Brickbat: White Savior Complex


University of Illinois
Beyond My Ken, CC

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has suspended with pay Jay Rosenstein, a professor of media and cinema studies. Rosenstein, a critic of Native American sports mascots, followed members of a pro-Chief Illiniwek group into a bathroom at a basketball game and videotaped them. The school stopped using the mascot in 2007 but some fans still show up at games dressed like the chief.

NEXT: Rising Tax Rate Can't End Illinois' Economic Drought

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…

      Read more here……..

    2. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…

      Read more here……..

  1. What the hell is wrong with kids today? When some creep follows you into a bathroom with a video recorder, you KICK HIS ASS, and you destroy the recorder. Duh.


    1. and then kick his ass again for good measure…

      1. Something like that.

        A bathroom isn’t really a public place for purposes of the principle that you can record events in a public place.

        I’m trying to think of a situation which would justify it – maybe police abuse in a bathroom, or a murder, where evidence ought to be gathered.

        1. I’m not sure why the recording has to take place in the bathroom. Presumably the offending garment is visible outside.

          1. He says he’s looking for evidence that the University is in some way supporting the putatitvely unofficial Chief mascot. The NCAA supposedly banned the University from any official sponsorship of the mascot.

            I was a bit vague on how he would find evidence of official sponsorship in the bathroom. But see below for an article giving his side, FWIW.

  2. The Chief was the best part of Illinois basketball.

    1. Is that a compliment to the Chief or an insult to Illinois basketball?

      1. U of I basketball is an insult to itself.

  3. “suspended with pay”

    Oh, I almost missed that part.

    “You politically-correct little thug, take a paid vacation, see how you like it!”

    1. You did a Great job! But we have to look like we are punishing you. So here’s your “punishment”. Wink. Wink.

  4. Two seasons ago the Pittsburgh Penguins retired Vegas Gold for Pittsburgh Gold, yet at games I still see fans wearing the old color (which, let’s face it, was really just beige). I also find that the only way they’ll learn is for me to videotape with my VCR camcorder their penises.

    Also, he should have been fired outright because his discipline has no academic value beyond the easy A.

    1. Took me awhile to realize how much I hated the Vegas gold

  5. Rosenstein…was arrested by UI police for unauthorized videotaping but was released from the county jail the next morning after the state’s attorney’s office declined to charge him with a crime….

    “If university employees were involved in the Chief’s performances, he added, “it would be a serious violation of the university’s agreement with the NCAA regarding the Chief, a major story and a big journalistic scoop.”…

    “He said he walked just inside the door of the bathroom to see if it was being used “as a private staging area” for Dozier and his father, who was also at the game, and Omar Cruz, the current unofficial Chief portrayer. He believed they were all inside, and “to the best of my knowledge, they were the only people inside the bathroom while I was present.”

    “”At all times while I was present, Ivan Dozier was fully clothed and standing by a sink near the door, nowhere near the urinals. In fact, no one was visibly in a state of undress while I was present,” Rosenstein said.”

    1. “I’m not gay,” he added.

  6. Why was he not arrested ? What a pisser.

    1. He was, but then released when the prosecutor didn’t charge him.

      1. If only the pro camp had brought a child with them.

    2. Urinal condition to be able to judge what really went on.

  7. I’m not sure what to think. The prosecutor didn’t charge him, and he says he was doing journalism, seeking to catch a public university in the act of violating NCAA rules. While I’m not sure why recording in a bathroom helps with that, I’m also not sure what level of second-guessing the cops should do with the media, in a world where everyone is potentially the media.

    Imagine he were investigating the possibility that the team was lobbying the government for subsidies…to make the situation more sympathetic from the libertarian POV.

    1. I’m less inclined these days to give the benefit of the doubt to citizen journalists, since citizen journalism seems now to consist of social media shaming. I also admit that I’m a little biased here, because I don’t share his outrage at the issue.

      1. I don’t really know what happened, but for that very reason I can’t just dismiss his defense.

        He says one of the conditions of this public university being in the NCAA is that it not sponsor their old mascot anymore. An arbitrary rule, of course, but games are full of arbitrary rules, so he could argue that you have to hold universities to these rules of they want to stay in the game, or else join a mascot-friendly league.

        Not that he’s proven official collusion with the mascot supporters, but he says he’s following leads which might lead him to a scoop.

        So to what extent is a public bathroom off-limits to a reporter? What if a crooked cop is beating people up or entrapping them, or taking bribes, etc., in the men’s room, and conveniently arrests anyone who tries to record his dubious actions?

        To repeat, I don’t know what to think about this particular situation, and I’m not sure it’s worth an extensive research project on my part. Perhaps the guy is wrong. But if so he’s not wrong in an obvious-at-first-glance, brickbat-y way.

        1. As I understand the rules of brickbats, it’s not enough that someone be wrong, the wrongness has to be so self-evident that you just need a paragraph of info to make the outrageous wrongness obvious to everyone.

          I’m not sure that we’re dealing with that kind of wrongness. I mean, he could still be wrong, but if so it would be in the sense of “let’s do a full article explaining why he’s wrong and his explanation is (as it were) full of crap.”

          1. Example: I am skeptical of America’s Vietnam adventure, but I’d pay more attention to someone who gave thoughtful arguments in favor of our intervention there than to some smelly hippie who said that *of course* it was wrong, why are we even discussing it?

            1. Part of being a mature, robust intellectual is rejecting the proposition that there is a thoughtful argument in support of mass murder by the state.

              So, no, the smelly hippy kicks the shit out of some Ivy matriculant employed by the Rand corporation who articulates “domino” theory or the “freedom of the Vietnamese people” or “Soviet aggression must be checked” or other, hackneyed, lazy, tired non-sense.

              1. Is war ever justifiable? In short, are you a pacifist?

                1. War, as conceived by the state, never. That is for losers and suckers who think being Caesar’s cannon fodder is noble.

                  Back to your smelly hippie. His position is superior to any “thoughtful argument” in favor of invading a people 8,000 miles away and committing mass murder while bankrupting your own people and making your people less free.

                  Pacifist, no. I am all for the Sioux and Northern Cheyenne giving Custer and his crew what they so richly deserved.

                  1. “War, as conceived by the state, never. That is for losers and suckers who think being Caesar’s cannon fodder is noble….

                    “Pacifist, no. I am all for the Sioux and Northern Cheyenne giving Custer and his crew what they so richly deserved.”

                    Seriously, the pacifist versus just war debate has a long history and you can’t dismiss one side as so self-evidently wrong that you don’t even have to listen to the other side – especially if your “self-evident” position rejects war “as conceived by the state” while accepting war waged by the Sioux *nation.* That requires some elaboration, it’s not self-evident, with all due respect.

                    1. Or put forward your middle-of-the road, antiwar, antipacifist position as so self-evident you don’t need to defend it.

                    2. Just war as articulated by whom?



                      That the Just War theory / philosophy has a long history does not necessarily give it any intellectual heft.

                      Nevertheless, my original response to your post above concerned your hypothetical hippie and some amorphous “thoughtful argument” in favor of the Vietnam mass murdering and raping and pillaging. The hippie’s position, simple as you conceived it, is, superior to any argument, “thoughtful” or otherwise, favoring mass murder in Vietnam. Implicit in the hippie’s pov is his recognition that invading a land so many thousands of miles away would lead to

                      (1) mass murder;

                      (2) raping of Vietnamese women by loser soldier boys;

                      (3) a spectacular misallocation of resources;

                      (4) the bankrupting of the US as war waged by nation states inevitably leads to inflation, greater debt and lost purchasing power; and

                      (5) a lessening of liberty for the folks at home

                      If you want to regard the Sioux as a nation, fine. They were not, however, a nation state like the US, hell bent on extermination.

                      You come to A’s house looking to make trouble, A has the absolute right to kill you.

                      If soldier boy or cop comes to A’s house looking for trouble, A has the absolute right to kill them.

                    3. Speaking of Aquinas…

                      In his great treatise Aquinas begins his proof of any of his propositions by first giving the strongest argument he can muster *against* that proposition. Then he gives what he believes to be a refutation which proves the proposition.

                      He could have written a much shorter book if he’d simply written a series of posts assuming that any intelligent person would automatically agree with him without the need to consider opposing arguments.

                    4. See Aquinas’ discussion on whether war is always sinful.

                    5. Pacifist, no. I am all for the Sioux and Northern Cheyenne giving Custer and his crew what they so richly deserved…

                      If you want to regard the Sioux as a nation, fine. They were not, however, a nation state like the US, hell bent on extermination.

                      Oh, the irony of trying to reconcile this position with the position that it’s fine to let the third world colonize America.

                      PS: The situation between the Natives and the US was not so simple as “US = evil exterminators and Natives were just and good people”

                    6. PS – tell us how it wasn’t so simple.

                    7. Most of the interaction between the US and the natives was not extermination.
                      Most of the Natives that died did so due to disease before the settlers ever got the opportunity to meet them.
                      Natives generally exterminated each other, so the white man didn’t really have to. (With the whites picking the teams they liked most–or hated least–and arming them so they could do exactly that)

                      Maybe you should study the history of this great nation.

                    8. It is great an individual may personally find war or violence abhorrent, but if your neighbor does not feel the same way he can kill you and loot your stuff you all the same. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

                      And just to put this out there… as bad a reputation as the Vietnam War has and Domino Theory has, there is no way to prove they were “wrong.” None. There is no coutnterfactual history we can devise where it can be tested that Domino Theory was wrong. China and Russia were very aggressively searching for friends, funding friends, and arming them with weapons. There is no way to prove that if the West remained aloof that a better outcome would have happened where yes, Vietnam flipped commie, and the rest of Southeast Asia remained relatively democratic / capitalist or perhaps it would not have mattered if all of SE Asia flipped commie. Who knows. We cannot go back and rewrite history or devise tests to decide what was the correct course of action, we can only record.

                      To just proclaim moral superiority of your position, to abstain from getting your hands dirty with arguing when/why/how military activities may be necessary cedes the ground to the hawks. I would say it would be foolish to cede that ground.

                      I would further posit it is stupendously unrealistic to assume nations do not try to test one another. Inaction, while often the best position, does encourage further tests. It happens every single day in a myriad of ways.

    2. Rosenstein is an activist irritated that the unwashed are undermining the great accomplishment of his life in getting a mascot dropped by a university.

  8. Isn’t Illinois the “Land of Lincoln”. Fans should show up dressed as Lincoln instead of a Native American chieftain. Or maybe, in honor of The Great Emancipator, as a freed slave.

    1. Sadly, no slaves in Illinois were freed by Mr. ‘no habeas corpus’. The emancipation proclamation claimed to free slaves in the territory of the Confederacy, not the United States. He claimed as commander in chief, his war powers overrode the constitution (article 4, section 2)

      1. Mr. Mass Murder.

        Mr. Total War.

        Mr. Slaughter Civilians. But, I repeat myself.

        1. So edgy. I am impressed with your hipster-ism. Even more so if you are an old coot hipster.

  9. I may be nit-picky, but I lend way more credibility and sympathy to Native American activists who are actually Native American. Somehow I get the feeling that “Rosenstein” is even less native than Sen. Warren. I don’t suppose he could be jumping on the bandwagon just to seem with it, could he?

  10. In the good old days they took obsessive compulsives like this and put them in the looney bin.

    1. That seems like a gross violation of the NAP, doesn’t it?

  11. It’s OK. He’s a Jew. They know everything. And they know what everyone should do every nano-second of their existence. Stupid goys!

    1. I think I smell anti-Jewish bias.

      1. Do you think he’s being hard on the Hebrews?

        1. Don’t assume my gender.

    2. Stewardess: “Would you like something to read?”

      Old lady: “Do you have anything light?”

      Stewardess: “How about this leaflet, ‘Famous Jewish sports legends’?”

  12. Nope just an observation stated in a snarky way. Some Jews make declarations concerning how society should be and work. They have the national microphones of a mass media, law, academia and legislation. The are the voice of the SJW. Yet a cursory look will show bias and hypocrisy. Jews tend to be paternalistic, misogynist and exclusionary, you don’t see many mixed marriages in the Jewish community. Also I used the term “goy” intentionally. I don’t know of any other race/ religion/ ethnicity that has a word, perhaps derogatory, to describe everyone except themselves.

    To be clear I am speaking in general terms.

    1. “you don’t see many mixed marriages in the Jewish community.”

      Seriously? It doesn’t seem like you are very familiar with the American Jewish community.

      1. You seem to enjoy Jew-baiting – in fact you’re a master at it – but just for fun let me provide this link:

        “Intermarriage has long been one of the most contentious issues in modern American Jewish life ? and arguably one in which communal attitudes have changed most dramatically in recent decades.

        “From Taboo to Commonplace

        “Outside the Orthodox community, it is increasingly common ? and accepted ? for American Jews to marry partners from different faith backgrounds. “Marrying out” was once widely seen as a rejection of one’s Jewish identity, and the ultimate taboo….

        Today, many American Jewish parents welcome non-Jewish sons- and daughters-in-law, and significant numbers of non-Orthodox rabbis officiate at their weddings, though the Conservative movement still bars rabbis from doing so. Growing numbers of intermarried Jews remain engaged in Jewish life and raise their children as Jews.”

        1. He didn’t write that “there are no mixed-marriages”.

          Perhaps he doesn’t like having his property confiscated in order to give it to the Jewish state.

          Perhaps he doesn’t like having his property confiscated so that the Jewish state is better able to make war upon other people in the middle east.

          Perhaps he doesn’t like having his property confiscated so that the Jewish state can better maintain its apartheid regime.

          Perhaps he doesn’t like dual citizen jews lobbying to loot more money from American taxpayers so that the Jewish state can continue to be fed.

          Perhaps he doesn’t like the Lobby.

          Perhaps he despises the likes of the following:

          Bill Kristol

          Richard Perle

          Paul “Wolfy” Wolfowitz

          Douglas Feith

          Charlie Krauthammer

          David Frum

          Henry Kissinger

          Podhoretz, John and Norman

          Eliot Abrams

          Alan Dershowitz

          Eliot Abrams

          1. You forgot Bar Refaeli. Jewish chicks are fucking hot.

          2. Dear me, he *might* be thinking all sorts of things, but he *said* “you don’t see many mixed marriages in the Jewish community” – and I gave evidence to the contrary. Correct me if I’m wrong but you didn’t really defend the accuracy of that statement or show why my link was wrong, you just went off on a discussion of Israel.

            1. Your link is not “wrong”. I perused the article and note that the author refers to a big study conducted by a jewish organization and that 43% of jewish people intermarried. Whether the study is accurate or not, is another question. I trust that you do not regard the study as absolute fact.

              To be sure, the study was done in 1990, and possibly, there might be a higher percentage of mixed marriages today. One of my best friends married a jewish girl – in 1990. The ceremony was officiated by a catholic priest and a rabbi.

              Yes, I don’t “know” what he is thinking, but I would argue that he doesn’t think that there are no or just a handful of mixed marriages involving jews. If he “thinks” that, well, he would be mistaken.

          3. Mmmm nice, an anti-Semitic critique masquerading as an libertarian critique. Good stuff.

    2. To be clear I am speaking in general terms.

      You’re speaking in some sort of terms, all right, but to call them “general” is like talking trash about orange cats and saying that you’re speaking in broadly mammalian terms. You’re speaking specifically about Jewish people.

    3. Through the years, I have noticed in personal ads that Jews are far more likely to insist that their potential mate be Hebrew than white Christians insisting upon meeting fellow white Christians or negroes insisting upon meeting fellow negroes.

      1. That’s a good anecdote. It’s meaningless, but amusing.

        1. Ole Mex, it is the truth, though.

          It is also a truth that millions of people would recognize.

          Of course, if A only wants to be with a mate that is like A, that is freedom of association. If B does not want to associate with A, that is okay as well.

          That is why if white folk only want to associate with white folk, no people of color or people of Moses should be heard to complain.

          If homosexuals only want to associate with homosexuals, heterosexuals should be heard to complain.

          If Christian bakers do not want to bake cakes for gay weddings, no fags should be heard to complain.

          1. What the fuck are you posting? Do you live in a mental house?

    4. Also I used the term “goy” intentionally. I don’t know of any other race/ religion/ ethnicity that has a word, perhaps derogatory, to describe everyone except themselves.

      Words like the Arabic “kafir”, Japanese “gaijin”, or maybe the English word “heathen”?

      1. “or maybe the English word “heathen”?”

        English-speaking Odin-worshippers would like a word with you.

      2. Shut up, Haole.

    5. There does seem to be a general trend of Jews being at the head of the SJW movement, much like they were the communist movement. It’s probably a far cry to claim that Jews are in general that way, because it ignores large swaths of the Jewish community such as the Conservative and Orthodox, who are likely to oppose much of this. It does seem to be more of a trend among Reform Jews, but I think the real group where you see this trend play out is among mere ethnic Jews, who do not practice religion.

    6. At one time i was married to a Jewish woman. The largest and most active group at the synagogue was the interfaith couples group.

  13. Rosenstein, a critic of Native American sports mascots, followed members of a pro-Chief Illiniwek group into a bathroom at a basketball game

    Due to things like this is why Trump won.

    Ha ha ha! No, it’s not! It’s because Trumpistas hate immigrants. That’s all. They hate immigrants so much, they will see immigrants everywhere.

  14. My thoughts;

    Suspended with pay. What a farce. Any behavior worthy of suspension is worthy of loss of pay. If you are going to pay them, why suspend them?

    Arrested, but released without charges. I mean, the guy’s videotape would show he was filming in a restroom. How could you NOT win a conviction? (Maybe there is a vast jury nullification effort there?)

    This involves a college; why cannot the native american identifying victims of this safe-space violating harasser get justice? Where is Title IX when you really need it?

  15. I think the distinction for what sorts of ethnic/racial mascots are okay vs which ones aren’t is that ones based on a role are okay and ones based on a people are not okay. For example, I don’t see any difference between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Sacramento Kings. Both are acceptable to me. Same goes for the Atlanta Braves and the Golden State Warriors. The Florida State Seminoles and the Cleveland Indians however seem inappropriate.

    1. Except Florida State has their mascot with the explicit blessing of the Seminole Tribe.

      1. I was an athlete at FSU.

        One day some science chick visited us and asked us to participate in clinical trials comparing athletes with normal Joes.
        She wanted us to provide “seminal fluid”. I thought that was pretty funny.

        1. Maybe that wasn’t a real scientist, but just someone setting up an elaborate pun.

          1. As an undergrad it can be both, heck that sort of research pun could easily make the cover of a lower ranked journal.

            1. Or a top-ranked law review.

        2. How did she want you to give it to her?

          All at once or one at a time?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.