LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Student Gets 6 Month Suspension For Saying Black Women Are “Not Hot”
Source:
Prison Planet
URL Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/student ... g-black-women-are-not-hot.html
Published: Dec 15, 2015
Author: Paul Joseph Watson
Post Date: 2015-12-16 11:15:46 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 3416
Comments: 28
A student was suspended from college for six months for saying that black women are “not hot,” while another individual who commented that white people have “small dicks” and are always f**king their cousins” was not punished. Colorado College took the action against Thaddeus Pryor after he was publicly shamed and outed for making the remarks on the social-media app Yik Yak. Pryor responded to someone else who posted the hashtag “#blackwomenmatter” by saying, “They matter, they’re just not hot.” Despite swiftly apologizing and deleting the message, Pryor became an immediate target for social justice warriors. “Some people screenshotted the most racial things said [from Yik Yak that night], and they blew them up onto banners and hung them up in the student center in front of the dean’s office,” Pryor told the College Fix. Pryor was subsequently framed for making all of the offensive posts which occurred during the conversation before Senior Associate Dean of Students Rochelle Mason, Dean of Students Mike Edmonds and Assistant Dean of Students Cesar Cervantes slapped him with a 21 month ban to cover the entirety of Pryor’s degree. Pryor said that the conversation began with people making slurs against white people, calling them “dirty hippies with small dicks” who are “always fucking their cousins,” while Muslims and even Smurfs were also mocked. Pryor’s suspension was subsequently reduced to six months as a result of him acknowledging that he made the comment about black women, although he was “forbidden from taking courses for credit at other universities because of his crass remark.” The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) defended Pryor, telling the college that it must honor its “moral and contractual obligation” to its students’ freedom of expression. Colorado College has failed to respond to FIRE’s letter. Pryor is now attempting to transfer to another university that values free speech. Expressing the sexual preference that you are not attracted to black people has previously been characterized as racist by liberals, as I document in the video below. Another individual who said white people have “small dicks” not punished
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
There was no point in him saying black women weren't hot (yes, we get it. literally everyone says this all the time. WE don't find you hot either.) however, the students were in the wrong for making racist remarks about whites too. the guy was just being a prick, while the students were being rude and more vulgar. Both should've been banned. All of them have that same race obsessed mentality Americans are plagued with.
I don't find most black women attractive.
What's the 5 percent?
I don't either, as do most white men. not racist just a fact.
5 percent or more look good. It's just not my thing. I like white girls. They look the best.
That's a normal opinion since you're white. I have a strong bias for Arab and mixed male faces.
Wait a minute. If you say that someone is cool, it means that he/she is not hot. Where is the logic?
BS. Why should someone be banned for saying they don't find certain women attractive? This is purely a matter of beauty being in the eye of the beholder. It is no more or less the equivalent of someone saying I do not prefer blondes or redheads or brunettes. OTOH the black students are most certainly racially bias and the comments expose them as racial bigots. You are a product of your racial indoctination and a victim of the PC world in which you live. You are very much part of the problem that continues to assure that any rational dialogue on race will never take place. I suspect that you are quite comfortable with the movie title White Men Can't Jump but would go bat sh*t crazy over a movie called Blackmen Can't Think or Blackmen Can't Be Engaged Fathers. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That would be like an employer firing a worker and telling him he can't work anywhere else. I'd tell the university, "You think that remark was crass? How about this one -- F**K YOU!"
You suspect very wrong. I'm not a victim to any form of politically correct conditioning or racial indoctrination (what the hell would that be, anyway?) Did you even read my whole comment? Go over and read again and stop getting your panties in a knot to back of your head since I criticized both of the race- obsessed/race-baiting idiots.
I read it. Please explain how the comment “They matter, they’re just not hot.” is raced obessed and/or race baiting. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Today - conservative white males are the only socially acceptable targets ... for such look-down-your-nose ridicule --- so Colbert grabbed that low hanging fruit and recycled every dumb cliche about them he could devise, to the braying delight of the same people who consider Stewart and Maher to be terribly intelligent, cutting edge minds. Do you take ... affirmative action racial superiority --- too seriously ! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
His entire reputation for "intelligence" on his ability to reinforce his lefty audience's delusions of their own superiority by channeling their chauvinistic fantasies about what conservatives are like. Paula Barbieri woke up when ... after the acting was over --- she saw oj slip the gloves off so easily ! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
What does Black Women Matter have to do with their attractiveness? It doesn't. The comment was most likely some derisive backhanded statement to black women. I agree what the other students said was worse but come on, they both should of just kept their mouths shut. I think it was in response to the student's racism about whites, too.
generally every group has a set of behaviors and stereotypes that make them easy to target and laugh at. I don't laugh at racialized jokes often - only for the bantz. racial jokes in general are usually low hanging fruit because it's the first thing u notice
Many of them resemble old 100 gallon wooden barrels and have mentalities to match.
You don't know that. From the scant info in the article it just as easily be an attempt at humor (e.g. - yeah, black women matter but de uglllllllly). Unlike you I believe that it is simply prudent and open minded to have the full set of facts and circumstances before jumping to a most likely based conclusion. Now if in fact the white guy's comments were intended to be derisively racially based then I will agree with you. Absent knowing this for sure, the blacks are the ones that should be suspended for what clearly are racial based derisive bigoted remarks. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
It usually is like that. But as I said, usually. This wouldn't probably be news if both of them got banned to be honest.
Even a kkk grandmother doesn't deserve to be shouted down - beaten up ! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Yik Yak features "Frequent/Intense Profanity or Crude Humor" according to its description. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/yik-yak-your-local-feed/id730992767?mt=8 Free
https://www.thefire.org/thaddeus-pryors-appeal-to-dean-edmonds/ Dear Dean Edmonds, On Thursday November 19th I met with Rochelle Mason and Cesar Cervantes, who had been informed (by whom I do not know) that I was involved with recent controversial posts on the anonymous social media app Yik Yak. Although they had no evidence other than a rumor "through the grapevine" as Ms. Mason put it, I came clean, believing that honesty was the best course of action given my embarrassment and shame for my actions. The following morning, I met with Ms. Mason and Zachary Kroger, who presented me with a two year suspension on the following grounds: 1) Abusive Behavior- Responsible 2) Disruption of Campus Activities- Responsible The six word comment I admitted to writing then deleting shortly after was mean, hurtful, and neither reflective of my character, nor my actual beliefs. That being said, I still made the comment, and am deeply sorry for it. However, I would like to respectfully appeal for a retrial based on failure of the hearing process and bias in the decision-making process. Firstly, The Pathfinder clearly outlines that the first step, or at least the beginning of the disciplinary process, is that "The student is informed of the alleged policy and/or standard violations."1 According to the Pathfinder this is supposed to occur before even a meeting date or time is set. This step was omitted throughout the hearing process. In fact, my specific "policy and/or standard violations" were mentioned for the first time the next day during my sentencing. Initially, when I asked why I was being summoned 1 https://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/studentguide/pathfinder/code-of-conduct/procedures.dot to the office of Ms. Mason on November 19th, I was denied a specific answer. My sanction papers begin with "You met this afternoon with Senior Associate Dean of Students Rochelle Mason and Assistant Dean of Students Cesar Cervantes regarding allegations that you violated the student Code of Conduct." Contrary to this statement, at no point during my meeting with Mr. Cervantes or Ms. Mason did either of them mention any specific school codes, values, or Pathfinder violations. During my hearing, rather than presenting me with my possible violations then investigating my actions and how they may have constituted those violations, I was simply treated as broadly guilty. It was as though I had been brought in to try to defend my position under presumptions of guilt. The Deans' focus was on the larger body of November 9th Yik Yak posts, with little care given to the fact that my involvement was only six words, words that I apologetically admitted to authoring early in the meeting. There was another procedural step in the Pathfinder that seemed to be completely ignored during my trial: The hearing body reviews the student's prior conduct record and determines a sanction that is appropriate to the needs of the student and the CC community.2 It is possible that this step may have occurred without my presence, but if it did neither Ms. Mason nor Mr. Cervantes nor Mr. Kroger communicated it to me. I am, or was till recently, very proud of my clean record in the eyes of both the school and the law. I was distraught that my clean record did not enter the conversation in any way, or if it did, I was never informed. Furthermore, It was never explained to me how my two year suspension was considered the option most "appropriate to the needs of 2 https://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/studentguide/pathfinder/code-of-conduct/procedures.dot the student and the CC community" 3 as opposed to the many disciplinary options that were skipped. I write this appeal not simply to dispute the imposed sanction, I am protesting the way my hearing process violated the purposes and methods of The Pathfinder. The process was handled in a way that gave me very little information on how and why I was being considered immediately and just plainly guilty and worthy of suspension. Not only did I not feel I was given a proper opportunity to explain myself, I was given no opportunity to apologize, learn, or help mitigate any damage I had done to the community, thereby contradicting the goals of the disciplinary process laid out in the Pathfinder. The second reason I appeal my decision is on the grounds of bias in the decision making process. Looking back at my hearing I realize that the focus of the Deans seemed to be on the larger body of Yik Yak posts that occurred the night of November 9th, with little focus given to the specific six words that I had admitted to authoring. Ms. Mason and Mr. Cervantes repeatedly asked, in what was an equally accusatory tone, if I had written several other, and in my opinion far more heinous, Yik Yak posts. Based on the treatment I received from the two, I am skeptical of their witnesses, whom I fear misled Ms. Mason and Mr. Cervantes to believe that I was responsible for a large body of the offensive posts on Yik Yak from the relevant time period. Their persistent inquiry about things that I had not written led me to believe that they were acting under the assumption that my involvement in the incident the night of November 9th ran far deeper than my six word comment. I was accused twice, both before and after admitting 3 https://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/studentguide/pathfinder/code-of-conduct/procedures.dot the extent of my involvement, about other Yik Yaks that expressed far more explicit language of white supremacy, racial slurs, and open hatred, all language and attitudes that I find despicable, and that I do not support or believe. I was horrified that my six word comment, "they matter, they're just not hot", albeit hurtful and distasteful, was being treated as equal to the posts authored by anonymous students who had neither been outed nor had come forward, and now remain at CC. Below are two examples of horrible posts that Ms. Mason and Mr. Cervantes repeatedly accused me of writing with seemingly equal conviction to my six-word acknowledgment that black women do, in fact matter, followed by a joking and mean-spirited expression of a sexual preference. The night of November 9th on Yik Yak started as an exchange of racially charged jabs. Although the screenshots many students took only captured the posts aimed at students of color, the entire situation was started by comments aimed at white CC students. To name a few, "White boys at this school: dirty hippies with small dicks", "Damn these white kids need their rich parents to buy them some soap", "Why are white people always fucking their cousins?", "I think it says a lot about white people that they're dumb enough to watch NASCAR and listen to country music". Apart from white and black students, other jabs targeted European Gypsies, the Irish, the Na'vi from the movie Avatar, Native Americans, Smurfs, Hispanics, Poles, and Muslims, among other groups based on nationality, ethnicity, religion, and even species. When the jabs began to get more offensive and hurtful and less humor-focused, I deleted my comment. Unfortunately, a screenshot taken by an anonymous student immortalized it. Upon questioning from the Deans, I came clean on my brief involvement in the events, hoping it would open a dialogue and more guilty students could come forward so the issue could be discussed by the community. I was raised to believe that honesty was always the best course of action. In the below picture, I am guilty of posting then deleting the bottom comment. To digress, I know that there are students at Colorado College who rejoiced at the news of my lengthy suspension. They voiced this on Yik Yak as word of my sentencing spread. In the following days several anonymous posters expressed a sense of satisfaction that both myself and my friend Lou (mentioning both of us by name) had been expelled (most of the campus thinks we were both expelled, or considers my two year suspension as an upperclassmen effectively an expulsion). I do not know who the witness (or witnesses) were who spoke with Ms. Mason and Mr. Cervantes, but I am of the conviction that they provided misleading information. I believe this based on the way that Ms. Mason and Mr. Cervantes asked me repeatedly about several other posts, even after I had fully admitted my six-word part in the matter. I understand that Ms. Mason and Mr. Cervantes were doing their jobs to the best of their abilities given the information they were provided. However, I assert that Ms. Mason and Mr. Cervanteswere biased in their treatment of the situation due to misinformation from their witness or witnesses. Finally, I was never explained how my two year suspension was considered the option most "appropriate to the needs of the student and the CC community."4 as opposed to the many disciplinary options that were skipped. The hearing process gave me very little information as to how my specific six word comment was worthy of two years away from CC, the place I consider my home. Furthermore, how was the sanction I received chosen based on my violations as opposed to other potential sanctions cited in the Pathfinder? • Official Warning: A formal notice from CC that the conduct is unacceptable. • Reflection/Research Papers: A document requiring critical analysis and articulation of a specified topic. • Program Attendance/Interview: Required attendance at an event or interview that is relevant to a specific topic. This is often accompanied by a reflection/research paper. • Persona Non Gratis: Prohibiting entry into a specific building on campus for a specific amount of time due to interference with the community. • Disciplinary Probation: A formal notice from CC that any additional findings of responsibility will likely result in suspension from CC. The final paragraph of my two year suspension for a six word comment states: "Our purpose in responding to alleged conduct violations is to: (1) educate one another; 4 https://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/studentguide/pathfinder/code-of-conduct/procedures.dot provide an opportunity for growth and development; ensure student safety; and promote an environment that supports the educational mission of the college; and (2) to hold students accountable for their actions." I deserve to be held accountable for my actions, this I accept. However, I do not see how the imposed two year suspension is an attempt to educate myself or the school community, which is supposed to be the purpose of the measures laid out in the Pathfinder by the hearing process and disciplinary sanctions. I beseech you to ask yourself this hard question: will harsh and immediate removal from the school (whether it be two years or permanent) encourage or discourage conversations on campus, not only of a very controversial incident, but of an entire body of ideas that it is the duty of my generation to engage? I appeal for a retrial by a new Hearing Body or Student Conduct Committee, where it is my hope that my story will be heard fairly and with due process by unbiased ears. Sincerely, Thaddeus Knight Pryor
https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-fire-to-colorado-college/ FIRE November 25, 2015 Jill Tiefenthaler URGENT Sent via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail (president@coloradocollege.edu) Dear President Tiefenthaler: The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) unites leaders in the fields of civil rights and civil liberties, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of liberty, legal equality, academic freedom, due process, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience on America's college campuses. Our website, thefire.org, will give you a greater sense of our identity and activities. FIRE writes to express serious concern regarding the threat to freedom of expression at Colorado College posed by the 21-month suspension of student Thaddeus Pryor on the basis of an anonymous comment on the social media application Yik Yak. This disciplinary action contradicts Colorado College's promises of free expression and chills campus speech, compromising the robust debate that Colorado College claims to value. The following is our understanding of the facts; please inform us if you believe we are in error. In November 2015, an unidentified individual posted a comment reading "#blackwomenmatter" on the social media application Yik Yak. Shortly thereafter, two anonymous replies were posted, the second of which read "They matter, they're just not hot." After the post was brought to the attention of Colorado College, the secretary of Senior Associate Dean of Students Rochelle T. Mason telephoned student Thaddeus Pryor on the morning of November 19 and summoned him to Mason's office in order to discuss the matter. 170 S Independence Mall W, Suite 510 Philadelphia, PA 19106 2 That afternoon, Pryor met with Mason and admitted to authoring the anonymous reply, maintaining that it was a joke. Later that evening, Mason requested via email that Pryor return to her office in order to discuss the college's response to his post. On November 20, Mason met with Pryor and provided him with a letter informing him that she had found him responsible for violating Colorado College policies governing "Abusive Behavior" and "Disruption of College Activities." The offenses are defined by the college's Student Conduct Policies as follows: Abusive Behavior: The college prohibits abusive behavior, which is any act that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student or group, or which destroys or removes public or private property, or which produces ridicule, embarrassment, harassment, intimidation or other similar result. Spectators at athletic events should convey enthusiasm and team support; demeaning, disrespectful or vulgar behavior may be found to be in violation of this policy. Disruption of College Activities: Disruption of college business, activities, and academic courses is prohibited. Examples of violations of this policy include, but are not limited to: Mason's letter further notified Pryor that would be suspended, effective immediately, until August 28, 2017, and that during this time he would be banned from Colorado College's campus and would not be allowed to take classes at other institutions for academic credit. Finally, Mason's letter conditioned Pryor's reinstatement after the suspension on the submission of a petition letter explaining how his behavior had improved during his suspension. Pryor intends to submit an appeal of Mason's decision today. As a private institution, Colorado College is not bound by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, it is both morally and contractually bound to honor the explicit, repeated, and unequivocal promises of freedom of expression it has made to its students. For example, Colorado College's student handbook's statement on "Rights and Responsibilities" states, in part: Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the quest for truth, the development of students, and the general well-being of society. In 3 the pursuit of these ends, all members of the college community have such basic rights as freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of personal beliefs, and freedom from personal force and violence, threats of violence and personal abuse. Accordingly, Colorado College's policy titled "Freedom of Expression" promises: Freedom of thought and expression is essential to any institution of higher learning. Uncensored speech — which does not include a right to harass, injure, or silence others — is essential in an academic community and will be vigorously defended. Colorado College's heavy-handed overreaction in this matter is at odds with these principles and unacceptably chills the expressive rights of Colorado College students, which the college has pledged to vigorously protect. Colorado College must immediately reverse the charges and sanctions against Thaddeus Pryor. Again, Colorado College explicitly promises that "all members of the college community have such basic rights as freedom of speech." The principle of freedom of speech does not exist to protect only non-controversial expression; it exists precisely to protect speech that some members of a community may find controversial or offensive. The Supreme Court of the United States stated in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949) that speech "may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest . . . or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea." The Court reiterated this fundamental principle in Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 1220 (2011), proclaiming that "[a]s a Nation we have chosen . . . to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate." Accordingly, the Supreme Court has explicitly held, in rulings spanning decades, that speech cannot be restricted simply because it offends people. See Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667, 670 (1973) ("[T]he mere dissemination of ideas—no matter how offensive to good taste—on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of 'conventions of decency.'"). In light of these foundational principles and Colorado College's promise to protect them, the charge of "Abusive Behavior" against Pryor cannot stand. There is simply no credible argument that Pryor's joke "endangers the mental or physical health or safety" of any student, nor that it satisfies any reasonable definition of harassment or intimidation. Speech that produces "embarrassment" or "ridicule" must generally be fully protected by Pryor's freedom of expression. Indeed, in discussing matters of societal importance, many of which are highly controversial, one would be hard-pressed to find an opinion that does not deeply offend someone. In the course of rigorously debating such issues, many may feel embarrassed or ridiculed as ideological opponents dispute their beliefs and ideas. Would Colorado College discipline a pro-life advocate for accusing women who have terminated 4 pregnancies of murder? Would it discipline a Palestinian advocate for accusing Israel of apartheid and racism? The answer must be no. Otherwise, the expressive rights laudably promised to Colorado College students are meaningless. Furthermore, the charge of "Disruption of College Activities" is plainly inappropriate. The fact that some found Pryor's comment offensive does not support Colorado College's conclusion that his expression was disruptive to college operations. While this policy may properly be applied to regulate conduct that is objectively disruptive or disorderly, it is wholly unsuitable for the regulation of speech—the overall effect of which depends on the subjective reaction of its audience. Punishing student expression as "disruption" simply because it may upset others will chill student expression at Colorado College by leaving freedom of expression at the mercy of the most sensitive members of the college community, no matter how unreasonable their response. Such a chill is unacceptable at a college claiming to value freedom of expression, as Colorado College does. On November 10, you wrote to the campus community regarding instances of hateful speech on campus, noting in part: Our commitment to diversity and inclusion is interwoven with our commitment to discourse and liberal learning. As alumnus Bro Adams '72 said in his commencement address in May: "Engaging our challenges in these ways won't make them disappear, but it will allow for a deeper understanding of who we are, how we got here, and how we might lead better lives." Colorado College may not lay claim to the intellectual vitality that results from freedom of expression while simultaneously indicating to its students that the expression of controversial opinions in any forum will be met with severe punishment should any individual take offense and complain to the college. By allowing such a result, Colorado College in fact prevents its community from reaching the "deeper understanding" that you proclaimed as something to aspire to. FIRE is aware that, in light of recent events at other campuses across the country, your administration may be facing significant pressure to take swift and harsh action in response to any speech that can be interpreted as racist or hateful. But that pressure cannot and must not lead to the subordination of Colorado College students' expressive rights and the principles of free speech essential to the college's mission. We urge you to rectify this mistake immediately and reverse the charges and sanctions against Thaddeus Pryor. 5 FIRE is committed to using all of the resources at our disposal to see this matter through to a just conclusion. We have enclosed with this letter a signed FERPA waiver from Thaddeus Pryor, permitting you to fully discuss this case with FIRE. We request a response to this letter by December 2, 2015. Sincerely, Ari Z. Cohn
Would you do a ... case for me --- against judge judy ! She ruled against a guy ... who couldn't avoid hitting a stopped car in an accident --- ahead of him ! I believe a blind turn was involved ! She so much as said anyone hitting another car from behind is always in the wrong ! I know there is law about ... illegal change of lanes - interfering in the right of the way --- of another ! Also the man was middle age - older ... the woman suing for damages --- was much younger - teenagerish ! Sorry for taking this tv joke show so seriously ! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
I'm not sure what the problem with the statement is. Many black women would say that white men are not hot. I think a lot of black women are hot. I guess I would get into more trouble if I said many black women look and act like jungle apes. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
So you're saying you are a hot black women? Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
She ruled against a guy ... Nobody can help you. All decisions by Judge Judy are final and binding. It is agreed arbitration, not a judicial proceeding.
Of course it would. The press and the racial pimps would be all over a story that a black person was held accountable for his racist remarks. This rarely happens in the U.S. these days and it would be considered an outrage, an example of racism in America (probably they would find a way fit in their White privilege meme)that a black person was treated in such a manner. There would be marching in the streets and riots on the campuses of most universitites. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
All women can be hot. But, I subscribe to the Seinfeld rule which applies to all races.
'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
#2. To: ebonytwix (#1)
(Edited)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
#4. To: A K A Stone (#2)
#5. To: ebonytwix (#3)
#6. To: A K A Stone (#5)
#7. To: Deckard (#0)
#8. To: ebonytwix (#1)
Both should've been banned.
#9. To: Deckard (#0)
"although he was “forbidden from taking courses for credit at other universities because of his crass remark.”
#10. To: SOSO (#8)
#11. To: ebonytwix (#10)
Go over and read again and stop getting your panties in a knot to back of your head since I criticized both of the race- obsessed/race-baiting idiots.
#12. To: ebonytwix (#10)
#13. To: All (#12)
(Edited)
#14. To: SOSO (#11)
#15. To: BorisY (#12)
#16. To: A K A Stone (#2)
I don't find most black women attractive.
#17. To: ebonytwix (#14)
The comment was most likely some derisive backhanded statement to black women.
#18. To: SOSO (#17)
#19. To: ebonytwix (#15)
low hanging fruit
#20. To: Deckard (#0)
Yik Yak - Your Local Feed
By Yik Yak, LLC
Category: Social Networking
Updated: Nov 16, 2015
Version: 3.0
Size: 34.9 MB
Languages: English, Spanish
Seller: Yik Yak, LLC
© Yik Yak, Inc.
You must be at least 17 years old to download this app.
Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity
Frequent/Intense Alcohol, Tobacco, or Drug Use or References
Frequent/Intense Mature/Suggestive Themes
Frequent/Intense Profanity or Crude Humor
Frequent/Intense Cartoon or Fantasy Violence Unrestricted Web Access
Frequent/Intense Horror/Fear Themes
#21. To: Deckard (#0)
• Official Conversation: A documented conversation with a CC official.
#22. To: Deckard (#0)
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Office of the President
Colorado College
14 East Cache La Poudre Street
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903
phone: 215-717-3473 fax: 215-717-3440
thefire.org
Senior Program Officer, Legal and Public Advocacy
Encl.
cc:
Mike Edmonds, Dean of Students and Vice President of Student Life Rochelle T. Mason, Senior Associate Dean of Students
#23. To: nolu chan (#22)
(Edited)
#24. To: Deckard (#0)
#25. To: ebonytwix (#1)
There was no point in him saying black women weren't hot (yes, we get it
#26. To: BorisY (#23)
Would you do a ... case for me --- against judge judy !
#27. To: ebonytwix (#18)
This wouldn't probably be news if both of them got banned to be honest.
#28. To: no gnu taxes (#24)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]