We love ourselves too often and need reach out much more often. It is a social responsibility and it effects the environment also.
I went to San Francisco State University and Chico where at times I was not sure it was an academic institution or a political rallying point. Chico was much better. But universities should know what their mission is? Searching the web 54 results Your experience at San Francisco State University (SFSU) and California State University, Chico highlights a real tension many feel on public campuses: the line between vibrant political engagement and an environment where activism overshadows the core academic mission.Universities absolutely should have a clear sense of their primary mission—and most do, on paper. Typical mission statements for public institutions like those in the California State University (CSU) system emphasize teaching, research, knowledge dissemination, student success, and service to the community, all while upholding academic freedom and free expression. For example, the broader CSU mission focuses on providing accessible, high-quality undergraduate and graduate education, fostering critical thinking, and preparing students for civic engagement in a diverse society. Individual campuses align with this: SFSU highlights innovation, social justice, and equity alongside intellectual pursuit; Chico stresses sustainability, inclusivity, and hands-on learning in a more rural, practical context.In practice, though, campuses can feel like "political rallying points" when activism becomes dominant—especially at schools with a strong historical legacy of it. SFSU has one of the richest traditions in the U.S.: It was ground zero for the 1968-1969 Third World Liberation Front strike, the longest student strike in American history, which birthed the nation's first College of Ethnic Studies and pushed for greater representation and social justice curricula. That activist DNA persists—recent years saw pro-Palestinian protests, encampments (e.g., Gaza solidarity actions in 2024), boycotts, and incidents raising antisemitism concerns (like graffiti, exclusionary statements toward Hillel, or controversial department social media). These often tie into broader equity and decolonization themes, which align with SFSU's self-image but can make the campus feel more like a movement hub than a neutral academic space for some students.Chico, by contrast, has a quieter profile—more focused on environmental issues, rural community needs, and practical programs (e.g., agriculture, education). Protests there (like May Day/Palestine actions in 2024 or climate activism) tend to be smaller and less disruptive, contributing to the "much better" academic feel you described.The question of "should universities know their mission?" gets to a deeper debate: Public campuses, especially in California, are meant to reflect societal values, including civic discourse and protest as part of learning democracy. But when activism disrupts classes, creates hostile environments (as alleged in ongoing federal probes into the entire CSU system for antisemitism handling as of late 2025), or dominates departmental focus, it can blur—or even conflict with—the primary goal of impartial education and scholarship.Post-2024 election shifts (tighter protest rules systemwide—no encampments, mask restrictions in some cases, enhanced anti-discrimination training) aimed to rebalance this, pushing campuses back toward academics over unchecked rallying. Whether that sticks long-term depends on leadership and culture. Your firsthand contrast between SFSU and Chico shows how campus history and location shape that balance—some thrive on activism as part of their identity, others prioritize a calmer scholarly vibe. Ideally, universities hold both: space for passionate debate without letting it eclipse the pursuit of knowledge.
NO HONOR: WeinrothForCityCouncil @Weinroth4Boca · Dec 12 🚨 BREAKING: COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ADMITS TO SYSTEMIC ANTISEMITISM 🚨 Columbia’s own task force has finally admitted the truth. In a 70-page internal report, Columbia confirms that Jewish and Israeli students were harassed, isolated, and targeted. Not by fringe activists, but by the professors paid to teach them. Here’s what Columbia itself now admits: • Israeli students were publicly called murderers in class • Jewish students were told their people survived the Holocaust just to commit genocide • A rare class on Zionism was disrupted simply for not being hostile to Jews • Professors read private emails from Jewish students out loud to shame them • Classes were canceled so students could protest Israel • Others were held in “Zionist-free” protest camps. Open ethnic exclusion • A required class of over 400 students was told Israel is “so-called Israel” and that Jewish donors were laundering blood money • One professor denied Hamas sexual violence, calling the reports “exaggerated or fabricated” during a class on advocacy • Graduate students were told to “teach for Palestine” in every subject • A professor claimed Theodor Herzl was an antisemite and that Eastern European Jews were not really Jewish • Anti-Israel messaging was forced into astronomy, architecture, photography, nonprofit management, and more. Wherever they could inject antizionist hate, they did • Columbia’s task force confirmed that swapping the word Jew for Zionist does not make it any less antisemitic Columbia admits it has no full-time Middle East faculty who are NOT antizionist. In other words, every professor teaching the region wants to dissolve the world’s only Jewish state in the Jewish ancestral homeland. And the faculty behind it? Still employed. Still spreading antizionist hate. No accountability whatsoever. This report is not reform. It is a signed confession. Columbia engineered a campus-wide assault on Jewish identity and called it education. Bookmark this post. Spread the truth. Stop pretending this is a debate. This is a moral collapse. And it happened at one of America’s most "elite" institutions. No one gets to say “we didn’t know.” Now you do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)