Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are sliding back to the dark ages.

Agreed. If this continues we might start treating people based on who they are vs their skin color. Unacceptable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My two cents:

1. I bet many posters were surprised to hear Bama had two long-running magazines catering to students that would prompt a DEI issue to begin with.

2. The Trump administration prompted this action. Don’t forget that.

3. Alums quickly stepped in to pay for the cost to continue publishing the magazines, so the problem has been solved.

4. Again: Bama alums quickly took action.

5. Other schools already have and will continue to do the same thing. Again: it’s in response to Trump’s policies. The schools have two choices: file a lawsuit or take steps to (temporarily) comply with the Administration.

6. Law firms were forced to do the same thing. Ditto for states, cities, etc.

^^^
How posters can continue to paint this (or any) school as singularly racist/backwards/whatever is baffling.

No, if the two magazines continue their operations, Alabama runs the risk of having their federal fundings cut off. It's not about funding the magazines with money external to the university. That is small money. It's the university allowing allegedly DEI activities to happen under their watch that may triggers the administration's wrath.

It is exactly about funding the magazines with money external to the university. The magazines are now as private as a house in town owned by alums and rented to college students. The social connection to the university is clear but there is no legal relationship.

No one here has bothered to read what this matter is about. The president of Alabama has determined that these two publications are “DEI proxies” of information. Since Alanama takes federal funding, my tax dollars are going to support DEI messaging that I don’t agree with. I would rather my federal tax dollars go to something else at Alabama, or, preferably nothing at all. The two publications can continue on, but not with federal funding through the university.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My two cents:

1. I bet many posters were surprised to hear Bama had two long-running magazines catering to students that would prompt a DEI issue to begin with.

2. The Trump administration prompted this action. Don’t forget that.

3. Alums quickly stepped in to pay for the cost to continue publishing the magazines, so the problem has been solved.

4. Again: Bama alums quickly took action.

5. Other schools already have and will continue to do the same thing. Again: it’s in response to Trump’s policies. The schools have two choices: file a lawsuit or take steps to (temporarily) comply with the Administration.

6. Law firms were forced to do the same thing. Ditto for states, cities, etc.

^^^
How posters can continue to paint this (or any) school as singularly racist/backwards/whatever is baffling.

No, if the two magazines continue their operations, Alabama runs the risk of having their federal fundings cut off. It's not about funding the magazines with money external to the university. That is small money. It's the university allowing allegedly DEI activities to happen under their watch that may triggers the administration's wrath.

It is exactly about funding the magazines with money external to the university. The magazines are now as private as a house in town owned by alums and rented to college students. The social connection to the university is clear but there is no legal relationship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's Alabama.

And people still send their kids to school in the south ….

Stupid people

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's Alabama.

And people still send their kids to school in the south ….

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My two cents:

1. I bet many posters were surprised to hear Bama had two long-running magazines catering to students that would prompt a DEI issue to begin with.

2. The Trump administration prompted this action. Don’t forget that.

3. Alums quickly stepped in to pay for the cost to continue publishing the magazines, so the problem has been solved.

4. Again: Bama alums quickly took action.

5. Other schools already have and will continue to do the same thing. Again: it’s in response to Trump’s policies. The schools have two choices: file a lawsuit or take steps to (temporarily) comply with the Administration.

6. Law firms were forced to do the same thing. Ditto for states, cities, etc.

^^^
How posters can continue to paint this (or any) school as singularly racist/backwards/whatever is baffling.

No, if the two magazines continue their operations, Alabama runs the risk of having their federal fundings cut off. It's not about funding the magazines with money external to the university. That is small money. It's the university allowing allegedly DEI activities to happen under their watch that may triggers the administration's wrath.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My two cents:

1. I bet many posters were surprised to hear Bama had two long-running magazines catering to students that would prompt a DEI issue to begin with.

2. The Trump administration prompted this action. Don’t forget that.

3. Alums quickly stepped in to pay for the cost to continue publishing the magazines, so the problem has been solved.

4. Again: Bama alums quickly took action.

5. Other schools already have and will continue to do the same thing. Again: it’s in response to Trump’s policies. The schools have two choices: file a lawsuit or take steps to (temporarily) comply with the Administration.

6. Law firms were forced to do the same thing. Ditto for states, cities, etc.

^^^
How posters can continue to paint this (or any) school as singularly racist/backwards/whatever is baffling.

No, if the two magazines continue their operations, Alabama runs the risk of having their federal fundings cut off. It's not about funding the magazines with money external to the university. That is small money. It's the university allowing allegedly DEI activities to happen under their watch that may triggers the administration's wrath.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m proud of the alumni at both Alabama and OU who are pushing back against this censorship and faux outrage, standing up for free speech and the value of education.

Did they? OU alumni did not do a single thing to defend the TA who was suspended. If anything, they were generally supportive of Turning Point USA infiltrating the campus.

Anonymous wrote:I’m proud of the alumni at both Alabama and OU who are pushing back against this censorship and faux outrage, standing up for free speech and the value of education.

Anonymous wrote:My two cents:

1. I bet many posters were surprised to hear Bama had two long-running magazines catering to students that would prompt a DEI issue to begin with.

2. The Trump administration prompted this action. Don’t forget that.

3. Alums quickly stepped in to pay for the cost to continue publishing the magazines, so the problem has been solved.

4. Again: Bama alums quickly took action.

5. Other schools already have and will continue to do the same thing. Again: it’s in response to Trump’s policies. The schools have two choices: file a lawsuit or take steps to (temporarily) comply with the Administration.

6. Law firms were forced to do the same thing. Ditto for states, cities, etc.

^^^
How posters can continue to paint this (or any) school as singularly racist/backwards/whatever is baffling.

Anonymous wrote:It's Alabama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how fraternities and sororities, or gendered sports teams (like football) can continue, if a women’s magazine is forbidden.

Fraternities and sororities don’t receive any school funding and aren’t officially affiliated with the school. They are private organizations.

And the women’s field hockey team? How can women’s sports and women’s dorms be legal if a women’s magazine is illegal?

How can Barnard be legal?