"We failed you."
November 6, 2015 12:25 PM Subscribe
"In a closed-door meeting Thursday night, Yale University’s apologized to a large group of minority students for the school’s failure to make them feel safe on campus."
A confrontation over race at Yale: Hundreds of students demand answers from the school’s first black dean"“As a black man, you know where we come from,” said Ron Tricoche, of New York. “You need to act, whether it’s with Yale or without Yale. We need you.”
Staring back at the student, Holloway said softly: “I will.”
Yale Daily News: Students demand admin response to racial controversies
Holloway’s email addresses campus controversies
Yale University Students Protest Halloween Costume Email (VIDEO 1 of 4)
No more silence
The Daily Beast: Did Yale’s ‘Whites Only’ Frat Party Really Happen?
A confrontation over race at Yale: Hundreds of students demand answers from the school’s first black dean"“As a black man, you know where we come from,” said Ron Tricoche, of New York. “You need to act, whether it’s with Yale or without Yale. We need you.”
Staring back at the student, Holloway said softly: “I will.”
Yale Daily News: Students demand admin response to racial controversies
Holloway’s email addresses campus controversies
Yale University Students Protest Halloween Costume Email (VIDEO 1 of 4)
No more silence
The Daily Beast: Did Yale’s ‘Whites Only’ Frat Party Really Happen?
“I apologize for causing pain, but I am not sorry for the statement,” Christakis, whose wife was not present, told the crowd, his voice raised. “I stand behind free speech. I defend the right for people to speak their minds.”
Apologies - that's not how they work.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 12:53 PM on November 6, 2015 [11 favorites]
Apologies - that's not how they work.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 12:53 PM on November 6, 2015 [11 favorites]
Yale has come a long way since I lived close to their campus. Back then, there was a known 10% quota for Jewish students...now minority students (?) consist not only of Jews (no longer thought of as minority) but many Asians and Blacks.
posted by Postroad at 12:59 PM on November 6, 2015
posted by Postroad at 12:59 PM on November 6, 2015
“I apologize for causing pain, but I am not sorry for the statement,” Christakis, whose wife was not present, told the crowd, his voice raised. “I stand behind free speech. I defend the right for people to speak their minds.”
No, Nick, you sure as hell don't. Because we see the same fucking bullshit over and over when it comes to offense - the offenders are allowed to say whatever the hell they want, but the offended, well...they need to turn the other cheek, and hold in how they feel for the sake of "free speech".
Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of consequences for your speech.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:00 PM on November 6, 2015 [43 favorites]
No, Nick, you sure as hell don't. Because we see the same fucking bullshit over and over when it comes to offense - the offenders are allowed to say whatever the hell they want, but the offended, well...they need to turn the other cheek, and hold in how they feel for the sake of "free speech".
Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of consequences for your speech.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:00 PM on November 6, 2015 [43 favorites]
I am sympathetic to free speech claims but it is not as if Yale banned offensive costumes. They just sent out an email to people asking that they avoid insensitive and offensive costumes.
Asked. Not commanded, just asked.
I don't know why that needed a response from Christakis.
posted by nolnacs at 1:03 PM on November 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
Asked. Not commanded, just asked.
I don't know why that needed a response from Christakis.
posted by nolnacs at 1:03 PM on November 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
“I apologize for causing pain, but I am not sorry for the statement,” Christakis, whose wife was not present, told the crowd, his voice raised. “I stand behind free speech. I defend the right for people to speak their minds.”
Apologies - that's not how they work.
Jesus Christ am I sick of people waving the flag of free speech as if they are doing something heroic when in actuality they are refusing to take action on behalf of people who are suffering.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 1:05 PM on November 6, 2015 [40 favorites]
Apologies - that's not how they work.
Jesus Christ am I sick of people waving the flag of free speech as if they are doing something heroic when in actuality they are refusing to take action on behalf of people who are suffering.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 1:05 PM on November 6, 2015 [40 favorites]
Apologies if I missed it buried somewhere in the post, but this appears to be the email from Erika Christakis. Personally, I don't see why it has caused as much controversy as it has.
posted by kickingtheground at 1:12 PM on November 6, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by kickingtheground at 1:12 PM on November 6, 2015 [14 favorites]
This is just a repeat performance for the Christakis couple.
In 2012, they also spoke up against a similar incident at Harvard in which the administration acted swiftly. Their op-ed is titled "Whither Goes Free Speech at Harvard?"
In that case, Dean Hammond's statement was simply
"“As an institution of higher learning, we are committed to engendering and safeguarding the free expression of ideas, including those that we might find offensive,” Hammonds wrote in a segment of her statement. “This commitment should not be mistaken, however, for the tacit approval of all speech that occurs on our campus.”"
posted by vacapinta at 1:12 PM on November 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
In 2012, they also spoke up against a similar incident at Harvard in which the administration acted swiftly. Their op-ed is titled "Whither Goes Free Speech at Harvard?"
In that case, Dean Hammond's statement was simply
"“As an institution of higher learning, we are committed to engendering and safeguarding the free expression of ideas, including those that we might find offensive,” Hammonds wrote in a segment of her statement. “This commitment should not be mistaken, however, for the tacit approval of all speech that occurs on our campus.”"
posted by vacapinta at 1:12 PM on November 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
I don't know why that needed a response from Christakis.
Because even saying "hey, maybe you should consider how other people will feel" is an affront to "free speech". The majority must be allowed to thoughtlessly offend without repercussion, lest we lose our ability to speak freely.
...I think I gagged a bit there.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:15 PM on November 6, 2015 [9 favorites]
Because even saying "hey, maybe you should consider how other people will feel" is an affront to "free speech". The majority must be allowed to thoughtlessly offend without repercussion, lest we lose our ability to speak freely.
...I think I gagged a bit there.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:15 PM on November 6, 2015 [9 favorites]
I don't see why it has caused as much controversy as it has.\
What about the part where she uses her experience with pre-school children to talk to college-aged adults?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:15 PM on November 6, 2015 [19 favorites]
What about the part where she uses her experience with pre-school children to talk to college-aged adults?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:15 PM on November 6, 2015 [19 favorites]
From the Harvard link. Let me selectively quote. I hope they are not offended:
Is a satirical flyer distributed a few days ago at Harvard with joking references to anti-semitism, “coloreds,” and sexual assault worth defending? We think so.
....
Announcing the arrival of a new fictional club emphasizing inclusion, diversity and love (and aptly named “The Pigeon”), the invitation warned: “Jews need not apply. Seriously, no f—- Jews. Coloreds okay.” It also referred to the date rape drug, Rohypnol. Despite the fact that it was satirizing the social clubs’ reputation for exclusivity and abuse of women, a firestorm erupted and an investigation was initiated to find the anonymous authors.
...
"Our hyper-vigilance about campus speech does the opposite of ensuring “safety.” It infantilizes students and tells them that any time they hear something that makes them uncomfortable, no matter how distasteful it may be, they have reason not only to be offended, but also to restrict the speech of others so that they can avoid their unpleasant feelings. This is not good pedagogy."
posted by vacapinta at 1:27 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't see why it has caused as much controversy as it has.
//
What about the part where she uses her experience with pre-school children to talk to college-aged adults?
Or the slippery slope argument that "if we don't let people dress up as racially offensive stereotypes, WHAT NEXT? CAN I NEVER BUY A SARI I WON'T WEAR?"
Or the strawman arguments always used by racism defenders (which is what she and her husband are, even if they are doing it for their "right" reasons).
Or the fact that she is a human being employed by a supposedly elite institution that felt the need to send out a completely full of shit devil's advocate argument because some students supposedly came to her to complain they were told they shouldn't dress in offensive costumes. That alone would be enough for me to demand some answers to questions like "what the fuck?" and "I thought this was a good school"? for a few examples.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:30 PM on November 6, 2015 [26 favorites]
//
What about the part where she uses her experience with pre-school children to talk to college-aged adults?
Or the slippery slope argument that "if we don't let people dress up as racially offensive stereotypes, WHAT NEXT? CAN I NEVER BUY A SARI I WON'T WEAR?"
Or the strawman arguments always used by racism defenders (which is what she and her husband are, even if they are doing it for their "right" reasons).
Or the fact that she is a human being employed by a supposedly elite institution that felt the need to send out a completely full of shit devil's advocate argument because some students supposedly came to her to complain they were told they shouldn't dress in offensive costumes. That alone would be enough for me to demand some answers to questions like "what the fuck?" and "I thought this was a good school"? for a few examples.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:30 PM on November 6, 2015 [26 favorites]
Simply put, if you are yelling at people to shut up in the name of free speech, you deserve the mockery, derision, and contempt you receive.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:35 PM on November 6, 2015 [45 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:35 PM on November 6, 2015 [45 favorites]
Pity the poor thin-skinned advocates of "free speech" who apparently cannot stand to hear their offensive bullshit criticized by other people. Boo hoo.
posted by rtha at 1:38 PM on November 6, 2015 [26 favorites]
posted by rtha at 1:38 PM on November 6, 2015 [26 favorites]
Yale promises to keep the bad people from hurting your feelings.
The Netherlands insists you watch a video of gay men kissing in order to be allowed to immigrate.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:40 PM on November 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
The Netherlands insists you watch a video of gay men kissing in order to be allowed to immigrate.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:40 PM on November 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
But that isn't freedom of expression, because you are explicitly denying people the freedom of expressing their response. It's one of those sorts of comments that sounds nice, but just codifies "don't rock the boat".
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:41 PM on November 6, 2015
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:41 PM on November 6, 2015
because you are explicitly denying people the freedom of expressing their response
Saying something is in bad taste is not denying anyone anything.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:42 PM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Saying something is in bad taste is not denying anyone anything.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:42 PM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yale's Free Speech Guidelines (emphasis mine)
"In addition to the university’s primary obligation to protect free expression there are also ethical responsibilities assumed by each member of the university community, along with the right to enjoy free expression. Though these are much more difficult to state clearly, they are of great importance. If freedom of expression is to serve its purpose and thus the purpose of the university, it should seek to enhance understanding. Shock, hurt, and anger are not consequences to be weighed lightly. No member of the community with a decent respect for others should use, or encourage others to use, slurs and epithets intended to discredit another’s race, ethnic group, religion, or sex. "
posted by vacapinta at 1:43 PM on November 6, 2015 [7 favorites]
"In addition to the university’s primary obligation to protect free expression there are also ethical responsibilities assumed by each member of the university community, along with the right to enjoy free expression. Though these are much more difficult to state clearly, they are of great importance. If freedom of expression is to serve its purpose and thus the purpose of the university, it should seek to enhance understanding. Shock, hurt, and anger are not consequences to be weighed lightly. No member of the community with a decent respect for others should use, or encourage others to use, slurs and epithets intended to discredit another’s race, ethnic group, religion, or sex. "
posted by vacapinta at 1:43 PM on November 6, 2015 [7 favorites]
And no wonder, as it's a policy born of Yale receiving two deserved black eyes for embracing bigotry.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:44 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:44 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's amusing to watch Yale "struggle" with and embrace the very same free speech arguments as Reddit.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 1:45 PM on November 6, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by AGameOfMoans at 1:45 PM on November 6, 2015 [10 favorites]
because you are explicitly denying people the freedom of expressing their response
Saying something is in bad taste is not denying anyone anything.
I was referring to the mentality expressed in the Woodward Report. I agree that pointing out that something is distasteful is not a restriction on free speech at all.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:47 PM on November 6, 2015
Saying something is in bad taste is not denying anyone anything.
I was referring to the mentality expressed in the Woodward Report. I agree that pointing out that something is distasteful is not a restriction on free speech at all.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:47 PM on November 6, 2015
It's amusing to watch Yale "struggle" with and embrace the very same free speech arguments as Reddit.
Are you surprised? This is an institution that has a whole college named for one of the most infamous bigots in American history.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:50 PM on November 6, 2015
Are you surprised? This is an institution that has a whole college named for one of the most infamous bigots in American history.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:50 PM on November 6, 2015
I just wish to express my contempt over Erika's letter, which goes on and on about the pedagogy of control and anti-authoritarianism, while implicitly pandering to bigots and telling everyone else the "right" ways to transgress.
It's intellectually irresponsible. Next time, just be upfront; cry "political correctness!" like other racists.
posted by polymodus at 1:55 PM on November 6, 2015 [28 favorites]
It's intellectually irresponsible. Next time, just be upfront; cry "political correctness!" like other racists.
posted by polymodus at 1:55 PM on November 6, 2015 [28 favorites]
I would submit that this is not so much an issue of "free speech" and protecting it, which is an easy thing to allege (Yale! Free speech! Infantilized students! OMG!), as much as it is perhaps insensitive, entitled, patronizing, and tone-deaf administrators being called on their BS. Exhibit #1: " 'Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It’s not mine, I know that,' wrote Erika Christakis." #2: "Erika Christakis sought to leave the meeting during a discussion of her e-mail, further provoking student anger." #3: "Nicholas Christakis ... grew frustrated at times with the students’ arguments, at one point responding to a request for an apology by asking why students were not apologizing to him for keeping him from 'other obligations.' " #4: "In an e-mail, Christakis said it is his job 'to help students to speak for themselves, rather than to speak for them.' "
posted by blucevalo at 1:59 PM on November 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by blucevalo at 1:59 PM on November 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
The original email from IAC that started this is very patient and respectful of student autonomy and decision-making. It simply asks that students be mindful and ask themselves some questions to see whether they are unintentionally causing disrespect or offense to the fellow students they share space with. It's not that demanding or unfair, really! Some example language:
"Yale is a community that values free expression as well as inclusivity. And while students, undergraduate and graduate, definitely have a right to express themselves, we would hope that people would actively avoid those circumstances that threaten our sense of community or disrespects, alienates or ridicules segments of our population based on race, nationality, religious belief or gender expression."
" There is growing national concern on campuses everywhere about these issues, and we encourage Yale students to take the time to consider their costumes and the impact it may have. So, if you are planning to dress-up for Halloween, or will be attending any social gatherings planned for the weekend, please ask yourself these questions before deciding upon your costume choice:"
The language I bolded is entirely patient and respectful of free speech/expression. It is suggestive rather than mandatory - we hope, we encourage, consider the impact, please ask yourself some questions. The message is really just simply that we hope you'll act like the conscious adults you are, and consider a few things before you choose a costume that might unfairly impact those who are just trying to live in their skin and be part of the community.
This entirely reasonable request - be mindful, aware, and thoughtful about others - was met with, well, tantrums about how you're curtailing free speech, foisting your standards on others, censoring, prohibiting. It's predictable and also sad. Some people apparently HATE being told (asked, really) to act as if their actions have an effect on people. Well guess what, they do. Whether you're participating within the Reddit community, the Yale community, or anywhere in between. Grow the fuck up!
posted by naju at 2:15 PM on November 6, 2015 [53 favorites]
"Yale is a community that values free expression as well as inclusivity. And while students, undergraduate and graduate, definitely have a right to express themselves, we would hope that people would actively avoid those circumstances that threaten our sense of community or disrespects, alienates or ridicules segments of our population based on race, nationality, religious belief or gender expression."
" There is growing national concern on campuses everywhere about these issues, and we encourage Yale students to take the time to consider their costumes and the impact it may have. So, if you are planning to dress-up for Halloween, or will be attending any social gatherings planned for the weekend, please ask yourself these questions before deciding upon your costume choice:"
The language I bolded is entirely patient and respectful of free speech/expression. It is suggestive rather than mandatory - we hope, we encourage, consider the impact, please ask yourself some questions. The message is really just simply that we hope you'll act like the conscious adults you are, and consider a few things before you choose a costume that might unfairly impact those who are just trying to live in their skin and be part of the community.
This entirely reasonable request - be mindful, aware, and thoughtful about others - was met with, well, tantrums about how you're curtailing free speech, foisting your standards on others, censoring, prohibiting. It's predictable and also sad. Some people apparently HATE being told (asked, really) to act as if their actions have an effect on people. Well guess what, they do. Whether you're participating within the Reddit community, the Yale community, or anywhere in between. Grow the fuck up!
posted by naju at 2:15 PM on November 6, 2015 [53 favorites]
Some people apparently HATE being told to act as if their actions have an effect on people.
No, they love the idea that their actions have effects on others. That's the whole purpose!
What they hate is being told that they have to actually consider those other people, if for no other reason than to preserve their own reputation. They liked it much better in the old days where everyone knew their place.
Look at the reaction of the couple at the center of the shitstorm. They had fully expected that the students would see the "wisdom" of their words and show proper deference, and seem to be both shocked and angered that the response has been instead "no, we think you're enabling bigotry, and we want you out of our house!"
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:25 PM on November 6, 2015 [7 favorites]
No, they love the idea that their actions have effects on others. That's the whole purpose!
What they hate is being told that they have to actually consider those other people, if for no other reason than to preserve their own reputation. They liked it much better in the old days where everyone knew their place.
Look at the reaction of the couple at the center of the shitstorm. They had fully expected that the students would see the "wisdom" of their words and show proper deference, and seem to be both shocked and angered that the response has been instead "no, we think you're enabling bigotry, and we want you out of our house!"
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:25 PM on November 6, 2015 [7 favorites]
What strikes me about Erika Christakis's email is how banal it is - clearly, she hasn't actually read or grappled with anything significant about the issue. That's insulting - she's setting herself up as someone who can send out this de haute en bas email when she hasn't done any homework, as if all the other students, activists and theorists, particularly students, activists and theorists of color, haven't given the matter any thought.
posted by Frowner at 2:26 PM on November 6, 2015 [46 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 2:26 PM on November 6, 2015 [46 favorites]
> it's repeating the same old goddamn discussion, like some fucked-up artless fugue.
We hope they'll be able to move on at least as far as high Classical sonata-allegro form thematic development. I am not holding my breath, though. It's only Yale, alors.
posted by jfuller at 2:57 PM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
We hope they'll be able to move on at least as far as high Classical sonata-allegro form thematic development. I am not holding my breath, though. It's only Yale, alors.
posted by jfuller at 2:57 PM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
> The majority must be allowed to thoughtlessly offend without repercussion, lest we lose our ability to speak freely.
Well yeah, but not just them. Everyone must be allowed to thoughtlessly or thoughtfully offend.
posted by Sunburnt at 3:37 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well yeah, but not just them. Everyone must be allowed to thoughtlessly or thoughtfully offend.
posted by Sunburnt at 3:37 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well yeah, but not just them. Everyone must be allowed to thoughtlessly or thoughtfully offend.
And you are! But here's the catch - the people whom you offend? They get their say as well.
For some reason, that always winds up being a sticking point. It's almost like being offensive isn't as attractive if you're held accountable for it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:41 PM on November 6, 2015 [19 favorites]
And you are! But here's the catch - the people whom you offend? They get their say as well.
For some reason, that always winds up being a sticking point. It's almost like being offensive isn't as attractive if you're held accountable for it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:41 PM on November 6, 2015 [19 favorites]
Because we see the same fucking bullshit over and over when it comes to offense - the offenders are allowed to say whatever the hell they want, but the offended, well...they need to turn the other cheek, and hold in how they feel for the sake of "free speech".
I'm glad you understand free speech. Religious believers have to put up with blasphemous art. Relatives of murder victims have to put up with gun rights nuts. And, yes, some Yale students may have to see a Halloween costume that gives them bad feelings. They are free to say what they like about it, and the costume wearers will have to put up with it.
posted by Koheleth at 3:50 PM on November 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm glad you understand free speech. Religious believers have to put up with blasphemous art. Relatives of murder victims have to put up with gun rights nuts. And, yes, some Yale students may have to see a Halloween costume that gives them bad feelings. They are free to say what they like about it, and the costume wearers will have to put up with it.
posted by Koheleth at 3:50 PM on November 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
People unintentionally reveal a massive amount of presumption and privilege every time they claim there is no distinction between "shouldn't" and "can't".
posted by Errant at 3:54 PM on November 6, 2015 [43 favorites]
posted by Errant at 3:54 PM on November 6, 2015 [43 favorites]
It's in the transition from "I find the arguments in your email tedious, wrong and offensive, and I believe you shouldn't have written it" to "you should resign or be removed from your post and so should your husband" where I get lost.
posted by oliverburkeman at 4:04 PM on November 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by oliverburkeman at 4:04 PM on November 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's in the transition from "I find the arguments in your email tedious, wrong and offensive, and I believe you shouldn't have written it" to "you should resign or be removed from your post and so should your husband" where I get lost.
Because the post in question is of residential faculty advisor. Someone who is there to support and advise students, especially in cases involving serious issues. The students are voicing a vote of no confidence in these individuals in such a post.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:16 PM on November 6, 2015 [17 favorites]
Because the post in question is of residential faculty advisor. Someone who is there to support and advise students, especially in cases involving serious issues. The students are voicing a vote of no confidence in these individuals in such a post.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:16 PM on November 6, 2015 [17 favorites]
Mod note: Comment removed, the "they're trained victims" thing is a bad road that we do not need to go down here.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:29 PM on November 6, 2015 [21 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:29 PM on November 6, 2015 [21 favorites]
Because the post in question is of residential faculty advisor.
Yeah, and I guess this is really the explanation for most of these current campus flare-ups imho: the dual role we ask of universities and professors, to be on the one hand in loco parentis for people who are very newly adults; and on the other, to be the culture's bastions of freedom of thought. Perhaps there's no automatic reason why these should be compatible.
posted by oliverburkeman at 4:35 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yeah, and I guess this is really the explanation for most of these current campus flare-ups imho: the dual role we ask of universities and professors, to be on the one hand in loco parentis for people who are very newly adults; and on the other, to be the culture's bastions of freedom of thought. Perhaps there's no automatic reason why these should be compatible.
posted by oliverburkeman at 4:35 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
oliverburkeman: Nothing a college does in 2015 is in loco parentis, although people expect that sometimes. See wiki.
posted by curuinor at 4:43 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by curuinor at 4:43 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Ok, this just hit me like a ton of bricks:
Everyone must be allowed to thoughtlessly or thoughtfully offend.
Hold on, that just doesn't quite work for me. Here's the relevant part of the policy that needs to be focused on:
Yale’s commitment to freedom of expression means that when you agree to matriculate, you join a community where “the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox” must be tolerated. When you encounter people who think differently than you do, you will be expected to honor their free expression, even when what they have to say seems wrong or offensive to you.
And:
It is the striking prose—the promise of “unfettered freedom” by Robert Dahl—that makes the Woodward Report a timeless document. We remember Dahl’s challenge “to think the unthinkable,” returning to those words in each successive decade for their clarity and moral guidance. Judge Jose Cabranes ’65JD and Yale law professor Kate Stith write that the report has achieved a kind of “constitutional status” at the university, transcending the moment in which it was written and its initial purpose.
Ok, here's where I'm going to come from, so please bear with me as I kind of work through the whole process (yes, this may seem like some kind of over explaining or rationalization of things that everyone already understands, and I'm sorry if it is tedious, but please hear me out).
First off, let's look at the "join a community where you might be exposed to things you find offensive" phrase. That phrase is pointed and directed at someone, and specifically at a group. Guess which group it is pointing at? Dominant, conformist culture. But it is also covering your ass, informing people from even more restrictive and "uptight" cultures that "hey, you might not like having academics dissect and examine and pick apart something in your culture either". Of course, every minority that actually gets to join the Yale community pretty much already knows this, and well, they do not need it shoved in their faces. But, the one phrase that is very interesting in the second selection I quoted is "think the unthinkable".
The funniest part, for me, at least, is where I first read that. It was Douglas Adams, in one of the Dirk Gently books. But it has made the rounds through many iterations, but always in the defense of allowing people the freedom to think things that their culture, or society, do not currently accept. Do you know who "thought the unthinkable"? Every civil rights leader and activist. Every political radical and progressive thinker. That is the key to that phrase. It is about seeing things as they are (the status quo) and questioning it and looking for new ways to do things.
But here is where I veer off into what has been bouncing around in the back of my head for months.
Conservatives, and anyone who is for the status quo is not going to "think the unthinkable". By the very definition of their status, and their wish to use "free speech" as an excuse to reinforce stereotypes or hierarchies or power dynamics that harm others, they are not thinking the unthinkable. I question if they are thinking. When asked "why" they are doing what they are doing, the only answer they can come up with is "because it's funny" (to them, and probably only them). If you are truly going to act in a way that is provocative, disturbing, and unorthodox, you first have to know WHY THE FUCK IT IS ANY OF THOSE THINGS TO BEGIN WITH. Provocative, the very definition of the word, requires that you do something with intent. You intentionally provoke a strong reaction (positively or negatively). Disturbing, again, you must know that something is there to disturb. Unorthodox, again, there must be an orthodoxy to run counter against.
But if your action or behavior is just reinforcing the existing power dynamics, social statuses, or cultural taboos, well, really, all you are saying is, "I am ignorant of everything that I stand for".
You can have freedom of speech. You can have your right to do and say those things that are dangerous to say. But reinforcing the status quo and conformity to a broken culture is not something to defend. It is something to be ashamed of. And this is what the minority students are saying. They are not saying "kick those students out of Yale" (at least I have not seen any calls for such action). They are asking the administration of Yale to show some fucking leadership and inform those students that "you know, that was really crass and dumb and you really might want to get more out of your education than being a jackass".
Everyone must be allowed to thoughtlessly or thoughtfully offend.
I think the better understanding should be: Everyone must be allowed to be thoughtfully offended.
This would give those who wish to wear whatever costume they want a chance to do so, with purpose other than just to be an asshole. This would give those minorities that are offended a safe way in which to know that the administration and the culture of their school will stand with them when they say "this was offensive and here is why." Instead the morons and ignorant of the privileged classes run and hide behind their complete misunderstanding of what "freedom of speech" means.
Sorry if this makes no sense. I am angry and tired, but it finally clicked with me why I keep having the same arguments over and over again with people who think that being a privileged fuck somehow makes it okay to shit on other people. It does not, and never will make it okay, and I am still trying to sort out in my head how to get through to idiots who think otherwise.
posted by daq at 5:19 PM on November 6, 2015 [20 favorites]
Everyone must be allowed to thoughtlessly or thoughtfully offend.
Hold on, that just doesn't quite work for me. Here's the relevant part of the policy that needs to be focused on:
Yale’s commitment to freedom of expression means that when you agree to matriculate, you join a community where “the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox” must be tolerated. When you encounter people who think differently than you do, you will be expected to honor their free expression, even when what they have to say seems wrong or offensive to you.
And:
It is the striking prose—the promise of “unfettered freedom” by Robert Dahl—that makes the Woodward Report a timeless document. We remember Dahl’s challenge “to think the unthinkable,” returning to those words in each successive decade for their clarity and moral guidance. Judge Jose Cabranes ’65JD and Yale law professor Kate Stith write that the report has achieved a kind of “constitutional status” at the university, transcending the moment in which it was written and its initial purpose.
Ok, here's where I'm going to come from, so please bear with me as I kind of work through the whole process (yes, this may seem like some kind of over explaining or rationalization of things that everyone already understands, and I'm sorry if it is tedious, but please hear me out).
First off, let's look at the "join a community where you might be exposed to things you find offensive" phrase. That phrase is pointed and directed at someone, and specifically at a group. Guess which group it is pointing at? Dominant, conformist culture. But it is also covering your ass, informing people from even more restrictive and "uptight" cultures that "hey, you might not like having academics dissect and examine and pick apart something in your culture either". Of course, every minority that actually gets to join the Yale community pretty much already knows this, and well, they do not need it shoved in their faces. But, the one phrase that is very interesting in the second selection I quoted is "think the unthinkable".
The funniest part, for me, at least, is where I first read that. It was Douglas Adams, in one of the Dirk Gently books. But it has made the rounds through many iterations, but always in the defense of allowing people the freedom to think things that their culture, or society, do not currently accept. Do you know who "thought the unthinkable"? Every civil rights leader and activist. Every political radical and progressive thinker. That is the key to that phrase. It is about seeing things as they are (the status quo) and questioning it and looking for new ways to do things.
But here is where I veer off into what has been bouncing around in the back of my head for months.
Conservatives, and anyone who is for the status quo is not going to "think the unthinkable". By the very definition of their status, and their wish to use "free speech" as an excuse to reinforce stereotypes or hierarchies or power dynamics that harm others, they are not thinking the unthinkable. I question if they are thinking. When asked "why" they are doing what they are doing, the only answer they can come up with is "because it's funny" (to them, and probably only them). If you are truly going to act in a way that is provocative, disturbing, and unorthodox, you first have to know WHY THE FUCK IT IS ANY OF THOSE THINGS TO BEGIN WITH. Provocative, the very definition of the word, requires that you do something with intent. You intentionally provoke a strong reaction (positively or negatively). Disturbing, again, you must know that something is there to disturb. Unorthodox, again, there must be an orthodoxy to run counter against.
But if your action or behavior is just reinforcing the existing power dynamics, social statuses, or cultural taboos, well, really, all you are saying is, "I am ignorant of everything that I stand for".
You can have freedom of speech. You can have your right to do and say those things that are dangerous to say. But reinforcing the status quo and conformity to a broken culture is not something to defend. It is something to be ashamed of. And this is what the minority students are saying. They are not saying "kick those students out of Yale" (at least I have not seen any calls for such action). They are asking the administration of Yale to show some fucking leadership and inform those students that "you know, that was really crass and dumb and you really might want to get more out of your education than being a jackass".
Everyone must be allowed to thoughtlessly or thoughtfully offend.
I think the better understanding should be: Everyone must be allowed to be thoughtfully offended.
This would give those who wish to wear whatever costume they want a chance to do so, with purpose other than just to be an asshole. This would give those minorities that are offended a safe way in which to know that the administration and the culture of their school will stand with them when they say "this was offensive and here is why." Instead the morons and ignorant of the privileged classes run and hide behind their complete misunderstanding of what "freedom of speech" means.
Sorry if this makes no sense. I am angry and tired, but it finally clicked with me why I keep having the same arguments over and over again with people who think that being a privileged fuck somehow makes it okay to shit on other people. It does not, and never will make it okay, and I am still trying to sort out in my head how to get through to idiots who think otherwise.
posted by daq at 5:19 PM on November 6, 2015 [20 favorites]
For a couple of months I worked at a magazine store near yale. New haven is like New York with all the good parts removed and the bad parts amplified skyward.
posted by jonmc at 5:32 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by jonmc at 5:32 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's in the transition from "I find the arguments in your email tedious, wrong and offensive, and I believe you shouldn't have written it" to "you should resign or be removed from your post and so should your husband" where I get lost.She wrote that email as part of her job duties, and her job is, in part, to make all students feel welcome in their residential college. She failed to do her job well. She did her job really badly, actually. My hunch is that if you fucked up that badly at your job, there would be some sort of consequences. I know there would be if I fucked up that badly at mine.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:36 PM on November 6, 2015 [19 favorites]
I really really feel for the dean. Professors of color are so rare in the university that the ones who have empathy and try hard to help students who need it are often swamped with so many heartbreaking requests for intervention, mentoring, and advice that it would be more than a full-time job to take on them all. But at the same time, how can they say no?
They end up overwhelmed and overstretched, and this results in a huge disparity in the time they devote to "service" in comparison with the rest of the faculty--and a lot of this service, like meeting with students in office hours, doesn't even have space on a CV. It's a giant disparity between white professors and professors of color and I can't believe it doesn't affect the outcome of the tenure process. For a professor of color to make it out of the classroom into an administrative position is even rarer--and by the time the first one arrives, the problems have built up and become so many and so pressing that they're infinitely more than one person can handle. But again, because he's a compassionate person who cares about those issues, there's nothing he can do but try.
posted by pretentious illiterate at 5:48 PM on November 6, 2015 [12 favorites]
They end up overwhelmed and overstretched, and this results in a huge disparity in the time they devote to "service" in comparison with the rest of the faculty--and a lot of this service, like meeting with students in office hours, doesn't even have space on a CV. It's a giant disparity between white professors and professors of color and I can't believe it doesn't affect the outcome of the tenure process. For a professor of color to make it out of the classroom into an administrative position is even rarer--and by the time the first one arrives, the problems have built up and become so many and so pressing that they're infinitely more than one person can handle. But again, because he's a compassionate person who cares about those issues, there's nothing he can do but try.
posted by pretentious illiterate at 5:48 PM on November 6, 2015 [12 favorites]
and that cesspool ends up becoming less diverse and less vibrant.
Exactly. This issue isn't about shutting down free speech at all - in fact, it's about helping it grow out to include more people who otherwise don't speak up. It's about whether the university is fostering inclusivity, which has the effect of adding to the multiplicity of voices and expanding free speech. Everyone should want to learn in an environment where as many diverse voices as possible feel inclined to show up and speak up. You learn so much more about the world around you, and you get to tangle with different perspectives you've never heard before. That's the key advantage of free speech - an open exchange in the marketplace of ideas. Do you want that marketplace of ideas to grow, or do you want it to be stuck within a small homogenous group? Do you want to open it up to a panoply of different ideas from all sorts of places, or do you want to close it down by making people feel less welcome and less at home?
I'm very much pro-free speech. I just happen to think inclusivity, thought, and respect are the key ways for it to grow as large as possible.
posted by naju at 5:51 PM on November 6, 2015 [16 favorites]
Exactly. This issue isn't about shutting down free speech at all - in fact, it's about helping it grow out to include more people who otherwise don't speak up. It's about whether the university is fostering inclusivity, which has the effect of adding to the multiplicity of voices and expanding free speech. Everyone should want to learn in an environment where as many diverse voices as possible feel inclined to show up and speak up. You learn so much more about the world around you, and you get to tangle with different perspectives you've never heard before. That's the key advantage of free speech - an open exchange in the marketplace of ideas. Do you want that marketplace of ideas to grow, or do you want it to be stuck within a small homogenous group? Do you want to open it up to a panoply of different ideas from all sorts of places, or do you want to close it down by making people feel less welcome and less at home?
I'm very much pro-free speech. I just happen to think inclusivity, thought, and respect are the key ways for it to grow as large as possible.
posted by naju at 5:51 PM on November 6, 2015 [16 favorites]
I am sympathetic to free speech claims but it is not as if Yale banned offensive costumes. They just sent out an email to people asking that they avoid insensitive and offensive costumes.
I call this the reddit response. If you ask that people maybe could not do things if that wouldn't be too hard then you're censoring them. And worse, you're trying to do it through ~manipulation~ by not just saying what you want.
Qcubed gets pretty close to what i wanted to say, but it's that people who want to be able to say shitty things without nuance don't fucking understand nuance which is sooo shocking i mean amirite?
Any time you try and talk to the people who like to do boring offensive shit because of "free speech", you're trying to have a discussion about nuance, and they miss the nuance because they just don't care enough and have not put in enough thought to think about that stuff.
It's not just "i don't want to be told what to do", it's "i am unwilling to learn".
The more times i've had to engage with a situation like this, it seems to boil down to "i don't want to accept that this could be offensive, because then i have to consider what i'm doing that would offend people and i have no real interest in policing myself to that degree". They want freespeeeech because actually having to consider other peoples feelings is granular hard work with lots of grey areas that you have to choose paths on.
And yes, i've been there for "we fucked up but we're not going to take any meaningful action to prevent further fucking, we just KNOW this is wrong and need to put forth some kind of message so we can feel better about ourselves without solving the underlying problem".
I've seen so much of this behavior. I don't even know what more to say. It all boils down to not having to feel bad about not caring if anyone else feels bad. And the first part is apparently more important than anything else.
posted by emptythought at 6:07 PM on November 6, 2015 [17 favorites]
I call this the reddit response. If you ask that people maybe could not do things if that wouldn't be too hard then you're censoring them. And worse, you're trying to do it through ~manipulation~ by not just saying what you want.
Qcubed gets pretty close to what i wanted to say, but it's that people who want to be able to say shitty things without nuance don't fucking understand nuance which is sooo shocking i mean amirite?
Any time you try and talk to the people who like to do boring offensive shit because of "free speech", you're trying to have a discussion about nuance, and they miss the nuance because they just don't care enough and have not put in enough thought to think about that stuff.
It's not just "i don't want to be told what to do", it's "i am unwilling to learn".
The more times i've had to engage with a situation like this, it seems to boil down to "i don't want to accept that this could be offensive, because then i have to consider what i'm doing that would offend people and i have no real interest in policing myself to that degree". They want freespeeeech because actually having to consider other peoples feelings is granular hard work with lots of grey areas that you have to choose paths on.
And yes, i've been there for "we fucked up but we're not going to take any meaningful action to prevent further fucking, we just KNOW this is wrong and need to put forth some kind of message so we can feel better about ourselves without solving the underlying problem".
I've seen so much of this behavior. I don't even know what more to say. It all boils down to not having to feel bad about not caring if anyone else feels bad. And the first part is apparently more important than anything else.
posted by emptythought at 6:07 PM on November 6, 2015 [17 favorites]
People unintentionally reveal a massive amount of presumption and privilege every time they claim there is no distinction between "shouldn't" and "can't".
Errant, you and your perfectly worded comments that encapsulate entire issues in a single excellent sentence.
I mean really.
posted by sweetkid at 6:13 PM on November 6, 2015 [9 favorites]
It's a giant disparity between white professors and professors of color and I can't believe it doesn't affect the outcome of the tenure process. For a professor of color to make it out of the classroom into an administrative position is even rarer--and by the time the first one arrives, the problems have built up and become so many and so pressing that they're infinitely more than one person can handle
This was my first thought. The pipeline issues are huge, such that at every step from undergrad to grad school to tenure there are fewer and fewer successful people of color, and the move to high level administrative posts is just one more point where the pipeline necks down yet again.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:48 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
This was my first thought. The pipeline issues are huge, such that at every step from undergrad to grad school to tenure there are fewer and fewer successful people of color, and the move to high level administrative posts is just one more point where the pipeline necks down yet again.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:48 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
I grew up in that area, and so the first thing that I thought of after reading about this was: Yalies think they live in a bubble, but they don't.
The university is totally intertwined with the city. Yale isn't a school that sits on a hill somewhere on the edge of town. It's smack in the middle of New Haven, and you can't go anywhere downtown without going past Yale buildings or Yale housing (and when school is in session: Yale students). And Yale students are a mostly white, mostly privileged bunch, and they often treat New Haven like it's not a real city where real people live. Instead it's just the backdrop for their college life, a place that exists mostly just to serve them.
And it's not the only reason why town-gown relations are so strained, but it certainly doesn't help anything that some Yale students decide to go out on Halloween dressed up in blackface or redface or wearing a turban or some bullshit "Mexican" costume (because brown-people-are-hilarious-amirite?), because they go out into New Haven--a city that is 35% Black and 27% Latino and only 42% white--and the rest of us notice that shit.
posted by colfax at 12:50 AM on November 7, 2015 [20 favorites]
The university is totally intertwined with the city. Yale isn't a school that sits on a hill somewhere on the edge of town. It's smack in the middle of New Haven, and you can't go anywhere downtown without going past Yale buildings or Yale housing (and when school is in session: Yale students). And Yale students are a mostly white, mostly privileged bunch, and they often treat New Haven like it's not a real city where real people live. Instead it's just the backdrop for their college life, a place that exists mostly just to serve them.
And it's not the only reason why town-gown relations are so strained, but it certainly doesn't help anything that some Yale students decide to go out on Halloween dressed up in blackface or redface or wearing a turban or some bullshit "Mexican" costume (because brown-people-are-hilarious-amirite?), because they go out into New Haven--a city that is 35% Black and 27% Latino and only 42% white--and the rest of us notice that shit.
posted by colfax at 12:50 AM on November 7, 2015 [20 favorites]
Are we watching the same videos? This is insane to me, that these students are so disrespectful to a professor.
posted by Spacelegoman at 3:58 AM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Spacelegoman at 3:58 AM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's not insane. Those two professors earned the contempt the students are showing them.
Because that's how free speech actually works - if you say something that makes people think that you're a pompous git, it is rather unsurprising when they voice that opinion.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:09 AM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Because that's how free speech actually works - if you say something that makes people think that you're a pompous git, it is rather unsurprising when they voice that opinion.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:09 AM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Taking offense is not some new trend. It's simply the less flattering face that any real social norm must take on.
I'm relishing the irony of the typical "stop scolding people and publicly holding them to your standards" scolding.
posted by idiopath at 6:25 AM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm relishing the irony of the typical "stop scolding people and publicly holding them to your standards" scolding.
posted by idiopath at 6:25 AM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, look: Erika Christakis's email seems to have been motivated by a theory about child and adolescent development, which has been developed both in her work on and in early childhood education and in her long-term role as the resident grown-up in college dorms. She believes that young people develop best when they are given autonomy, rather than being told what to do by adults. She thought that the advice about Halloween costumes was an example of adults condescendingly telling young people how to dress. I think that's a grievous misunderstanding of what was going on, but that's how she understood it. And in that case, she can't really complain about students being rude to her. You can't be all for young people's right to unfettered self-expression when it comes to racist Halloween costumes and then turn around and say they're out of line as soon as you're the one whose feelings are being hurt.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:57 AM on November 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:57 AM on November 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
kickingtheground, did you even read the annotations in the link you shared? They're pretty good. For example:
(Christakis): Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience
(Christakis): Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience
Annotation: This passage echoes the well-worn sentiment that U.S. colleges and universities have become too “politically correct.” The increased attention to cultural sensitivity coincides with the growing presence and vocality of students of color on college campuses. Christakis suggests that this vocality, rather than helping to improve campus life for underrepresented minorities, is robbing other students of the ability to have “transgressive” experiences—in this case, being able to wear stereotypical Halloween costumes without consequence.posted by AceRock at 7:47 AM on November 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Sarcastic exaggeration won't make a difficult conversation go better; if you have a critical point to make, please just make it in straightforward terms.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:43 AM on November 7, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:43 AM on November 7, 2015
Regardless of whether you think these students have a legitimate grievance, that video makes them look awful to anyone except raving zealots.
posted by myeviltwin at 9:19 AM on November 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by myeviltwin at 9:19 AM on November 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
You can't be all for young people's right to unfettered self-expression when it comes to racist Halloween costumes and then turn around and say they're out of line as soon as you're the one whose feelings are being hurt.
it would be great if people would educate themselves on these issues before they participate in threads. anyone coming in here yelling free speech should know by now that someone else would be in here saying how disrespectful these black students were to this white professor, that you have to be POLITE when you're trying to explain that hemming and hawing and straw manning about blackface is inherently hostile to black students. you can't raise your voice to someone acting dismissive towards you. because anger is scary don't you see? but blackface is TRANSGRESSIVE.
nah jk. "blackface" comes up zero times in Christakis' email and only once in this thread before my comment. as the annotations show, the original email contained "wearing feathered headdresses, turbans, wearing ‘war paint’ or modifying skin tone or wearing blackface or redface" but by the time Christakis is done neutralizing it it becomes "it is hard for me to give credence to a claim that there is something objectionably "appropriative" about a blonde-haired child’s wanting to be Mulan for a day." excuse me ma'am but WHAT ABOUT THE BLACKFACE.
"racism" comes up zero times in her email. instead "appropriating a culture, wholesale, the latter of which could be seen as (tacky)(offensive)(jejeune)(hurtful), take your pick."
R-A-C-I-S-T, motherfucker. if you can't even say it fucking don't talk about it.
by the time it gets to metafilter?
Personally, I don't see why it has caused as much controversy as it has.
And, yes, some Yale students may have to see a Halloween costume that gives them bad feelings.
pardon me mefites but WHAT ABOUT THE BLACKFACE. if you have the courage of your convictions then say out loud so we can hear you: some BLACK Yale students may have to see BLACKFACE and that might give them Bad Feelings.
it's a lot easier to dismiss racism and focus on uncontextualized black anger when you won't even mention what, indeed, the big fucking deal is.
posted by twist my arm at 9:33 AM on November 7, 2015 [27 favorites]
it would be great if people would educate themselves on these issues before they participate in threads. anyone coming in here yelling free speech should know by now that someone else would be in here saying how disrespectful these black students were to this white professor, that you have to be POLITE when you're trying to explain that hemming and hawing and straw manning about blackface is inherently hostile to black students. you can't raise your voice to someone acting dismissive towards you. because anger is scary don't you see? but blackface is TRANSGRESSIVE.
nah jk. "blackface" comes up zero times in Christakis' email and only once in this thread before my comment. as the annotations show, the original email contained "wearing feathered headdresses, turbans, wearing ‘war paint’ or modifying skin tone or wearing blackface or redface" but by the time Christakis is done neutralizing it it becomes "it is hard for me to give credence to a claim that there is something objectionably "appropriative" about a blonde-haired child’s wanting to be Mulan for a day." excuse me ma'am but WHAT ABOUT THE BLACKFACE.
"racism" comes up zero times in her email. instead "appropriating a culture, wholesale, the latter of which could be seen as (tacky)(offensive)(jejeune)(hurtful), take your pick."
R-A-C-I-S-T, motherfucker. if you can't even say it fucking don't talk about it.
by the time it gets to metafilter?
Personally, I don't see why it has caused as much controversy as it has.
And, yes, some Yale students may have to see a Halloween costume that gives them bad feelings.
pardon me mefites but WHAT ABOUT THE BLACKFACE. if you have the courage of your convictions then say out loud so we can hear you: some BLACK Yale students may have to see BLACKFACE and that might give them Bad Feelings.
it's a lot easier to dismiss racism and focus on uncontextualized black anger when you won't even mention what, indeed, the big fucking deal is.
posted by twist my arm at 9:33 AM on November 7, 2015 [27 favorites]
that video makes them look awful to anyone except raving zealots.
Which part? The part where they're standing mostly quietly and allowing the man to speak?
Black and brown people not protesting in the way you personally find comfortable does not make it a performance of or for "raving zealots."
posted by TwoStride at 9:41 AM on November 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
Which part? The part where they're standing mostly quietly and allowing the man to speak?
Black and brown people not protesting in the way you personally find comfortable does not make it a performance of or for "raving zealots."
posted by TwoStride at 9:41 AM on November 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
Which part? The part where they're standing mostly quietly and allowing the man to speak?
You might want to watch all the way to the end.
posted by myeviltwin at 9:48 AM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
You might want to watch all the way to the end.
posted by myeviltwin at 9:48 AM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
You might want to watch all the way to the end
Oh, teh horror: two students with raised voices... and then students quietly dispersing in the final video.
posted by TwoStride at 9:55 AM on November 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Oh, teh horror: two students with raised voices... and then students quietly dispersing in the final video.
posted by TwoStride at 9:55 AM on November 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Mod note: The point about the students' tone has been made, and this is ground we've been over many times ("these protesters sure are angry") so at this point, let's move back over to the substance?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:03 AM on November 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:03 AM on November 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
> that video makes them look awful to anyone except raving zealots.
Please do not act like you are speaking for anyone else but yourself, from your own viewpoint.
Or was that too angry and shouty. I get so confused.
posted by rtha at 11:20 AM on November 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
Please do not act like you are speaking for anyone else but yourself, from your own viewpoint.
Or was that too angry and shouty. I get so confused.
posted by rtha at 11:20 AM on November 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
This open letter to Christakis signed by 700+ Yale students, faculty, alumni, and other affiliated members is pretty good. An excerpt:
To be a student of color on Yale’s campus is to exist in a space that was not created for you. From the Eurocentric courses, to the lack of diversity in the faculty, to the names of slave owners and traders that adorn most of the buildings on campus -- all are reminders that Yale’s history is one of exclusion. An exclusion that was based on the same stereotypes and incorrect beliefs that students now seek to wear as costumes. Stereotypes that many students still face to this day when navigating the university. The purpose of blackface, yellowface, and practices like these were meant to alienate, denigrate, and to portray people of color as something inferior and unwelcome in society. To see that replicated on college campuses only reinforces the idea that this is a space in which we do not belong.posted by AceRock at 12:07 PM on November 7, 2015 [24 favorites]
I have long observed that those who hold themselves as the staunchest defenders of free speech are the fastest to freak out when others respond with speech of their own, and that those who sneer the hardest about "oversensitive" people are the first to crumple under even the mildest criticism.
posted by KathrynT at 12:11 PM on November 7, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 12:11 PM on November 7, 2015 [24 favorites]
Wasn't it understood that this conflict also involved a group of black women students being denied entry to a Halloween party?
Cause, it's not just about costumes and would be wrong to just focus on that. Or was this information, the last link in the OP, incorrect?
posted by polymodus at 12:36 PM on November 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Cause, it's not just about costumes and would be wrong to just focus on that. Or was this information, the last link in the OP, incorrect?
posted by polymodus at 12:36 PM on November 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Couple of comments deleted. If you want to talk about moderation, come over to the contact form or Metatalk. If your comment amounts to "discussion on this issue could be improved", be the change you want to see and offer comments that will lead us toward good discussion.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:13 PM on November 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:13 PM on November 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I have long observed that those who hold themselves as the staunchest defenders of free speech are the fastest to freak out when others respond with speech of their own...
You mean like this?
posted by myeviltwin at 1:42 PM on November 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
You mean like this?
posted by myeviltwin at 1:42 PM on November 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
You mean like this?
Way to ignore the power dynamics of that interaction. Your empathic direction has been made abundantly clear, so I'm not sure what more you have to add to this unless you're also going to do the work of actually interpreting the things that you reference.
posted by polymodus at 7:24 PM on November 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Way to ignore the power dynamics of that interaction. Your empathic direction has been made abundantly clear, so I'm not sure what more you have to add to this unless you're also going to do the work of actually interpreting the things that you reference.
posted by polymodus at 7:24 PM on November 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
It looks to me like he is calling for people to stop judging the students based on the short video. Which we know people do since we can see it right in this thread.
posted by Justinian at 7:28 PM on November 7, 2015
posted by Justinian at 7:28 PM on November 7, 2015
Relatedly: African American football players at Mizzou refusing to play unless college president resigns and a grad student at Mizzou is on a hunger strike in protest of the inhospitable atmosphere on their campus recently culiminating in a swastika in feces smeared on a dorm wall.
posted by TwoStride at 9:46 PM on November 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by TwoStride at 9:46 PM on November 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
God save liberalism from its idiot defenders.
I like offensive things. I revel in them. I grew up in a house with Mapplethorpe prints. I do believe that the government shouldn't keep the Nazis from marching in Skokie.
But Christ if the Christaki don't blather about some straw man bullshit in a way that makes people defending a broad principle of free expression come off like oblivious, disconnected and thin-skinned morons. I would have hoped that Yale would require more demonstrable critical thinking skills from its professors.
posted by klangklangston at 10:14 AM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I like offensive things. I revel in them. I grew up in a house with Mapplethorpe prints. I do believe that the government shouldn't keep the Nazis from marching in Skokie.
But Christ if the Christaki don't blather about some straw man bullshit in a way that makes people defending a broad principle of free expression come off like oblivious, disconnected and thin-skinned morons. I would have hoped that Yale would require more demonstrable critical thinking skills from its professors.
posted by klangklangston at 10:14 AM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Couple comments deleted. If you feel compelled to comment in here in a way that's transparently going to provoke a big fight, please skip the thread.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 3:05 PM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 3:05 PM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The situation in Missouri is fascinating, and I bet it's making a lot of college administrators nervous. Missouri is not the only majority-white campus with a majority-black football team, and that means that there's a group of black students whom the university really can't afford to disregard. And it's interesting to me that the black players seem to have the very strong support of the white head coach. If they stick to their strike, and there's every indication that they will, I really don't see how the president could stay in office. I bet he's gone by next Saturday.
Incidentally, this was deleted because I posted it in response to a now-deleted fighty comment, but it's worth reading in its own right: What's Really Going on at Yale by a current Yale student.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:10 PM on November 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
Incidentally, this was deleted because I posted it in response to a now-deleted fighty comment, but it's worth reading in its own right: What's Really Going on at Yale by a current Yale student.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:10 PM on November 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
What's Really Going on at Yale by a current Yale student.
A non-white family member of mine graduated from Yale about 5 years ago, and the sentiments in that piece are almost identical to what that person told me. Especially this:
posted by cell divide at 5:16 PM on November 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
A non-white family member of mine graduated from Yale about 5 years ago, and the sentiments in that piece are almost identical to what that person told me. Especially this:
For starters: the protests are not really about Halloween costumes or a frat party. They’re about a mismatch between the Yale we find in admissions brochures and the Yale we experience every day. They’re about real experiences with racism on this campus that have gone unacknowledged for far too long. The university sells itself as a welcoming and inclusive place for people of all backgrounds. Unfortunately, it often isn’t.My family member was only ever asking to be treated equally. To be able to complain equally, to be able to express ideas equally, to be able to just BE without constant scrutiny about basic issued of identity. A lot of the frustration came from being very heavily recruited to go to Yale in the first place because it was sold as a place where POC could thrive, succeed, and be equals. My relative's experience was that that COULD happen, as long as you played the game, never rocked the boat, and didn't stand up for yourself.
posted by cell divide at 5:16 PM on November 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
Mod note: Another comment deleted. Mr Justice: I'm not sure why you're so very determined to criticize these students but at this point, I'm giving you a day off from the site. Leave this issue alone from now on.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:15 PM on November 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:15 PM on November 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
> A non-white family member of mine graduated from Yale about 5 years ago, and the sentiments in that piece are almost identical to what that person told me. Especially this:
A friend of mine from college who transferred to Yale from where we both started, and who is Afro-Caribbean, posted about this most recent stuff on his fb feed, and more than one of his Yale friends has said things like "Didn't we already do this in 1987? Why do we have to keep doing this?"
posted by rtha at 7:23 PM on November 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
A friend of mine from college who transferred to Yale from where we both started, and who is Afro-Caribbean, posted about this most recent stuff on his fb feed, and more than one of his Yale friends has said things like "Didn't we already do this in 1987? Why do we have to keep doing this?"
posted by rtha at 7:23 PM on November 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
new thread on the football/hunger strike protest in missouri.
posted by twist my arm at 7:06 AM on November 9, 2015
posted by twist my arm at 7:06 AM on November 9, 2015
Somehow, Conor Friedersdorf manages to get almost everything about this wrong:
Erika Christakis reflected on the frustrations of the students, drew on her scholarship and career experience, and composed an email inviting the community to think about the controversy through an intellectual lens that few if any had considered. Her message was a model of relevant, thoughtful, civil engagement.posted by AceRock at 9:43 AM on November 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
That's because that's sort of Conor's schitck. When it comes to defending the "free speech" of the majority to be offensive, he's consistent in his "defense".
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:02 AM on November 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:02 AM on November 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Conor Friedersdorf always reads to me like a bright undergraduate. Unfortunately, the more he ages, the less a compliment that is.
posted by klangklangston at 1:05 PM on November 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 1:05 PM on November 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Friedersdorf's article is appallingly inaccurate and is getting a lot more play in my world than any of the previous articles. I can't stand it.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:05 PM on November 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:05 PM on November 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
I broke a rule I have (and am not very good at keeping) by getting into A Thing on facebook when a friend (from high school) posted the Friedersdorf piece, and I said a thing, and then some friend of my friend said a thing, and then I said a thing back....
Sigh.
posted by rtha at 8:55 PM on November 9, 2015
Sigh.
posted by rtha at 8:55 PM on November 9, 2015
To me, The Atlantic is virtually synonymous with white fragility. I stopped reading that publication a long time ago.
posted by polymodus at 1:55 AM on November 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 1:55 AM on November 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
Friedersdorf's article is appallingly inaccurate and is getting a lot more play in my world than any of the previous articles. I can't stand it.
The problem, sadly, is that there is always an audience for someone to say that people should just take their offense in stride, and to assert that holding someone accountable for what they say is censorship. Because heavens forbid that people might think that someone who argues that telling people "don't be a dick" is infringing on academic freedom might not be suitable for fostering a diverse community.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:17 AM on November 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
The problem, sadly, is that there is always an audience for someone to say that people should just take their offense in stride, and to assert that holding someone accountable for what they say is censorship. Because heavens forbid that people might think that someone who argues that telling people "don't be a dick" is infringing on academic freedom might not be suitable for fostering a diverse community.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:17 AM on November 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Popehat: Safe Spaces As Shield, Safe Spaces As Sword, Part 2.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:34 AM on November 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:34 AM on November 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
White's another person who routinely demonstrates that specific cluelessness of someone from the majority not quite grasping the actual reality of what having your culture casually pissed all over entails.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:03 AM on November 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:03 AM on November 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
the Friedersdorf takedown was a longer much more through demonstration of not understanding the issue, got that covered, thanks.
i don't mean to bang the drum but is anyone willing to say point blank that dressing up in black/brown/red/yellowface is what they're defending? what is it with these warriors of self-expression that they won't just say what they mean instead of hiding behind euphemisms.
posted by twist my arm at 10:12 AM on November 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
i don't mean to bang the drum but is anyone willing to say point blank that dressing up in black/brown/red/yellowface is what they're defending? what is it with these warriors of self-expression that they won't just say what they mean instead of hiding behind euphemisms.
posted by twist my arm at 10:12 AM on November 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
i don't mean to bang the drum but is anyone willing to say point blank that dressing up in black/brown/red/yellowface is what they're defending? what is it with these warriors of self-expression that they won't just say what they mean instead of hiding behind euphemisms.
It's the difference of opinion argument. Argue that the issue is solely a difference of opinion and viewpoint, and it's unfair to exclude someone else's viewpoint because it differs, because after all, that could lead to your viewpoint being excluded. Never go into any details on what the viewpoint is, because then you have to actually evaluate the viewpoints on the merits.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:25 AM on November 10, 2015
It's the difference of opinion argument. Argue that the issue is solely a difference of opinion and viewpoint, and it's unfair to exclude someone else's viewpoint because it differs, because after all, that could lead to your viewpoint being excluded. Never go into any details on what the viewpoint is, because then you have to actually evaluate the viewpoints on the merits.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:25 AM on November 10, 2015
The problem is, at least with Friedersdorf, is that's not what they think they're defending. They think they're defending e.g. the rights of white kids to dress up as Princess Jasmine innocently. Or the Frog Princess (I forget her name.) Or some hypothetical other costume that's innocent but could be mistakenly understood as offensive. If tangentially it's a defense of blackface too, well, then, people will respond with criticism and the system will work and we'll all learn a little from it.
Except that 1) that's not what the original email was saying — the nominal free-speech advocates are arguing against a straw man. 2) When people do pipe up with complaints, the argument suddenly expands as if they were arguing from their original position, rather than the facts of the occasion. It becomes an argument that 1) ignores that blackface bullshit actually does happen, and 2) that the solution that they're offered tastes bitter when they're forced to drink it. It's a call for consequence-free stupidity and obliviousness under the auspices of the ability to imagine some instance in which blackface isn't problematic.*
It's reminiscent of something that I've seen in a lot of conversations about race, where e.g. a white guy will do something racist, but because the interlocutors are also white guys and don't consider themselves racist, they'll come up with some hypothetical but obscure set of circumstances that could justify the remark/costume/whatever in order to exculpate a hypothetical self from the blame of being racist.
As an aside, my wife and I were joking about what kind of hypotheticals they must be inventing (prompted by running into dhammond last weekend, who had seen a dude in blackface and a blazer):
"It's not blackface, I'm C. Thomas Howell!"
"It's not blackface, I'm a Welsh coal miner on his way to a custody hearing!"
posted by klangklangston at 10:27 AM on November 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
Except that 1) that's not what the original email was saying — the nominal free-speech advocates are arguing against a straw man. 2) When people do pipe up with complaints, the argument suddenly expands as if they were arguing from their original position, rather than the facts of the occasion. It becomes an argument that 1) ignores that blackface bullshit actually does happen, and 2) that the solution that they're offered tastes bitter when they're forced to drink it. It's a call for consequence-free stupidity and obliviousness under the auspices of the ability to imagine some instance in which blackface isn't problematic.*
It's reminiscent of something that I've seen in a lot of conversations about race, where e.g. a white guy will do something racist, but because the interlocutors are also white guys and don't consider themselves racist, they'll come up with some hypothetical but obscure set of circumstances that could justify the remark/costume/whatever in order to exculpate a hypothetical self from the blame of being racist.
As an aside, my wife and I were joking about what kind of hypotheticals they must be inventing (prompted by running into dhammond last weekend, who had seen a dude in blackface and a blazer):
"It's not blackface, I'm C. Thomas Howell!"
"It's not blackface, I'm a Welsh coal miner on his way to a custody hearing!"
posted by klangklangston at 10:27 AM on November 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
i don't mean to bang the drum but is anyone willing to say point blank that dressing up in black/brown/red/yellowface is what they're defending?
I was going to write: I've read a lot (too much) of opionion pieces and hot takes surrounding this, and no. No one has mentioned it that I have seen, outside of you! It's astounding.
But I found one.
One! From the UK!
Kate Maltby, The Spectator: Yale students have exercised their right to be treated like children
It's reminiscent of something that I've seen in a lot of conversations about race, where e.g. a white guy will do something racist, but because the interlocutors are also white guys and don't consider themselves racist, they'll come up with some hypothetical but obscure set of circumstances that could justify the remark/costume/whatever in order to exculpate a hypothetical self from the blame of being racist.
This is a great summary of this phenomena, which extends to defenses of sexism as well.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:36 AM on November 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
I was going to write: I've read a lot (too much) of opionion pieces and hot takes surrounding this, and no. No one has mentioned it that I have seen, outside of you! It's astounding.
But I found one.
One! From the UK!
Kate Maltby, The Spectator: Yale students have exercised their right to be treated like children
That’s not to say that everything I encountered at Halloween was comfortable, though there are already university directives for dealing with clear-cut racial mockery, like blackface. But it was complicated: take my fellow international student, a black man from Africa, who dressed as a tribal demon from his homeland, only to be confronted by African Americans for looking too much like a racial stereotype. Or drag: the Halloween drag of straight frat boys was mincing misogyny on display; the carefree, joyous cross-dress of queer students experimenting was a liberal celebration. Do we ban both?more from Dan Drezner, Washington Post: A clash between administrators and students at Yale went viral. Why that is unfortunate for all concerned.
The problem is local knowledge. As Friedrich von Hayek observed 70 years ago, there is an awful lot of knowledge that is local in character, that cannot be culled from abstract principles or detached observers. What looks like free speech infringement at first glance can turn out to be something different the more one drills down. For one thing, the events of late last week were part of a larger chain of events at Yale beyond the e-mails that suggest a few obvious sources of frustration for minority students there in particular.I wasn't aware that the video was captured & spread by Lukianoff, who has a significant stake in creating and maintaining this as a problem.
It's reminiscent of something that I've seen in a lot of conversations about race, where e.g. a white guy will do something racist, but because the interlocutors are also white guys and don't consider themselves racist, they'll come up with some hypothetical but obscure set of circumstances that could justify the remark/costume/whatever in order to exculpate a hypothetical self from the blame of being racist.
This is a great summary of this phenomena, which extends to defenses of sexism as well.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:36 AM on November 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
The thing to remember is there's a certain strain of individual for whom the accusation of bigotry is a greater offense than actual bigoted conduct. Which is why we routinely get this handwringing over what is, in essence, being told "please try to not be a dick?"
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:48 AM on November 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:48 AM on November 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
ugh. "good" find tmotat. i certainly thought it was possible that someone would try. "but what about this black guy whose costume other black people didn't like!" well done contrarian, well done.
posted by twist my arm at 10:53 AM on November 10, 2015
posted by twist my arm at 10:53 AM on November 10, 2015
Slate has a good counterpoint:
But the student protests at Yale are different. They are not primarily about censorship; they are about students who feel disenfranchised and vulnerable using the language of “safe spaces” to claim a very basic right—the right not to face discrimination in their own homes. They are a call for the university to treat racism (and sexism) on campus the way it would treat most any other overt threat to the mental health and well-being of its students. These sentiments have been expressed in the words and articles of actual students experiencing the controversy on the ground at Yale, but they have been absent from most of the coverage in the professional press, for whom it’s easier to cover this according to a script we already understand: as just another student tantrum attempting to infringe on free speech.
As one senior, Aaron Lewis, explains in his essay on Medium, “What’s Really Going on at Yale,” for the protesters, the email, and even the alleged racism at SAE, pale in comparison to the university’s nonresponse to both. “Last year, there were swastikas found outside a freshman dorm. The Yale College Dean, Jonathan Holloway, sent an email to the entire student body condemning this ‘shameful defacement’ within one day,” he writes. “It took almost a full week for Yale’s president to formally acknowledge students’ legitimate concerns about racism and the incident at SAE. … Students should not have to become community organizers just to receive acknowledgment and respect from their administrators.” The campus paper, the Yale Daily News, cited the same example in a strongly worded editorial that ran on Friday: “[I]n a week following two major racially charged controversies, it is unacceptable that the University has not issued a formal response. If there were ever a time for the University to come out as an ally for students who continue to feel as though they occupy a space not meant for them, it is now.”
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:44 AM on November 10, 2015
But the student protests at Yale are different. They are not primarily about censorship; they are about students who feel disenfranchised and vulnerable using the language of “safe spaces” to claim a very basic right—the right not to face discrimination in their own homes. They are a call for the university to treat racism (and sexism) on campus the way it would treat most any other overt threat to the mental health and well-being of its students. These sentiments have been expressed in the words and articles of actual students experiencing the controversy on the ground at Yale, but they have been absent from most of the coverage in the professional press, for whom it’s easier to cover this according to a script we already understand: as just another student tantrum attempting to infringe on free speech.
As one senior, Aaron Lewis, explains in his essay on Medium, “What’s Really Going on at Yale,” for the protesters, the email, and even the alleged racism at SAE, pale in comparison to the university’s nonresponse to both. “Last year, there were swastikas found outside a freshman dorm. The Yale College Dean, Jonathan Holloway, sent an email to the entire student body condemning this ‘shameful defacement’ within one day,” he writes. “It took almost a full week for Yale’s president to formally acknowledge students’ legitimate concerns about racism and the incident at SAE. … Students should not have to become community organizers just to receive acknowledgment and respect from their administrators.” The campus paper, the Yale Daily News, cited the same example in a strongly worded editorial that ran on Friday: “[I]n a week following two major racially charged controversies, it is unacceptable that the University has not issued a formal response. If there were ever a time for the University to come out as an ally for students who continue to feel as though they occupy a space not meant for them, it is now.”
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:44 AM on November 10, 2015
I wasn't aware that the video was captured & spread by Lukianoff, who has a significant stake in creating and maintaining this as a problem.
And now pubs like Daily Caller are "exposing" the young woman in the video (publishing personal information and contact details).
posted by AceRock at 1:08 PM on November 10, 2015
And now pubs like Daily Caller are "exposing" the young woman in the video (publishing personal information and contact details).
posted by AceRock at 1:08 PM on November 10, 2015
It's amusing to watch Yale "struggle" with and embrace the very same free speech arguments as Reddit
I would have hoped that Yale would require more demonstrable critical thinking skills from its professors
Second to the actual fucking repulsive racism of all of this, this is what is also infuriating. All this defense of the spirit of intellectualism etc.-- this is not fucking intellectualism. It is not intellectualism every time an old white fucker opens their mouth. They did zero thinking, research or reflection on this issue and wanted to listen to themselves speak and send their stupid disingenuous drooling bullshit to a bunch of Yale students, because it wasn't enough to complain about touchy non-white students at home with your doofus husband. Like for fuck's sake, engage with scholarship, literature, thought, anything. Even her condescending overtures to her own research were essentially non sequiturs-- appealing to her own authority without bringing anything to bear from actual study. Can you not shut the fuck up when you don't know what you're talking about? I suppose that's the Ivy League tradition everyone is shitting themselves over. Sublime confidence in the face of no qualifications whatsoever.
The original Yale email was so gentle and benign, a mild reminder that other people have feelings, how could anyone come up with such a long fucking rambling piece of bullshit and then have the gall to call it intellectualism and MAKE OTHER PEOPLE READ IT. Write it in your fucking Livejournal, lady.
posted by easter queen at 8:02 PM on November 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
I would have hoped that Yale would require more demonstrable critical thinking skills from its professors
Second to the actual fucking repulsive racism of all of this, this is what is also infuriating. All this defense of the spirit of intellectualism etc.-- this is not fucking intellectualism. It is not intellectualism every time an old white fucker opens their mouth. They did zero thinking, research or reflection on this issue and wanted to listen to themselves speak and send their stupid disingenuous drooling bullshit to a bunch of Yale students, because it wasn't enough to complain about touchy non-white students at home with your doofus husband. Like for fuck's sake, engage with scholarship, literature, thought, anything. Even her condescending overtures to her own research were essentially non sequiturs-- appealing to her own authority without bringing anything to bear from actual study. Can you not shut the fuck up when you don't know what you're talking about? I suppose that's the Ivy League tradition everyone is shitting themselves over. Sublime confidence in the face of no qualifications whatsoever.
The original Yale email was so gentle and benign, a mild reminder that other people have feelings, how could anyone come up with such a long fucking rambling piece of bullshit and then have the gall to call it intellectualism and MAKE OTHER PEOPLE READ IT. Write it in your fucking Livejournal, lady.
posted by easter queen at 8:02 PM on November 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
Also, is it really fucking surprising that in 2015 students are less likely to give their offensively out-of-touch student masters and administrators the benefit of the doubt? You go tens of thousands of dollars into debt to attend Yale (or you're aggressively recruited in order to become a useful diversity statistic for them and then essentially ignored/discarded), then after literally paying for the privilege the administrators ignore student concerns, act like assclowns and donormongers, and fail to do their fucking jobs. This is not the first time we've heard about deans, professors and student masters 100% dropping the ball when it comes to actual practical student concerns and blaming it on some hand wavey spirit of intellectualism, which to them means sophistry and rationalizing problems away. Oh, you were raped? Why not have an informal mediation with your rapist? Oh, there's a fucking swastika on campus? Well, maybe if we ignore it it will go away! What, blackface? Surely, you mean imaginative play?!
Like, these people are literally saying "sell the next 10-15+ years of your life to us so you can be competitive in the dwindling job market, but it is laughable to expect us to care about your well-being, flourishing, or need for support as very young adults who have left home for the first time and who need varying levels of inclusivity and attention because maybe you weren't born into a legacy family and you have a high risk of dropping out if you're shit on by your fellow students and old douchebag advisors." Like, seriously, fuck you. Fuck you so profoundly. May you be fucked forever and ever, amen.
Undergraduates may be young and dumb and fragile, but at least they have a sense of when they're getting the raw end of the deal. Maybe Mr. and Mrs. First Amendment Halloween Costume can pay rent for a change, if they're not interested in listening to the students they're supposed to be tending to.
I was a student fairly recently and I am oh so familiar with the utter uselessness of student services, to the point where they're more just another line in the college pamphlet than actually beneficial to students in any way. Higher education practices in general disgust me at the moment, and if you're a professor who is not actually talking about your area of expertise or research, your opinions are no more fucking valuable or worthy of respect than those of an angry undergraduate, to be honest. Being an old, rich, white person does not confer you a PhD in Well, Actually.
posted by easter queen at 8:20 PM on November 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
Like, these people are literally saying "sell the next 10-15+ years of your life to us so you can be competitive in the dwindling job market, but it is laughable to expect us to care about your well-being, flourishing, or need for support as very young adults who have left home for the first time and who need varying levels of inclusivity and attention because maybe you weren't born into a legacy family and you have a high risk of dropping out if you're shit on by your fellow students and old douchebag advisors." Like, seriously, fuck you. Fuck you so profoundly. May you be fucked forever and ever, amen.
Undergraduates may be young and dumb and fragile, but at least they have a sense of when they're getting the raw end of the deal. Maybe Mr. and Mrs. First Amendment Halloween Costume can pay rent for a change, if they're not interested in listening to the students they're supposed to be tending to.
I was a student fairly recently and I am oh so familiar with the utter uselessness of student services, to the point where they're more just another line in the college pamphlet than actually beneficial to students in any way. Higher education practices in general disgust me at the moment, and if you're a professor who is not actually talking about your area of expertise or research, your opinions are no more fucking valuable or worthy of respect than those of an angry undergraduate, to be honest. Being an old, rich, white person does not confer you a PhD in Well, Actually.
posted by easter queen at 8:20 PM on November 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
I don't know, I'm generally in line with the Metafilter viewpoint on most of these things, but I'm sorry, I cannot feel that the treatment that the Christakises are getting is justified. I understand why the letter was misguided, but the overreaction here is immense. And I'm saying that as a person of color. The reaction here seems to have more in common with online pileons than anything rational. If you disagree with something, there is room for debate -- there's no need to resort to spitting on people.
posted by peacheater at 6:51 AM on November 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by peacheater at 6:51 AM on November 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
You go tens of thousands of dollars into debt to attend YaleI don't think that most Yale students go tens of thousands of dollars in debt to attend, for what it's worth. Yale has really, really good financial aid and has made reducing undergrad debt a priority in recent years. In 2013, only 15% of Yale seniors graduated with any debt, and for them the average was $13,000.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:58 AM on November 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
So, Pope Guilty posted a link to this piece over in the Mizzou thread, but it's just as applicable here, if not moreso: How To Write A "Political Correctness Run Amok" Article.
The piece itself was written in response to the reaction over Germaine Greer revealing her TERF side, but it applies more generally to these articles as a whole, as it points out their core flaw - that they're not really about the freedom of speech, but how our societal views on what sort of speech is offensive has shifted, and how in many cases, that shift has left the authors on the wrong side.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:23 AM on November 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
The piece itself was written in response to the reaction over Germaine Greer revealing her TERF side, but it applies more generally to these articles as a whole, as it points out their core flaw - that they're not really about the freedom of speech, but how our societal views on what sort of speech is offensive has shifted, and how in many cases, that shift has left the authors on the wrong side.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:23 AM on November 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
If you disagree with something, there is room for debate -- there's no need to resort to spitting on people.
The spitting is extreme, but it's really the only thing all that extreme. Also, if it reminds you of a pile on, maybe the insane admin and media pile on against the protesting students themselves explains some of the exasperation and anger?
posted by easter queen at 7:57 AM on November 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
The spitting is extreme, but it's really the only thing all that extreme. Also, if it reminds you of a pile on, maybe the insane admin and media pile on against the protesting students themselves explains some of the exasperation and anger?
posted by easter queen at 7:57 AM on November 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
ArbitraryAndCapricious, that's a good point-- I myself was a financial aid student at a very expensive college during the wave of highly improved aid packages for underprivileged students, so I got off pretty OK. That didn't stop financial aid administrators and my academic advisor from treating me like trash and making garbage assumptions about me all the time, though.
posted by easter queen at 7:59 AM on November 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by easter queen at 7:59 AM on November 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Here's Roxane Gay on Yale and Mizzou. I was reductive in my comments because I made it about class; black students and students of color are justified in being angry and tired of idiotic white backlash (endorsed by their faculty master in an foolish, trolling email, at that) every time they make a step forward in the "culture wars." As a recent undergrad and current Masters student I think a lot of young people are angry in general at people who rose up in academia when it was cheap and easy and now sit on a perch writing snide letters about how students should be able to express themselves EXCEPT IN THE FORM OF SILLY PROTESTS, which everyone knows are pointless compared to the divine right to wear blackface.
Frankly, if I were a student, I wouldn't want this person as my dean either. My experience with deans thus far in my academic career has been basically just a series of mishandlings of sensitive issues. It's a little exhausting. What are they getting paid for again?
posted by easter queen at 8:14 AM on November 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
Frankly, if I were a student, I wouldn't want this person as my dean either. My experience with deans thus far in my academic career has been basically just a series of mishandlings of sensitive issues. It's a little exhausting. What are they getting paid for again?
posted by easter queen at 8:14 AM on November 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
If you disagree with something, there is room for debate
No, there really isn't, and that's why things are so vehement. The initial email was basically a simple statement of "hey, don't be a dick to your fellow classmates and the locals." To argue that this statement is somehow a gross infringement on freedom of speech and that it "infantilizes" students is a stunning display of both privilege and a lack of empathy, wrapped up in a coat of "free speech" dreck intended to get people to not think about what is actually being said. And the frustrating part is that this shit gets repeated over and over, usually by people upset that free speech actually means that if someone says something offensive, other people have the right to call them a shit heel.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:16 AM on November 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
No, there really isn't, and that's why things are so vehement. The initial email was basically a simple statement of "hey, don't be a dick to your fellow classmates and the locals." To argue that this statement is somehow a gross infringement on freedom of speech and that it "infantilizes" students is a stunning display of both privilege and a lack of empathy, wrapped up in a coat of "free speech" dreck intended to get people to not think about what is actually being said. And the frustrating part is that this shit gets repeated over and over, usually by people upset that free speech actually means that if someone says something offensive, other people have the right to call them a shit heel.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:16 AM on November 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
Arthur Chu hits the nail on the head:
No one at Yale was having their “right” to wear blackface taken away. They were having their “right” to wear blackface and not be made to feel uncomfortable about it by being scolded by members of the community taken away. Just as, in past years when blackface was culturally normal, black people were having their “right” to not be made to feel uncomfortable by being constantly mocked and degraded taken away.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:47 AM on November 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
No one at Yale was having their “right” to wear blackface taken away. They were having their “right” to wear blackface and not be made to feel uncomfortable about it by being scolded by members of the community taken away. Just as, in past years when blackface was culturally normal, black people were having their “right” to not be made to feel uncomfortable by being constantly mocked and degraded taken away.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:47 AM on November 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
Who’s really demanding to be coddled on campus?
In December of 2012, many Harvard students woke to an unpleasant surprise that had been slid under their doors. A flyer, circulated by anonymous parties, was seemingly a parodic invitation to a final club. “Inclusion. Diversity. Love.” it read, with footnotes clarifying “Jews need not apply. Seriously, no fucking Jews. Coloreds okay. Rophynol.” (Final clubs are Harvard’s version of fraternities: they are very wealthy, very old, and bear a long tradition of elitism and sexism.)
In response, the (now former) Dean of the College, Evelynn M. Hammonds issued a statement. “I find these flyers offensive,” it said. “Even if intended as satirical in nature, they are hurtful and offensive … and do not demonstrate the level of thoughtfulness and respect we expect at Harvard when engaging difficult issues within our community.” That week, two Harvard House Masters, Nicholas A. and Erika Christakis, wrote a histrionic Time op-ed in which they described the school as a “a free-speech surveillance state.” Their sole evidence was the administration’s response to the anonymous gesture: Hammonds’s declaration that she, for one, did not care for it.
posted by rtha at 10:50 AM on November 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
In December of 2012, many Harvard students woke to an unpleasant surprise that had been slid under their doors. A flyer, circulated by anonymous parties, was seemingly a parodic invitation to a final club. “Inclusion. Diversity. Love.” it read, with footnotes clarifying “Jews need not apply. Seriously, no fucking Jews. Coloreds okay. Rophynol.” (Final clubs are Harvard’s version of fraternities: they are very wealthy, very old, and bear a long tradition of elitism and sexism.)
In response, the (now former) Dean of the College, Evelynn M. Hammonds issued a statement. “I find these flyers offensive,” it said. “Even if intended as satirical in nature, they are hurtful and offensive … and do not demonstrate the level of thoughtfulness and respect we expect at Harvard when engaging difficult issues within our community.” That week, two Harvard House Masters, Nicholas A. and Erika Christakis, wrote a histrionic Time op-ed in which they described the school as a “a free-speech surveillance state.” Their sole evidence was the administration’s response to the anonymous gesture: Hammonds’s declaration that she, for one, did not care for it.
posted by rtha at 10:50 AM on November 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
Timothy Burke, All Saints Day
Commenting on the debate over Halloween costumes seems freshly risky this week, but the subject has been on my mind since I read this New York Times article on the subject on October 30.posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:32 PM on November 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
My first thought would be that calls for the resignation of the Silliman House masters at Yale are dangerously disproportionate to the email that they wrote in response to polite guidance from the Yale administration. I’ll come back to why that disproportionate response worries me so much later in this essay.
And yet I don’t entirely agree with the way that Erika Christakis chose to come at the issue. I wish everyone could back up a step so that the entire discussion is not about free expression vs. censorship or between safe spaces and stereotype threats. Once the discussion has locked into those terms, then the “free speech” advocates are stupidly complicit in defending people who show up at parties in blackface or are otherwise costumed or having themed parties with deliberately offensive stereotypes. Once the discussion has locked into those terms, people who want to say that such stereotypes have a real, powerful history of instrumental use in systems of racial domination are forced to understand that advocacy as censorship–and are also unable to leave space open to hear people like Erika and Nicolas Christakis as making any other kind of point.
The real issues we should be talking about are:
Once the discussion has locked into those terms, then the “free speech” advocates are stupidly complicit in defending people who show up at parties in blackface or are otherwise costumed or having themed parties with deliberately offensive stereotypes.
Sorry, but no. They become complicit because they choose to conflate criticism with censorship, to equate being held accountable for their own conduct with being stripped of the right to speak freely. It is possible to defend free speech without defending offense - as the Harvard administration pointed out when this couple pulled this routine there a few years prior.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:50 PM on November 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sorry, but no. They become complicit because they choose to conflate criticism with censorship, to equate being held accountable for their own conduct with being stripped of the right to speak freely. It is possible to defend free speech without defending offense - as the Harvard administration pointed out when this couple pulled this routine there a few years prior.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:50 PM on November 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes. The student protesters aren't threatening free speech. They're saying they think someone who would write and send such a tonedeaf, inappropriate email (and as we see at Harvard, who has a HISTORY of this bs) shouldn't be a dean/resident master/whatever. They can run their mouth all day long and remain free as a bird but they should not be responsible for the stewardship of students, in my opinion and in the opinion of the students at Yale.
This is not a threat to free speech-- it's an exercise of free speech. It's also not without context or in a vaccum-- Yale has a multitude of problems with race. And Christakis doesn't not know that she was being controversial-- she's done this before. But, most of all: free speech is not being threatened in any way, shape, or form. I'd like to shift the burden of proof to those who say that this is actually an illiberal infringement on free speech rights or ideals.
It's not difficult to see that everyone engaged in this conflict is on the side of free speech. The disagreement is whether this is, in actuality, an infringement on free speech of any kind. Is protesting in the name of wanting to be represented by someone invested in your wellbeing anti-free speech? Are students who are protesting at Mizzou in the wrong, because they think the university they've economically and personally invested in should be led by someone who can demonstrate strong leadership in difficult situations? Is it functionally any different than a board of directors voting out leadership because they disagree with the leadership's actions or speech?
To me, the idea that offensive Halloween costumes are necessary to imaginative play and development and also an integral American right, but that protesting perceived offensive/racist actions is not, is completely odious. I think it's part of a long tradition of racist and sexist social control that frames the discussion around maintaining the status quo. I think Christakis is now living in a world where every glib argument she writes in an email to students is not de facto treated as interesting, intellectual, liberal gospel by virtue of her own social and socioeconomic authority and it is hard for her.
You can have intellectualism in the American university but you have to begin by engaging intellectually.
posted by easter queen at 2:14 PM on November 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
This is not a threat to free speech-- it's an exercise of free speech. It's also not without context or in a vaccum-- Yale has a multitude of problems with race. And Christakis doesn't not know that she was being controversial-- she's done this before. But, most of all: free speech is not being threatened in any way, shape, or form. I'd like to shift the burden of proof to those who say that this is actually an illiberal infringement on free speech rights or ideals.
It's not difficult to see that everyone engaged in this conflict is on the side of free speech. The disagreement is whether this is, in actuality, an infringement on free speech of any kind. Is protesting in the name of wanting to be represented by someone invested in your wellbeing anti-free speech? Are students who are protesting at Mizzou in the wrong, because they think the university they've economically and personally invested in should be led by someone who can demonstrate strong leadership in difficult situations? Is it functionally any different than a board of directors voting out leadership because they disagree with the leadership's actions or speech?
To me, the idea that offensive Halloween costumes are necessary to imaginative play and development and also an integral American right, but that protesting perceived offensive/racist actions is not, is completely odious. I think it's part of a long tradition of racist and sexist social control that frames the discussion around maintaining the status quo. I think Christakis is now living in a world where every glib argument she writes in an email to students is not de facto treated as interesting, intellectual, liberal gospel by virtue of her own social and socioeconomic authority and it is hard for her.
You can have intellectualism in the American university but you have to begin by engaging intellectually.
posted by easter queen at 2:14 PM on November 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
I also think that the default position is to dismiss the concerns of people of color/women/gay people/trans people/etc., and in this situation it's just much easier to get away with, because we're talking about a group of undergraduates vs. the venerated establishment. Saying, UGH, undergraduates! So coddled, so fucking annoying! is becoming a white/male code for a terror that the university is becoming a breeding ground for empowered women and minorities.
posted by easter queen at 2:17 PM on November 11, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by easter queen at 2:17 PM on November 11, 2015 [11 favorites]
Oddly, at least to me, Nicholas Christakis is using the incident at Harvard as an example of when he and his wife were "defending speech of minority groups fighting inequality "
Can someone explain this to me?
It seems like they are digging their heels deep into their own arguments and not actually trying to understand the opinions of the other side. Discourse is actually happening here with interesting points about free speech, about power, about equality and their further arguments seem to boil down to "We're right and you're wrong!"
Makes me a bit proud of Harvard for slamming this thing down so quickly when it happened there, not that Harvard doesn't have its own problems of course but at least there's a chance for dialog.
posted by vacapinta at 4:36 AM on November 12, 2015
Can someone explain this to me?
It seems like they are digging their heels deep into their own arguments and not actually trying to understand the opinions of the other side. Discourse is actually happening here with interesting points about free speech, about power, about equality and their further arguments seem to boil down to "We're right and you're wrong!"
Makes me a bit proud of Harvard for slamming this thing down so quickly when it happened there, not that Harvard doesn't have its own problems of course but at least there's a chance for dialog.
posted by vacapinta at 4:36 AM on November 12, 2015
Also, don't know if anyone has linked to this in the New Yorker Race and the Free-Speech Diversion. Emphasis mine.
"The broader issue is that the student’s reaction elicited consternation in certain quarters where the precipitating incident did not. The fault line here is between those who find intolerance objectionable and those who oppose intolerance of the intolerant.
....
And this is where the arguments about the freedom of speech become most tone deaf. The freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered. The enlightenment principles that undergird free speech also prescribed that the natural limits of one’s liberty lie at the precise point at which it begins to impose upon the liberty of another.
During the debates over the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Senator J. Lister Hill, of Alabama, stood up and declared his opposition to the bill by arguing that the protection of black rights would necessarily infringe upon the rights of whites. This is the left-footed logic of a career Negrophobe, which should be immediately dismissed. Yet some variation of Hill’s thinking animates the contemporary political climate. Right-to-offend advocates are, willingly or not, trafficking in the same sort of argument for the right to maintain subordination. They are, however, correct in one key respect: there are no safe spaces. Nor, from the look of things, will there be any time soon.
posted by vacapinta at 7:30 AM on November 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
"The broader issue is that the student’s reaction elicited consternation in certain quarters where the precipitating incident did not. The fault line here is between those who find intolerance objectionable and those who oppose intolerance of the intolerant.
....
And this is where the arguments about the freedom of speech become most tone deaf. The freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered. The enlightenment principles that undergird free speech also prescribed that the natural limits of one’s liberty lie at the precise point at which it begins to impose upon the liberty of another.
During the debates over the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Senator J. Lister Hill, of Alabama, stood up and declared his opposition to the bill by arguing that the protection of black rights would necessarily infringe upon the rights of whites. This is the left-footed logic of a career Negrophobe, which should be immediately dismissed. Yet some variation of Hill’s thinking animates the contemporary political climate. Right-to-offend advocates are, willingly or not, trafficking in the same sort of argument for the right to maintain subordination. They are, however, correct in one key respect: there are no safe spaces. Nor, from the look of things, will there be any time soon.
posted by vacapinta at 7:30 AM on November 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
Can someone explain this to me?
vacapinta, it's possible he's just referring to his tweet referenced upthread.
(i'm only trying to figure out what he means too. no desire to analyze further.)
posted by twist my arm at 10:55 AM on November 12, 2015
vacapinta, it's possible he's just referring to his tweet referenced upthread.
(i'm only trying to figure out what he means too. no desire to analyze further.)
posted by twist my arm at 10:55 AM on November 12, 2015
One thing about this controversy over the reporter is bothering me, which is: is it not possible to boycott the media if you believe they are complicit in racial discrimination or violence? This is not a socioeconomically powerful block lobbying against the media and keeping them outside the chambers of power. It's a group of protesters who (seemingly rightfully!) do not trust the motivations of the media in covering their anti-racist action.
A free press is wonderful and necessary, but that doesn't mean that every instantiation of the press is capable of being purely objective, or that the press is not demonstrably guilty of significant racism, or that these student protesters actually wield any real "facist" "power" over every institution we (white) Americans claim to hold dear. If you want to protest the media, are you supposed to trust the media to cover your protest?
posted by easter queen at 3:10 PM on November 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
A free press is wonderful and necessary, but that doesn't mean that every instantiation of the press is capable of being purely objective, or that the press is not demonstrably guilty of significant racism, or that these student protesters actually wield any real "facist" "power" over every institution we (white) Americans claim to hold dear. If you want to protest the media, are you supposed to trust the media to cover your protest?
posted by easter queen at 3:10 PM on November 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
It manifests itself most prominently in campus settings not because it’s a passing phase, like acne, but because the academy is one of the few bastions of American life where the p.c. left can muster the strength to impose its political hegemony upon others
What the fuck does this mean, Chait, you dicklick? (I mean, he's right, how dare the disempowered organize and yield power in the upper echelons of our society!!)
posted by easter queen at 3:11 PM on November 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
What the fuck does this mean, Chait, you dicklick? (I mean, he's right, how dare the disempowered organize and yield power in the upper echelons of our society!!)
posted by easter queen at 3:11 PM on November 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
An op-ed, which points out: "There are plenty of studies documenting that black students and students of color in general experience alienation at colleges and face higher dropout rates."
I don't know how you can watch what's going on and also know that fact about American campuses and still turn around and tell the black students to stop whining and grow up. I mean, it shows you don't really give a fuck about inequality, or else you believe black people are fundamentally lesser (and thus the stats reflect our inner natures). Disagree about spitting, disagree about whether Christakis should lose her post, but if black students are barely getting on campus and then leaving early without graduating and they say campuses are hostile and you don't connect the dots, you're being ignorant or willful.
posted by easter queen at 3:16 PM on November 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
I don't know how you can watch what's going on and also know that fact about American campuses and still turn around and tell the black students to stop whining and grow up. I mean, it shows you don't really give a fuck about inequality, or else you believe black people are fundamentally lesser (and thus the stats reflect our inner natures). Disagree about spitting, disagree about whether Christakis should lose her post, but if black students are barely getting on campus and then leaving early without graduating and they say campuses are hostile and you don't connect the dots, you're being ignorant or willful.
posted by easter queen at 3:16 PM on November 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
"One thing about this controversy over the reporter is bothering me, which is: is it not possible to boycott the media if you believe they are complicit in racial discrimination or violence? This is not a socioeconomically powerful block lobbying against the media and keeping them outside the chambers of power. It's a group of protesters who (seemingly rightfully!) do not trust the motivations of the media in covering their anti-racist action.
A free press is wonderful and necessary, but that doesn't mean that every instantiation of the press is capable of being purely objective, or that the press is not demonstrably guilty of significant racism, or that these student protesters actually wield any real "facist" "power" over every institution we (white) Americans claim to hold dear. If you want to protest the media, are you supposed to trust the media to cover your protest?"
Couple things:
It's entirely possible to boycott or embargo media in general — "no comment." It's something that groups do all the time, for all sorts of reasons. It's just as legitimate as trying to shape the narrative yourself, which is something that pretty much all people interacting with the media try to do (aside from maybe some research librarians, etc.).
But the big caveat there is that this requires internal discipline and message control, and is generally seen as something that's illegitimate to try to force the media to respect. If you don't want to talk to the media, don't talk to the media. Trying to prevent them from getting into a public space is going beyond your rights to control your message and into dictating the terms to someone else, which (common as it is with questions of access) is largely seen as an attack on the freedom of the press. Again, the protestors are in a public space. Because of that, they have no right to exclude another member of the public who would normally be able to be there. If they don't want to be photographed, they can request that, but they have to recognize that this is a request that the photographer may disagree with — that's the difference between a request and a demand. Just like how a reporter can request that you speak with them but can't demand it. (Photography is somewhat different, but in general the analogy would be that you can request someone not look at you but if you're in public you can't demand it without some other cause, e.g. harassment.)
One of the other things that's been bugging me is that I think there's a misapprehension on the part of both the people involved in blocking Tai and some of the commenters here, in that "the media" is really not a coherent thing the way that it's being treated, and it's less a coherent notion than it was even 20 years ago. Thinking that Tai was going to be complicit in a racist portrayal of the protests is based on this mistake — attempting to keep him out is like saying that because politics have largely entrenched a racist power structure, no politician should talk about the protests.
And again, the protestors seem to have realized this pretty quickly. I can understand the impetus for people wanting a PC GONE MAD hook to keep talking about it, but trying to argue that the protestors were justified rather than saying that they had pretty understandable motivations that led them to a gaffe seems only to be playing into the framing that liberals want, rather than talking about the broader success. While treating the media as if it has a single motivation or agenda is unsupportable, one thing you can say about the media writ large is that the media loves talking about the media.
posted by klangklangston at 5:05 PM on November 12, 2015
A free press is wonderful and necessary, but that doesn't mean that every instantiation of the press is capable of being purely objective, or that the press is not demonstrably guilty of significant racism, or that these student protesters actually wield any real "facist" "power" over every institution we (white) Americans claim to hold dear. If you want to protest the media, are you supposed to trust the media to cover your protest?"
Couple things:
It's entirely possible to boycott or embargo media in general — "no comment." It's something that groups do all the time, for all sorts of reasons. It's just as legitimate as trying to shape the narrative yourself, which is something that pretty much all people interacting with the media try to do (aside from maybe some research librarians, etc.).
But the big caveat there is that this requires internal discipline and message control, and is generally seen as something that's illegitimate to try to force the media to respect. If you don't want to talk to the media, don't talk to the media. Trying to prevent them from getting into a public space is going beyond your rights to control your message and into dictating the terms to someone else, which (common as it is with questions of access) is largely seen as an attack on the freedom of the press. Again, the protestors are in a public space. Because of that, they have no right to exclude another member of the public who would normally be able to be there. If they don't want to be photographed, they can request that, but they have to recognize that this is a request that the photographer may disagree with — that's the difference between a request and a demand. Just like how a reporter can request that you speak with them but can't demand it. (Photography is somewhat different, but in general the analogy would be that you can request someone not look at you but if you're in public you can't demand it without some other cause, e.g. harassment.)
One of the other things that's been bugging me is that I think there's a misapprehension on the part of both the people involved in blocking Tai and some of the commenters here, in that "the media" is really not a coherent thing the way that it's being treated, and it's less a coherent notion than it was even 20 years ago. Thinking that Tai was going to be complicit in a racist portrayal of the protests is based on this mistake — attempting to keep him out is like saying that because politics have largely entrenched a racist power structure, no politician should talk about the protests.
And again, the protestors seem to have realized this pretty quickly. I can understand the impetus for people wanting a PC GONE MAD hook to keep talking about it, but trying to argue that the protestors were justified rather than saying that they had pretty understandable motivations that led them to a gaffe seems only to be playing into the framing that liberals want, rather than talking about the broader success. While treating the media as if it has a single motivation or agenda is unsupportable, one thing you can say about the media writ large is that the media loves talking about the media.
posted by klangklangston at 5:05 PM on November 12, 2015
Rush Limbaugh, in a new low, insists that there's nothing racial about the swastika.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:11 AM on November 13, 2015
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:11 AM on November 13, 2015
Trying to prevent them from getting into a public space is going beyond your rights to control your message and into dictating the terms to someone else, which (common as it is with questions of access) is largely seen as an attack on the freedom of the press. Again, the protestors are in a public space. Because of that, they have no right to exclude another member of the public who would normally be able to be there
Of course, but this is a common protesting tactic. Holding hands and circling a tree you don't want to be bulldozed (the cartoonish version) or occupying a university building during an antiwar protest come to mind as cliches of protesters keeping members of the public out of public or pseudo-public spaces.
I think you were acknowledging this in the paragraph I quoted (and also in acknowledging that the media loves to talk about the media). But just because the media controls the message doesn't mean we actually have to listen to it, I guess.
As to the media, I recently read an article about how the "new media" is not, demographically, much different from the old media. The promises of a new grassroots-style media responding to trends like Twitter, etc., has not resulted in a sea change in terms of the usual power structures and white male preeminance. (Obviously Tim Tai is not white, but again, this obviously doesn't guarantee his sympathy.) I apologize for not linking the article here (can probably be found with a little Googling) but in light of that I don't think the media is all that different with respect to this controversy.
Anyway, another link: Journalist on Mizzou clash: Photojournalist Tim Tai ‘clearly escalated the situation’
attempting to keep him out is like saying that because politics have largely entrenched a racist power structure, no politician should talk about the protests
This is seemingly not too far from the position of the BLM protestors (Marissa Janae Johnson and Mara Jacqueline Willaford) who interrupted the Sanders speech earlier this year and created similar backlash from the white left. They didn't want to give space to politicians to "clear the air" or "state their platform," they just wanted to raise awareness that the whole progressive left wing was pretty fucked. They wanted to take the mic, and they didn't want to hear political pandering. It's an extreme tactic but it is a tactic and I don't really feel that a fear of "playing into" the right wing's stereotypes of leftyism is as important as throwing light on the tendency to shunt minorities to the side until we immanentize the eschaton.
posted by easter queen at 2:52 PM on November 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Of course, but this is a common protesting tactic. Holding hands and circling a tree you don't want to be bulldozed (the cartoonish version) or occupying a university building during an antiwar protest come to mind as cliches of protesters keeping members of the public out of public or pseudo-public spaces.
I think you were acknowledging this in the paragraph I quoted (and also in acknowledging that the media loves to talk about the media). But just because the media controls the message doesn't mean we actually have to listen to it, I guess.
As to the media, I recently read an article about how the "new media" is not, demographically, much different from the old media. The promises of a new grassroots-style media responding to trends like Twitter, etc., has not resulted in a sea change in terms of the usual power structures and white male preeminance. (Obviously Tim Tai is not white, but again, this obviously doesn't guarantee his sympathy.) I apologize for not linking the article here (can probably be found with a little Googling) but in light of that I don't think the media is all that different with respect to this controversy.
Anyway, another link: Journalist on Mizzou clash: Photojournalist Tim Tai ‘clearly escalated the situation’
attempting to keep him out is like saying that because politics have largely entrenched a racist power structure, no politician should talk about the protests
This is seemingly not too far from the position of the BLM protestors (Marissa Janae Johnson and Mara Jacqueline Willaford) who interrupted the Sanders speech earlier this year and created similar backlash from the white left. They didn't want to give space to politicians to "clear the air" or "state their platform," they just wanted to raise awareness that the whole progressive left wing was pretty fucked. They wanted to take the mic, and they didn't want to hear political pandering. It's an extreme tactic but it is a tactic and I don't really feel that a fear of "playing into" the right wing's stereotypes of leftyism is as important as throwing light on the tendency to shunt minorities to the side until we immanentize the eschaton.
posted by easter queen at 2:52 PM on November 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
That's hypothetical, though; I don't object to the fact that the protesters acknowledged it as a gaffe and have tried to distance themselves from it (or at least haven't much defended it). But it is disheartening to constantly see so much "distancing" on the left instead of solidarity. They might not have to distance themselves from every overzealous political PR and message-making error if there was more solidarity (in terms of concrete political action) on the left.
posted by easter queen at 2:55 PM on November 13, 2015
posted by easter queen at 2:55 PM on November 13, 2015
easter queen: I don't know how you can watch what's going on and also know that fact about American campuses and still turn around and tell the black students to stop whining and grow up. I mean, it shows you don't really give a fuck about inequality, or else you believe black people are fundamentally lesser (and thus the stats reflect our inner natures). Disagree about spitting, disagree about whether Christakis should lose her post, but if black students are barely getting on campus and then leaving early without graduating and they say campuses are hostile and you don't connect the dots, you're being ignorant or willful.
The standard conservative defense is that they do believe black people are equal, but that the reason that black students are more likely to leave college early is because those students are in thrall to the pernicious idea that it's important to notice how hostile a space is rather than ignoring the hostility and succeeding on their own terms.
It's the "if only they'd be more conservative and boot-strappy in their ideas, they'd be just as successful as me" argument. There's wailing and gnashing of teeth at places like NRO about how black students are short-changing themselves by believing fascist (yes, they're calling it that) ideas, and that the only way to truly defeat inequality - something they would dearly love to accomplish! - is for black students to embrace classic conservative liberalism.
I doubt that the argument is amenable to any evidence other than the "but I personally know a successful Black conservative" sort of self-reinforcing anecdote.
posted by clawsoon at 11:47 PM on November 13, 2015
The standard conservative defense is that they do believe black people are equal, but that the reason that black students are more likely to leave college early is because those students are in thrall to the pernicious idea that it's important to notice how hostile a space is rather than ignoring the hostility and succeeding on their own terms.
It's the "if only they'd be more conservative and boot-strappy in their ideas, they'd be just as successful as me" argument. There's wailing and gnashing of teeth at places like NRO about how black students are short-changing themselves by believing fascist (yes, they're calling it that) ideas, and that the only way to truly defeat inequality - something they would dearly love to accomplish! - is for black students to embrace classic conservative liberalism.
I doubt that the argument is amenable to any evidence other than the "but I personally know a successful Black conservative" sort of self-reinforcing anecdote.
posted by clawsoon at 11:47 PM on November 13, 2015
Oh, and they're saying that Jonathan Butler has no right to complain about white privilege because his family is worth $20 million.
It's funny how the wealth of some people makes them geniuses who should be listened to, while the wealth of others makes them spoiled hypocrites.
posted by clawsoon at 11:54 PM on November 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's funny how the wealth of some people makes them geniuses who should be listened to, while the wealth of others makes them spoiled hypocrites.
posted by clawsoon at 11:54 PM on November 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Larissa Pham, Guernica: The Architecture of Racism at Yale University
If these anecdotes seem small, if they seem perhaps too subtle or too nuanced or too easily brushed off, that is the point. Systemic racism operates in pernicious ways. It feels like the things one ought to be able to push aside. It is shaped by exclusion and denial and silence, or silencing. “These things happen all the time,” said Miele, the senior who is currently part of the movement on campus. “They happen all over the world and they happen here and I never felt that I could talk to anyone about it here. It’s heartbreaking.” By its very nature it is a kind of gaslighting, excruciatingly difficult to pin down because to report it is to open one’s self to being accused of crying wolf, to immediate disbelief. “You go out of your way to talk about it because you care about these people, you want them to understand,” Baxter told me. “But nobody wants to believe you.”posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:56 PM on November 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
Larissa Pham, Guernica: The Architecture of Racism at Yale University
That is a great piece; it would be worth an FPP on its own terms if there wasn't a thread already open.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:52 PM on November 19, 2015
That is a great piece; it would be worth an FPP on its own terms if there wasn't a thread already open.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:52 PM on November 19, 2015
The South Lawn's Douglas Williams in Gawker: The Mizzou Blueprint
The events of the last month at the University of Missouri’s flagship campus in Columbia have been a sight to behold. From the seeds of student activism led by Black students in an area once known colloquially as Little Dixie, flowers have bloomed on college campuses across the country.posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:33 PM on November 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
These demonstrations, coupled with a demand-making focused on material benefits that can improve opportunities for higher education for children of the working class, are part of an awakening. Students in the United States are starting to understand just how global capital has reshaped their colleges and universities for the worse. And now, they’re starting to understand how to fight back.
It began as many disputes do in a country without a publicly-funded national health service: as a fight over insurance.
« Older Recurrent neural network for generating stories... | Listen closely, we'll only play this once (and... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I bet I can guess what race Nicholas is!
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:46 PM on November 6, 2015 [50 favorites]