WASHINGTON, D.C. Nov. 9 (DPI) – The president of The University of Missouri system resigned today after the school’s football team threatened a boycott spurred by his alleged insensitivity to blacks. It was an unprecedented show of public power by college athletes, and the chain of events – individual acts of campus racism that minorities felt the Mizzou president did nothing about, the outcry that followed, and Timothy M. Wolfe’s resignation – triggered an array of competing narratives on the internet today.
Thousands of reader comments on nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com alternately applauded and derided the show of power by the Division 1 athletes, and the instant results that the team’s boycott prompted.
There was also an underlying concern online that the university’s president was forced out by a “lynch mob mentality” and more such acts on college campuses now seem likely. As one reader posted on NYTimes.com today, “Seems like appeasement to me. This won’t be the last time, now that there’s blood in the water.”
The incidents of racism at the predominantly (77%) white campus included use of the N-word in public settings, the scrawling of a swaskita with feces, and a confrontation by black students of President Wolfe at a parade.
But the protests suggested broader institutional racism, none of which was verified or examined.
Many readers wrote that mainstream media reports today bowed to political correctness, as an examination of facts and evidence was largely abandoned in articles on NYTimes.com and other sites. The most popular post on NYTimes.com (540 recommendations): “This article did not adequately explain the reasons for the student protests. It glossed over the problems as “a series of racial incidents”. What happened? Why is the anger directed at the president of the university in particular?” And the second most popular: “I wish the reporting here was better. What exactly did the president do or not do that warranted his resignation?”
And following William Rhoden’s column in The Times today:
So, student athletes will boycott their own games. That’s “exhilarating”? Sounds more like a dysfunctional outcome. They want the university president to go. Because…? How about reporting factual details and analysis of the situation rather than gushing about the dysfunction?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/university-of-missouri-system-president-resigns.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/missouri-football-players-exercise-power-in-racism-protest.html
More comments among most popular on NYTimes.com today:
“The reports of racial episodes are disturbing.” I don’t know what the reports are, the author didn’t tell me or direct me to them via a link. Am I to take it on faith that the school’s president ought to resign and the boycott is appropriate?”
“If the students at the University of Missouri are successful, by having their President fired, it will set a terrible precedent. College students are always dramatically upset about something. This is the tail wagging the dog. Take away their scholarships.”