ballcoach15 wrote: ↑August 27th, 2020, 8:46 am
I am not a fan of Save71. When groups like that form, they're usually just trouble-makers.
I wear my LU gear every day, and have for several years.
Skepticism is very fair to have -- you're right in pointing out that
sometimes, grassroots advocacy groups are careless, tend towards overemphasizing feelings of bitterness/anger, and sometimes just don't even write well enough to get their message out. However, I'd argue that the biggest recurring issue among groups like ours is a fundamental misunderstanding of how change happens, by which I mean that inexperienced advocates often don't understand that popular social media posts won't make change by themselves. No, change requires building relationships with decision-makers, navigating complex incentive structures for people in power, and truly
understanding the business/organizational systems that institutional leaders operate in.
That's not Save71. Sure, our leadership is mostly composed of people under the age of 30, but we like to think that we're
thoughtful people under the age of 30. Every day, we're in contact with lawyers, communications professionals, organizational governance specialists, pastors, LU students, alumni, faculty/staff (both current and former, both high-level and frontline), and yes, Board members. We're not just posting on social media or writing (sometimes melodramatic-seeming) Facebook posts. We're leveraging relationships and spreading our message behind the scenes, directly to the decision-makers who have the ability to make change. That's how advocacy
works, and that's what we're doing.
If it seems like Save71 is angry, or hates the school, or wants to see conservatism burn, the best advice I have is to
read the words we write, and listen to the things we say. We're not hiding anything, and we say exactly what we believe. You can look into our backgrounds too, if you want. Here's mine: I worked for three departments at LU during my time as a student. I was completely involved in my academics. I was a prayer leader, and tutored for accounting classes, and spent lots of my free time helping other students edit cover letters, resumes, and sometimes even emails to professors. None of this
definitively proves that I genuinely care about the school, or that I'm not interested in "making trouble," but it certainly should make you re-consider the idea that my goals are nefarious. You can apply the same lens to any other named, founding member of Save71. We all love Liberty. Our fondest memories and most important moments of spiritual development are from LU, and we'll never lose sight of that.
flameshaw wrote: ↑August 27th, 2020, 11:08 am
ballcoach15 wrote: ↑August 27th, 2020, 8:46 am
I am not a fan of Save71. When groups like that form, they're usually just trouble-makers.
I wear my LU gear every day, and have for several years.
Me either. When the kid first started it up, I was supportive and tried to help him with some ideas, but quickly after he started it, it became more of a hate Trump and identity politics group.
The funny thing, is he actually thinks that they had something to do with getting rid of Jr. I can promise you the Save71 group had no impact on the board, or anyone else in the decision-making process. (I got that straight from a board member). Can you imagine the number of complaints and kooks that the board has to deal with on a regular basis? Even when Sr. was there and before the SHTF with Jr. Personally, I think they did more harm than good, but of course I can't prove it.
There's a lot here, but I'll respond to some of it briefly.
There was no "the kid" that started Save71. It was co-founded with the support and advisement of many people, many of whom still can't be named because they work in sensitive positions. I'm not quite sure who you are (if you'd like to reveal yourself via DM, that's fine), but I don't recall anyone that is not currently a part of the Save71 group "helping us with ideas" and then dropping out. Pretty skeptical of this claim to be honest.
I'm not sure where you're deriving the bits about "Trump" and "identity politics." We've stated literally everywhere that our goals are related to accountability, spiritual focus, virtue, and responsibility. Much like you repeatedly describe us as "kids," your references to "Trump" and "identity politics" seem like rhetorical devices that serve to delegitimize our credibility to speak at all, while avoiding sincere engagement with our actual points. If I'm wrong on that, feel free to correct me, but this doesn't feel like sincere critique.
Lastly, we're under no delusions that we were the principal agents of Falwell's departure. I mean, come on, a sitting U.S. Congressman called for the guy to go! What we can say is that we have organized a huge group of people from the Liberty community and united their voices into one cohesive mission. We've told the watching world how some of the Liberty community really feels about the school's leadership. We've stood up for Liberty, and that's something we're proud of.
There's plenty more to say on how we've been able to influence decision-makers, but I won't get into it here because most of it is pretty sensitive. Sorry for the long post, everyone! I try to respond to critique whenever I can, because I'd rather misinformation not spread if I can help it. If anyone
ever wants to talk more about critiques, just private message me for a phone number!
Liberty needs responsible, virtuous leadership. Join us?
Save71.org