How to be an SC at a university!

[fireheart17]

This one is a sucky customer moment, but is more contentious for Fratching.

Long story short, someone decided to dump faeces in a microwave (I'm presuming human) in a room on the university campus.

The kicker? It was the "Rainbow Room" on campus, which is sort of a safe haven for LGBT students on campus*.

Now the uni students are holding a rally on campus.

*=both this university and my university have these rooms. Ours is called the "Queer Space". Generally they're mostly places for LGBT students to hang out, get information about relevant services for them and to partake in the occasional free coffee. The Queer society on my campus also meets there. A friend of mine (who is gay) once said that he preferred to get coffee from the Queer Space, but hated that the Queer Officer (that is the name for the officer in the student council) forgets to put a carton of milk in the fridge.

My uni also has "women's rooms" for similar reasons. I still use the one on campus occasionally if I'm making up lunch and need the facilities there. (I don't go in if they're doing the radical feminist meetings)

[Greenday]

So, someone shit in the microwave in the LGBT's group room on campus and they immediately start an anti-homophobia protest? How do they know it was a person who was homophobic and just not someone who goes there regular but was drunk as hell and was acting like a moron? It wouldn't be the first time I saw someone shit where they eat in college.

[fireheart17]

So, someone shit in the microwave in the LGBT's group room on campus and they immediately start an anti-homophobia protest? How do they know it was a person who was homophobic and just not someone who goes there regular but was drunk as hell and was acting like a moron? It wouldn't be the first time I saw someone shit where they eat in college.

1) Campus is a dry zone. (it's also enforced)

2) Nobody lives on campus, all accomodation is off-campus.

3) That room is open at certain times of the day and is locked after that.

4) The campus is patrolled by security guards.

[telecom_goddess]

Yup sounds like a homophobic move to me. You said it's IN the microwave? Real mature attitude to have there. Why can't people leave other people alone, no one was doing anything to them.

[Greenday]

1) Campus is a dry zone. (it's also enforced)

2) Nobody lives on campus, all accomodation is off-campus.

3) That room is open at certain times of the day and is locked after that.

4) The campus is patrolled by security guards.

1) So was my college. That didn't stop me or tons of other people from drinking on campus.

2) Not proof of who did it. Pretty irrelevant really.

3) Again, pretty irrelevant.

4) Then they suck at their job. Again, Relevancy?

Yup sounds like a homophobic move to me. You said it's IN the microwave? Real mature attitude to have there. Why can't people leave other people alone, no one was doing anything to them.

I see a complete lack of evidence to back up your statement. I mean, you are just seeing that a crap was taken in the room and assuming it HAD to be a straight person without any evidence to say such a thing.

[HYHYBT]

Nobody said it was proven. It is simply the most reasonable assumption to make until evidence OTHERWISE turns up.

Meanwhile, those points aren't even remotely irrelevant.

1: if alcohol and being drunk are not allowed, and if that ban is effectively enforced, then there will only rarely be drunk people on campus, and therefore it is unlikely that this was done by someone drunk. If "tons of people" were drunk at your school, then your claim of enforcement there is false.

2: Very clearly not intended as "proof of who did it." Instead, it goes with #s 1 and 3. It is much more likely that, rules or no rules, people will be drunk on campus if they live there than if they are only there for classes and such, cutting further into the probability that "drunk person meaning no harm" did it.

3: Again cuts down on the chances of Hypothetical Drunk Dude wandering in; such things are much more likely in areas left open.

4: Again, goes along with the others. Rational people look into what is most likely first. None of these are intended to prove that this MUST have been homophobia-related vandalism. That's simply the most likely of the apparent possibilities. That it was intentional, but not particularly directed against LGBT folks, is next most likely, with Drunk Guy Who Either Cannot Tell A Microwave From A Toilet Or Who Thinks This Is A Funny Joke far off in the distance.

So the question is, without any apparent special knowledge to justify doing so, why are you so insistent that that theory should be prominent?

[TheHuckster]

There's another possible scenario that nobody here has taken into account:

The person might have done it to purposely humiliate or otherwise vandalize the property, but might have been someone who had a grudge against the organization for other reasons.

There was an arson attempt at my alma mater's multicultural department. The fire was quickly contained and only did minor damage, but it was clear that the person's intent was to set the whole place on fire. During the investigation the school newspapers was all about how racist someone must be to do something like this, as well as protests against the act, which everyone assumed to have had to be racist in nature.

Turns out the arsonist was a disgruntled black janitor who was recently fired. Just because the target is a frequent target of hate crimes doesn't mean every instance of harm against that target is a hate crime. Let the investigation work its way to find a possible suspect and then make your judgements when they find him.

Although they probably won't go as far as to use DNA analysis in their investigation, it is quite stupid to leave your shit at the crime scene regardless.

[Greenday]

So the question is, without any apparent special knowledge to justify doing so, why are you so insistent that that theory should be prominent?

No, I'm just picking out how wrong some of those statements can be. My school was ridiculous about their stupid dry campus policy. They had cops who loved busting kids for being drunk. But that didn't stop the masses.

I'm just trying to point out how to jump to this being a issue of hating on LGBTs for no apparent reason is absurd and down right bigoted.

[telecom_goddess]

Either way, if it was done as a hate crime it was stupid and immature. If it was done as an act of drunkenness also stupid and immature. I know this is a time to drink and experiment and all that. I did it it too. But I never did anything like that! And I never did anything destructive. There's no need for that.

[AdminAssistant]

The person might have done it to purposely humiliate or otherwise vandalize the property, but might have been someone who had a grudge against the organization for other reasons.

Or even other stranger reasons.

Story time!

So, at my undergrad, there was this hearing-impaired gay kid. Came to a lot of our shows (we knew when he was there because we had to get an ASL interpreter those nights), nice enough kid. Right around the time we were about to do The Laramie Project, the kid claimed that he'd been attacked in his dorm room. Huge story done about it, the university rushed through a lot of extra security measures for dorms, the LGBT groups got a lot of attention....It was a big deal. Too big, unfortunately for the kid, because the university he had transferred from got in touch. He had done the same thing there. Claimed to be attacked in order to gain attention for himself and for "the cause." I can't remember if he was expelled or if he left voluntarily, but it pissed a lot of people off.

[HYHYBT]

That's a possibility as well. Still, "when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras" is at least a good way to start off.

[Nyoibo]

Also just to clarify, Adelaide university isn't like a US college, it's basically a campus the same as an elementary or high school is, I'm not saying it's not something other than a homophobic act, but the chances of it being someone just drunk are pretty much negligeble.

[Greenday]

Also just to clarify, Adelaide university isn't like a US college, it's basically a campus the same as an elementary or high school is, I'm not saying it's not something other than a homophobic act, but the chances of it being someone just drunk are pretty much negligeble.

Ok, so is there any evidence, at all, to support the theory that it was a homophobe who did it and deserves all this protesting?

[Nyoibo]

Ok, so is there any evidence, at all, to support the theory that it was a homophobe who did it and deserves all this protesting?

Circumstantial? shitloads, it's pretty much 50/50 on whether it's homophobic or someone with a grudge

[Duelist925]

*scratches head* I can kinda see a homophobic slant to it...but...it could just as easily have been jackass mcgee deciding to fuck some shit up.

People are stupid.

College aged people, more so.

Oh god the freshman at my dorm....

*shrug* I'm seeing as too early, too little info to call specifics on this. Occams razor slices right down the middle for me here--homophobe, or random jackass.