Again, any group can gather for whatever reason they feel binds them together. But a public institution making those decisions and distinctions is not something I like to see happen. You've asked who is harmed...no there is no tangible direct harm on the event taking place. [/QUOTE]Think it's worth noting that you don't actually feel anybody is harmed here. Particularly in light of your first post in this thread:
Dividing us by skin color is not something to be celebrated or protected. That's the opposite of Diversity and Inclusion.
I think you're right to call out others here for "dramatization". Alan, Greencat, and others have veered off in weird directions and tried to make this choice representative of all sorts of other things that you'd have to squint super, super hard to form a connection to.
But, for what it's worth, I think you're doing a bit of the same. To a lesser degree. There's no direct harm in holding a Black Alumni weekend, there's nobody directly discriminated against, but here you are still trying to act like it's reflective of some ambiguous, amorphous societal ill. Just doesn't seem particularly helpful.
To get into the details of this decision, I actually think it is another case of "malicious compliance" where they strive to create the headline to make the legislation look bad and induce rage (mission accomplished).
What gain is there from this "rage"? If confronted with two possibilities:
1) OU did all of this for headlines and rage
2) The federal government provided less that clear guidance on how public universities should operationalize a court decision
I know which I'm going with. I spend a lot of time in my line of work trying to interpret court decisions and understand what that means from a policy standpoint. The government -- at basically every level -- is very bad at this. It's the key reason I'm quite sympathetic to "small government" folks on the right.
And from my standpoint here, it seems downright silly that any policy anywhere should shape a completely harmless alumni weekend.
[QUOTE=Andrew Ruck]
I personally took the spirit of the directive from the federal government to be centered on admissions, scholarships, aid and other direct benefits. I highly doubt social gatherings would have jeopardized anything, but I suppose time will tell.