. The issue is dogs.

Another separate issue might be if there's a big influx of residents not connected to Howard, who suddenly decide to start using the quad like a park (dog or no). That would probably be an issue regardless of their color; but the fact that they are likely to be white gentrifiers would add to the tension, for obvious reasons.

If that were true then Howard students wouldn’t be tweeting “Dear White People...”. They’d be tweeting “Dear Asshat Dog Owners...” or “Dear POS Hipster that thinks the school should move...” But keep arguing it’s only about dogs...

Ok, the issue is white people with dog. Look, I'm not a huge fan of the "Dear White People" genre, but don't pretend you don't understand that it's different. Or, just admit you want to rehash the whole "reverse discrimination is the same as discrimination" argument, and I'll know you're arguing in bad faith.

I’m white and I think of it as just a Public Service Announcment. Why should I be offended? I’m a respectful dog owner. Only those who think the rules don’t apply to them would be offended.

Is it OK for an AA dog owner to walk their dog at Howard? Is it OK for a white dog owner to walk their dog at Howard? Be clear.

^^^This person suffers from intellectual disabilities, do not engage.

NP. Rather than being insulting, why don’t you answer the question if the answer is so simple?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 issues being co-mingled on this thread.

1) white people allowed on a "traditionally black" campus

and

2) dogs being allowed on said campus.

I have a big problem if white people are not allowed, but I have no problem whatsoever with them banning dogs. In fact, I wish they would. If more places banned dogs then maybe entitled dog owners would stop thinking they must have a right to take Fido with them everywhere by default.

I think there are some AA people posting who genuinely don't have a problem with white people/neighbors on campus as long as they don't bring their dogs. There seem to be others (or one other) posting saying that it's more than the dogs, it's that the white people still aren't really welcome for whatever reason because it's offensive given the history.

Given that white people can enroll in and teach at Howard, it's obviously not true that white people aren't allowed on campus. Come on. The issue is dogs.

Another separate issue might be if there's a big influx of residents not connected to Howard, who suddenly decide to start using the quad like a park (dog or no). That would probably be an issue regardless of their color; but the fact that they are likely to be white gentrifiers would add to the tension, for obvious reasons.

If that were true then Howard students wouldn’t be tweeting “Dear White People...”. They’d be tweeting “Dear Asshat Dog Owners...” or “Dear POS Hipster that thinks the school should move...” But keep arguing it’s only about dogs...

Ok, the issue is white people with dog. Look, I'm not a huge fan of the "Dear White People" genre, but don't pretend you don't understand that it's different. Or, just admit you want to rehash the whole "reverse discrimination is the same as discrimination" argument, and I'll know you're arguing in bad faith.

I’m white and I think of it as just a Public Service Announcment. Why should I be offended? I’m a respectful dog owner. Only those who think the rules don’t apply to them would be offended.

Is it OK for an AA dog owner to walk their dog at Howard? Is it OK for a white dog owner to walk their dog at Howard? Be clear.

^^^This person suffers from intellectual disabilities, do not engage.

NP. Rather than being insulting, why don’t you answer the question if the answer is so simple?

dp I agree with the pp. I think the reason they won't answer is because it is more about white people than the dogs. They are using the dogs as an excuse but, we know the real reason.

[Anonymous]

I think this is going to turn ugly. You do NOT mess with white people's dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's sad to see white DC residents so culturally illiterate about Howard and HBCUs and black history. I admit that when I first moved to DC, I had the model of college campuses with a more open feeling (having grown up in land grant college towns). So yeah, the first time I jogged through the Howard campus, it felt different. But, it didn't take me long to learn about the history of the U st area, Howard, and HBCUs, as well as to grasp why being on the Howard campus as a white person meant I needed to go out of my way to be respectful.

If you are clutching your pearls and can't figure out why there would be tension surrounding an influx of disrespectful white dog walkers on the Howard campus, then you're pretty culturally ignorant.

+1 THIS.EXACTLY.SUMS.UP.MY.THOUGHTS

Why is it so hard for urban gentrifiers to understand that Black/AA people don’t want their cultural historic piece of property desecrated by animals? To continue in such a manner means that people are willing to put animal nature over human feelings. That thought process is both despicable and shows how far basic humanity principles have eroded.

DP What about all the other animals? Are they going to kick out the rats, possums, squirrels, chipmunks? All people should be allowed to walk their dogs full stop. If it is an open campus than they shouldn't yell at people either.

You are kidding right? How stupid can one be to even form such a sentence? Clearly, the listed animals are ones in nature. It’s a sad day when some white people embarass the rest of us who understand Howard’s viewpoint.

If the argument is they don't want to sit in pee than they should know they probably already are. That was my point. But, keep being SHOCKED! It is just pee and shouldn't be a big deal. What if 20 dog owners decided to walk their dogs on the campus at once? I wouldn't do it but, there might be people who decide that now they know this upsets students at Howard than they might.

Well then those dog walkers might get heckled by students. Of course, they can’t [b]complain or be upset if they are choosing to be disrespectful to the norms of the university campus.[/b]

Of course you can complain if you are being harassed. Sounds like when a girl is raped and others say well she shouldn't have been walking there or wearing that skirt. If there is no ban on dogs, than the students should leave the dog walkers alone.

Of course the Metropolitan Police Department can choose to come and not make any arrests or complete a report. Many of those police officers are Howard Alumn so the joke would be on you previous poster.

One should also add many judges, lawyers and politicians are Howard grads or legacy through a parent or grandparent. So good luck telling yourself that Howard students will be arrested on their campus for simply asking community residents (heckling as you want to use agggressive terms) to please leave the grounds with their pet. Howard has issued a statement and you can either choose to abide or not but what you sow that you shall also reap in this harvest of life.

Howard simply can post the campus with “No dogs allowed” signs. If people are not picking up after dogs or letting them run off leash, then this is exactly what Howard should do. And campus security should enforce the new rule; it need not be up to the students.

But it may not really be about dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 issues being co-mingled on this thread.

1) white people allowed on a "traditionally black" campus

and

2) dogs being allowed on said campus.

I have a big problem if white people are not allowed, but I have no problem whatsoever with them banning dogs. In fact, I wish they would. If more places banned dogs then maybe entitled dog owners would stop thinking they must have a right to take Fido with them everywhere by default.

I think there are some AA people posting who genuinely don't have a problem with white people/neighbors on campus as long as they don't bring their dogs. There seem to be others (or one other) posting saying that it's more than the dogs, it's that the white people still aren't really welcome for whatever reason because it's offensive given the history.

Given that white people can enroll in and teach at Howard, it's obviously not true that white people aren't allowed on campus. Come on. The issue is dogs.

Another separate issue might be if there's a big influx of residents not connected to Howard, who suddenly decide to start using the quad like a park (dog or no). That would probably be an issue regardless of their color; but the fact that they are likely to be white gentrifiers would add to the tension, for obvious reasons.

If that were true then Howard students wouldn’t be tweeting “Dear White People...”. They’d be tweeting “Dear Asshat Dog Owners...” or “Dear POS Hipster that thinks the school should move...” But keep arguing it’s only about dogs...

If the people committing these disrespectful behaviors against the university institution happen to be predominately white, why should the students mask their language?

So if people wanted to write an open letter about curtailing violent crime in the District of Columbia, it would be ok with you (under your “predominantly” committing the behavior standard), to begin “Dear Black people...”? Why mask language?

Hmmm. I didn’t think so.

I’m pretty sure people do this already last I checked on Popville, blogs, DCUM, twitter and everywhere else. I suspect you want to engage in a “race war” rather than understand the issue is simply about dogs. I bid you farewell and put the devil in you under my feet to trample upon. I do not simply engage with devils and let the L-d handle you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is going to turn ugly. You do NOT mess with white people's dogs.

what about Asian people’s dogs, Indian people’s dog, Black People’s dogs, Native American and Pacific Islander dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's sad to see white DC residents so culturally illiterate about Howard and HBCUs and black history. I admit that when I first moved to DC, I had the model of college campuses with a more open feeling (having grown up in land grant college towns). So yeah, the first time I jogged through the Howard campus, it felt different. But, it didn't take me long to learn about the history of the U st area, Howard, and HBCUs, as well as to grasp why being on the Howard campus as a white person meant I needed to go out of my way to be respectful.

If you are clutching your pearls and can't figure out why there would be tension surrounding an influx of disrespectful white dog walkers on the Howard campus, then you're pretty culturally ignorant.

+1 THIS.EXACTLY.SUMS.UP.MY.THOUGHTS

Why is it so hard for urban gentrifiers to understand that Black/AA people don’t want their cultural historic piece of property desecrated by animals? To continue in such a manner means that people are willing to put animal nature over human feelings. That thought process is both despicable and shows how far basic humanity principles have eroded.

DP What about all the other animals? Are they going to kick out the rats, possums, squirrels, chipmunks? All people should be allowed to walk their dogs full stop. If it is an open campus than they shouldn't yell at people either.

You are kidding right? How stupid can one be to even form such a sentence? Clearly, the listed animals are ones in nature. It’s a sad day when some white people embarass the rest of us who understand Howard’s viewpoint.

If the argument is they don't want to sit in pee than they should know they probably already are. That was my point. But, keep being SHOCKED! It is just pee and shouldn't be a big deal. What if 20 dog owners decided to walk their dogs on the campus at once? I wouldn't do it but, there might be people who decide that now they know this upsets students at Howard than they might.

Well then those dog walkers might get heckled by students. Of course, they can’t [b]complain or be upset if they are choosing to be disrespectful to the norms of the university campus.[/b]

Of course you can complain if you are being harassed. Sounds like when a girl is raped and others say well she shouldn't have been walking there or wearing that skirt. If there is no ban on dogs, than the students should leave the dog walkers alone.

Of course the Metropolitan Police Department can choose to come and not make any arrests or complete a report. Many of those police officers are Howard Alumn so the joke would be on you previous poster.

One should also add many judges, lawyers and politicians are Howard grads or legacy through a parent or grandparent. So good luck telling yourself that Howard students will be arrested on their campus for simply asking community residents (heckling as you want to use agggressive terms) to please leave the grounds with their pet. Howard has issued a statement and you can either choose to abide or not but what you sow that you shall also reap in this harvest of life.

Howard simply can post the campus with “No dogs allowed” signs. If people are not picking up after dogs or letting them run off leash, then this is exactly what Howard should do. And campus security should enforce the new rule; it need not be up to the students.

But it may not really be about dogs.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Why are people making this out to be about race? There is a racial component to this but I think more about being respectful of history and long term establishments in the neighborhood.

How would you feel if people started using Arlington cemetery as a dog park because it was a close "green space" especially if you have family members in the military that was buried there? Similar situation with Howard as this was one of the first universities blacks were able to legally go to so it means a lot to generations of people.

You have a tone deaf dog owner that think the campus should move (one that has been there for over 150 years) if they don't allow new residents to walk their dogs. That arrogance is what I believe is making a lot of people angry and upset. It isn't simplistic as saying students "hate whitey" which a lot of white people may think, it is the lack of respect and understanding of history. Just an FYI, my ex partner was white and attended Howard along with several faculty and students in his department that were also white. So yes there are white people (and other races too) despite popular belief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are people making this out to be about race? There is a racial component to this but I think more about being respectful of history and long term establishments in the neighborhood.

How would you feel if people started using Arlington cemetery as a dog park because it was a close "green space" especially if you have family members in the military that was buried there? Similar situation with Howard as this was one of the first universities blacks were able to legally go to so it means a lot to generations of people.

You have a tone deaf dog owner that think the campus should move (one that has been there for over 150 years) if they don't allow new residents to walk their dogs. That arrogance is what I believe is making a lot of people angry and upset. It isn't simplistic as saying students "hate whitey" which a lot of white people may think, it is the lack of respect and understanding of history. Just an FYI, my ex partner was white and attended Howard along with several faculty and students in his department that were also white. So yes there are white people (and other races too) despite popular belief.

Arlington National Cemetery has a written no pets policy and enforces it to prevent people from bringing their dogs... which is exactly what Howard should do. Otherwise there will always be a few people who can't follow social clues and let their dogs crap everywhere because it's not expressly forbidden.

https://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/About/Policies-and-Public-Notices/Pet-Policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are white people unwelcome at Howard?

Only if they have dogs on the grounds of the university property. Take away the dogs and all are welcome.

Good. Then Howard should post the campus for no dogs and security personnel should enforce it.

Well I really do not think non HU students should be picnicking on the yard. It’s a college campus. I went to an urban school with a quad. I could not image the neighbors walking their dogs or setting up a picnic on it. It’s not a public park. It’s an active and integral part of the university. Just because it’s an open spaces does not mean it’s free to use as you see fit.

I'm another one who went to Columbia University. People from the neighborhood were always entering the campus. Because it's an urban campus. No one checked IDs. Security guards were present and as long as people were being pleasant, it was no big deal.

You seem to be misinformed about the situation. Howard students and the university welcome those who are new and/or old to the surrounding areas around Howard. People are welcome to walk through the university campus WITHOUT animals. The quad area is significant to the Howard University community because students picnic on the grassy areas, students study on the grass, university events take place on the grass. It is for this reason Howard issued a statement (posted earlier in this thread) asking the community to be respectful of the campus and its norms. I’m not sure why people think it’s okay for them to enter onto the property of someone’s “home” and enforce their own rules of what they perceive Howard should be doing. Howard has always had the norm of no animals on campus. Longtime D.C. residents understand this norm. It’s only recent transplants who want to change the norms of what’s been in place instead of respectfully understanding the university desires.

Again, Howard is open to anyone on the campus passing through the campus as long as your pet is not on the campus grounds. It is not okay for Fido to going about his/her nature on campus grounds when there are 4 places around the university perimeter where residents of the community can walk their pets.

I don't know anything about the norms of the campus. But, I do know that people who allow their animals to urinate and defecate in areas where others routinely congregate are special kind of a-holes.

About a decade ago, my daughter's charter school took over a shuttered DCPS school. The school athletic field had been used by the neighbors as a de facto dog park since the DCPS school was closed, but not it was going to be used by elementary school kids for recess, after school sports leagues, etc. Many of these nitwit neighbors simply couldn't understand why they wouldn't be allowed to continue to use the field for their animals.

I don't doubt that there's an element of grumpiness on the part of the students about gentrification and the whitening of Shaw and toe area around the Howard campus. But that doesn't mean their opinions about the idiots who think their animals are more important that people are incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are people making this out to be about race? There is a racial component to this but I think more about being respectful of history and long term establishments in the neighborhood.

How would you feel if people started using Arlington cemetery as a dog park because it was a close "green space" especially if you have family members in the military that was buried there? Similar situation with Howard as this was one of the first universities blacks were able to legally go to so it means a lot to generations of people.

You have a tone deaf dog owner that think the campus should move (one that has been there for over 150 years) if they don't allow new residents to walk their dogs. That arrogance is what I believe is making a lot of people angry and upset. It isn't simplistic as saying students "hate whitey" which a lot of white people may think, it is the lack of respect and understanding of history. Just an FYI, my ex partner was white and attended Howard along with several faculty and students in his department that were also white. So yes there are white people (and other races too) despite popular belief.

This is about race and white privilege. Remember it comes on the heels of #dontmutedc. First they take the gogo music from the corner and now they let their dogs shit on campus. The uproar came when the guy said that the campus should move. What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are white people unwelcome at Howard?

Only if they have dogs on the grounds of the university property. Take away the dogs and all are welcome.

Good. Then Howard should post the campus for no dogs and security personnel should enforce it.

Well I really do not think non HU students should be picnicking on the yard. It’s a college campus. I went to an urban school with a quad. I could not image the neighbors walking their dogs or setting up a picnic on it. It’s not a public park. It’s an active and integral part of the university. Just because it’s an open spaces does not mean it’s free to use as you see fit.

I'm another one who went to Columbia University. People from the neighborhood were always entering the campus. Because it's an urban campus. No one checked IDs. Security guards were present and as long as people were being pleasant, it was no big deal.

You seem to be misinformed about the situation. Howard students and the university welcome those who are new and/or old to the surrounding areas around Howard. People are welcome to walk through the university campus WITHOUT animals. The quad area is significant to the Howard University community because students picnic on the grassy areas, students study on the grass, university events take place on the grass. It is for this reason Howard issued a statement (posted earlier in this thread) asking the community to be respectful of the campus and its norms. I’m not sure why people think it’s okay for them to enter onto the property of someone’s “home” and enforce their own rules of what they perceive Howard should be doing. Howard has always had the norm of no animals on campus. Longtime D.C. residents understand this norm. It’s only recent transplants who want to change the norms of what’s been in place instead of respectfully understanding the university desires.

Again, Howard is open to anyone on the campus passing through the campus as long as your pet is not on the campus grounds. It is not okay for Fido to going about his/her nature on campus grounds when there are 4 places around the university perimeter where residents of the community can walk their pets.

I don't know anything about the norms of the campus. But, I do know that people who allow their animals to urinate and defecate in areas where others routinely congregate are special kind of a-holes.

About a decade ago, my daughter's charter school took over a shuttered DCPS school. The school athletic field had been used by the neighbors as a de facto dog park since the DCPS school was closed, but not it was going to be used by elementary school kids for recess, after school sports leagues, etc. Many of these nitwit neighbors simply couldn't understand why they wouldn't be allowed to continue to use the field for their animals.

I don't doubt that there's an element of grumpiness on the part of the students about gentrification and the whitening of Shaw and toe area around the Howard campus. But that doesn't mean their opinions about the idiots who think their animals are more important that people are incorrect.

This is exactly it. Many pet owners are tone deaf and do not care about invading spaces not particularly meant for pets. They'd rather view all green space as space for their pets. People are forgetting that there are 3-4 dog parks within the confines around Howard's campus But let's make it about race