Two actions:
1) Respect that Facts are Facts
2) Refuse to negotiate with any group or person who yells and screams about something they think is unfair.
About "Respect that Facts are Facts"
Facts should not be judged as being "good" or "not good" because of the diversity, equity, and inclusion of anyone. To quote a speaker I've heard, "Facts don't care about your feelings." I thought about this last week (or the week prior) when there was an email sent out after a murder in the state of Iowa. There was verbiage about "this could be a triggering email" in the first (or second) paragraph of the email. I don't accept that we as a community of men and women who are 18 or older should be coddled. If you want to protect this nation, treat all of us like the adults we are. We all have our "big person" pants on. No one should be allowed to throw a fit when that email conveys facts that they don't like. That murder in the state of Iowa was a fact - it happened - and the email being sent out about that fact should have conveyed factual information only, not giving an 18+ year old an excuse to be "triggered" and then say that they could not attend class because of their "trauma." (Of course, I'm presuming that the victim of the murder was not a family member of anyone in the U of I community - I'm talking about a person like me, who had no prior knowledge that the victim had been alive until I saw the email that there was a murder.)
About "Refuse to negotiate with any group or person who yells and screams about something they think is unfair"
Over the summer, there were protests about BLM. The organizers of the protests had a list of demands that they expected the Iowa City City Council to meet. That's wrong, plain and simple. No one should not accept the presentation of a list of demands from any organization regardless of any group's diversity, equity, or inclusion properties. Yelling and protesting as a means to raise awareness of their cause should be ignored. For example, if I were to suddenly decide that Policy A doesn't respect me, I should not be permitted to emotionally blackmail anyone until the Policy is changed. The proper mechanism to change Policy A is to go through the proper channels. The fact may be that Policy A pre-dates my birth! I must presume that Policy A is serving a specific purpose and that it was put into effect for a specific reason. I must also presume that Policy A was never created to "hold me back" from achieving my goals. Thus, if I would want to make a change to Policy A, I should go through whatever "policy review" process exists and calmly lay out the facts about why Policy A ought to be changed. It should not be tolerated if I were to spray paint graffiti on Kinnick Stadium or any other building - that's called "vandalism" and it's against the law. While I feel bad for the athletes in the programs that have been cut, they should accept the ruling. They appealed to Barta, who said "No" and, frankly, the Board of Regents were correct to back up the U of I's decision. That said, I am a fan of all of the canceled sports, but the decision was made and that's the answer. If a boss tells their employee "You cannot do project X" if that employee works on project X, they are not accepting the mandate from their boss. The employee may really want to work on project X, but the *FACT* remains the boss said "You cannot do project X." If that employee does work on project X, that's insubordination and, often, grounds for dismissal. The same thing is happening here. Barta said, "No"; the Board of R's said, "No" and instead of accepting the answer, there is now a lawsuit that alleges discrimination. NO, that's WRONG and the reason why lawyers get a bad reputation is because some lawyer, sympathetic to the athletes involved, said, "I think we can win." Barta didn't make that decision because he wanted to be mean to those athletes - he had to make a decision and that's the way it is!
