
A ‘Disgusting’ Yale Professor Moves On - hodgesrm
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/opinion/nicholas-christakis-yale.html
======
2bitencryption
I actually think about that viral video once or twice a month.

That one line (regarding free speech and what should be protected):

> student: Even if it offends me?

> professor: _Especially_ if it offends you!

That little exchange defined how I view freedom of speech.

~~~
krastanov
That was a cute excerpt with which I do agree.

But it has little to do with the main concerns that the students tried to
voice (without being listened to). Please do not present it as the gist of the
situation.

~~~
Lazare
> But it has little to do with the main concerns that the students tried to
> voice (without being listened to).

I mean, they certainly seem to have been listened to by Christakis. And it
certainly seems like their concern is, in fact, addressed by the point about
free speech.

What do you view those concerns were, in specific, and why do you think they
were not "listened to" during a two hour meeting? Or are you just expressing a
generalised approval for the protestors and disapproval of Christakis?

~~~
krastanov
I tried to respond to a similar question in a sibling comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19445027](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19445027)

------
ziari
I was an undergraduate at Yale in 2015, and I agree with @krastanov's claim
that the Christakis incident was a tipping point in a much larger struggle
between students and administrators. [1]

Also, I lived in Silliman College and would frequently exchange long emails
(1500+ words) with Nicholas and Erika. They would _always_ respond
thoughtfully and extend an invitation to discuss further over a meal. Perhaps
the Halloween note was poorly written... but anyone who actually spoke with
Erika knew that student activists had distorted her message beyond
recognition.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19439316](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19439316)

------
devoply
Identity politics and outrage culture has jumped the shark, but for some
reason it does not recognize this fact.

Here is in summary his "crime" a letter his wife wrote:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-halloween-
email-l...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-halloween-email-led-to-
a-campus-firestorm--and-a-troubling-lesson-about-self-
censorship/2016/10/28/70e55732-9b97-11e6-a0ed-
ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.26db09f08fd7)

[https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-
dressing...](https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing-
yourselves-email-to-silliman-college-yale-students-on-halloween-costumes/)

"Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or
tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to
tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society."

They are both right. People who opposed them are wrong. They should be ashamed
of themselves.

~~~
geofft
It is absolutely possible to disagree with that letter and the quoted sentence
in good faith.

~~~
devoply
Going after someone's career for a perfectly legitimate voiced opinion is not
good faith regardless of disagreement. Also in general this whole idea of
empowerment through silencing is what nasty religions have done in the past,
shunning people for speaking their truth. It's a disgusting tactic and people
using it to silence legitimate discourse should instead be shunned.

~~~
krastanov
You are missing a couple of facts, namely, they were not simply faculty, they
were also in very particular and prestigious mentorship positions at the
college. How can you be a mentor if you dismis the concerns of your students?
This whole debacle was not over just some stupid letter, rather it was over
the complete lack of empathy in the conversation that followed.

~~~
rdtsc
> How can you be a mentor if you dismis the concerns of your students?

Just curious, what would be the opposite of them dismissing the concerns. It
seems you have been there and have a better perspective on things. So given
the context at that time, how should this professor have reacted that would
have been satisfactory for the students?

~~~
krastanov
I would say the debacle was worsened[1] due to poor communication on
everyone's part, but the professor focused on a topic that was not the main
complaint of the students (the prof was also officially hired in a prestigious
mentorship position, with expectations to listen to comments about
bullying/racism/sexism). Most people agreed with what he said about free
speech, but the main complaints about consistent casual racism (comments only
tangentially related to the stupid letter that started the discussion) were
never responded to. A simple acknowledgement that "yes, I now see that you
face casual racism on a daily basis here at Yale, so let's work together on
educating people about this casual racism" would have probably defused the
situation.

[1]: I mean, just see all the sibling comments that assume this whole thing
was about some stupid letter about costumes, and everyone calling all the
students childish and dismissing their legitimate concerns (not even trying to
find out what these concerns were) because they have seen the reaction of a
couple overly-emotional students on YouTube.

~~~
rdtsc
> A simple acknowledgement that "yes, I now see that you face casual racism on
> a daily basis here at Yale, so let's work together on educating people about
> this casual racism" would have probably defused the situation.

That does make sense. In a way a lot of conflicts suffer from this. It is not
always just the issue that starts the confrontation but there is a whole
"iceberg" part hiding underneath that's not being usually addressed and might
not be visible to a casual observer.

> I mean, just see all the sibling comments

Thank you for taking the time to respond. That's why I wanted your opinion as
you seems have been there and are aware of a larger context.

------
peisistratos
In 2005 Yale kicked David Graeber out for his political beliefs. Yale is
giving this Christakis awards, yet we hear an endless lament over student
backlash to the stereotyped Halloween costume comments.

It is hard for me to grasp how the Tom Perkins class of people see themselves
as victims, but as Barry Switzer used to say, lots of people born on third
base think they hit a triple.

------
ripsawridge
Maybe the tribal identity is muted in good times, when the greater, more
complex societal organization offers advancement and the reasonable hope of
attaining goals.

But when inequality increases, when a grim determinism seems to hover over all
fates, then the tribe is more appealing. So people make them, or draw into
them. And tribal allegiance requires demonstration.

Here, students who already suspect they'll get the short end of the stick in
the years ahead signal tribal allegiance, as it becomes a growing power in the
world. Smart, I guess. But sad if you believe(d) in the complex society.

------
sunstone
This incident makes one wonder about the quality of students going to Yale
these days.

------
krastanov
This is a bit of a weird take on the situation. I was at Yale when this whole
debacle took place. Sure, there were some undergrads that took it too far, but
for the vast majority it was simply the straw that broke the camel's back:
there have been so many big and small slights over the years that were
funneled into this situation. The response to the students legitimate concerns
was tone deaf and dismissive which only led to the vindication of the loud and
angry. I can believe that the Christakises certainly wanted to be good and
empathetic and supportive to their students, however they most certainly
failed at it. This self-congratulatory piece does little to inspire faith that
they actually considered their own failings in this story.

I like the premise of the book, that we are all inherently good, but I am
confused by the author's stance when they do not acknowledge __any __of their
own dismissiveness and lack of empathy in the whole situation.

~~~
mikedilger
If you look closely, the agreement students have with Yale does not promise
them empathy or emotional support. It promises an education.

The idea that someone else's opinion or words 'hurt you' is entirely in your
head. I'm told that wise Italian grandmothers tell their grandchildren "what
other people think of you is none of your business." You can choose to be
completely okay, or you can act like a baby. It's entirely your choice. Once
you get that, once you embrace that, it is liberating. You are free of the
slavery of other people's opinions. You are free of racism, of elitism, of
sexism, of all of that s __* because you realise that their opinions are
meaningless to you. When it comes to physical actions, that 's the line you
let nobody cross, and you get the police involved. This is just part of
growing up. But don't listen to me, I don't have a horse in this race, I'm not
from your country, and I'm not from your generation. I'm just someone far
removed from the situation spouting another meaningless opinion. There, see?
You really don't care what I think. Good on ya.

~~~
despera
Sooo, basically racism is just a matter of ignoring racists and problem
solved. Oh boy.....

~~~
mikedilger
That's a wild misrepresentaton of what I wrote. I was talking about what
people think and say, not what they do. Actions are actionable. You can and
should fight racist actions using the legal system. And if the laws aren't
good enough, then let's fix them.

------
diminoten
We forget just how incredibly worse life could be if people _weren 't_
inherently good. So many times throughout each of our days people are given
the chance to make their lives better at our expense, and so very often they
cede that moment back to us, and vice versa.

------
caterama
Perhaps we are inherently good, but I think we're also groupish. How can that
be reconciled? There must be an "other" \-- something to conflict or compete
with -- in some sense. Unfortunately, that conflicting other usually manifests
as other humans. Examples are everywhere: democrats versus liberals, professor
vs student, rich vs poor, nation vs nation, sports team vs sports team.

I'm excited to see if and how "Blueprint" addresses this.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
If “Good” means altruistic for all people, we are not. We are altruistic for
the groups we identify with (“groupish”) — see the work of Jonathan haidt (the
righteous mind) if this stuff interests you

~~~
dexen
Preferring the _groups we identify with_ is a practical heuristic for being
_efficient_ with your well-intended actions. Helping primarily locally will
often (heuristic) be time & energy efficient. Belonging to the same group as
the targets of help will usually (heuristic) ensure the help is rendered when
needed, as needed.

Certainly there are complex moral issues here that can be discussed for days
on end, but as a rule of thumb, focusing first on your ingroups (family,
friends, community) will yield results pretty close to optimal. There's a
reason humanity - just like other species - evolved the ingroup preference.

------
peterwwillis
_" Complex societies are possible and durable only when people are emotionally
invested in, and help, one another; we’d be living in smaller units and more
solitary fashions if we weren’t equipped for such collaboration"_

Has this person lived in a city? I don't see how you could be more solitary or
isolated. Big, complex societies are almost entirely dependent on
collaboration with small groups in compartmentalized ways. Usually you're very
far removed from the things and people that actually support your life, and
emotional investment is zero. It's really the smaller, more rural areas where
combining collaboration with emotional investment is necessary.

~~~
kderbyma
I have to disagree with your statement because in my experience having lived
in a big city for my entire life - we are highly collaborative to the point of
dependence. Smaller communities are much more isolated and self sufficient,
but larger cities have larger demands which results in a general understanding
of the population that they need to do their part. It is not biologically
possible to be invested in millions of people, so we get invested in the
culture we participate in

------
Communitivity
How far does this go?

Consider the wide diversity in our world. Many different faiths, creeds, axis
of preference.. most of which have been persecuted in some way in the past.
Many of the different European colonist groups that came to this country came
to avoid persecution, and the resulting American culture has persecuted native
americans, irish, italians, jews, hispanics, african-americans... and the list
goes on.

If we ban any activity that offends, or could offend anyone, then the eventual
extension of that is banning much of our activity. Yet we cannot allow all
activities, because some are intended to offend, as made clear by the actor's
speech and other actions.

So where do we draw the line? For me personally (and I have no grounds for
saying this should be your metric), it is where malice is clear to me. If it
from ignorance (the college student who wear's a witch's hat, offending
Wiccans), or from prevailing custom (skimpy halloween costumes, offending some
conservatives), then I can't ascribe malice to the costume. If someone wears a
Nazi SS uniform, a reasonable person could assume the wearer intended malice.
Even so, they should be asked, to confirm malice before punitive action, and
informed if malice is not clear - ignorance is still a possibility.

One could say any costume that can be labelled cultural appropriation is
evidence of malice on some level, and should be avoided. What does that mean
though? Perhaps it would mean avoiding all costumes that do not depict non-
human monsters? Would that avoid cultural appropriation, and the possibility
of offense?

No. Because a culture's monsters are often unique to the culture, and what one
culture might regard as a monster due to some metric, another might worship or
praise.

The appearance of half-man / half-animal for example, another might include
worship. "Ganesha or (Ganesh) is the elephant-headed god in Hinduism. He is
the son of Shiva and Parvati. Ganesha is a very popular god in Hinduism, and
is one of the most worshipped. " \- Wikipedia.

Another example was mentioned before, the prevalence of "Witches" in pointy
hats and warts at Halloween, which fall under the label of monster according
to many, but has little resemblance to Wiccans, other than the label of Witch.

So where does that leave us? It would seem that dressing up as anything other
than ourselves, or our own cultural heritage is out.

Still not enough, because each person's take on their cultural heritage is
different. According to Ancestry DNA I am over 70% scandinavian, and I've
traced our family to Vikings. Suppose I dress up as a historically accurate by
most accounts Bear-shirt (ber-serkr, aka Berserker) for Halloween? That could
still offend someone who has a different view of their own Viking heritage.

So we are now at not being able to dress up as anything other than ourselves,
if we do not want to offend anyone.

Even that runs the risk of offending. In some cultures certain colors or
decorations (clothing with a dragon with 7 claws was only for the Japanese
emperor in Japan during certain periods; white is the color of death in some
asian cultures; all black makes some people worry about your mental health due
to similarities with clothing worn during some terrible active shooter
tragedies).

So we cannot avoid the risk of offending.

For me, it means I tend to turn a blind eye to anything that does not exhibit
malice, even that which personally offends me. I will not chastise for a
typical native american costume, unless the person adds deliberately offensive
elements. I won't chastise for the drunk Thor costumes. I won't chastise for
the Witches with pointy hats and warts.

------
tomlock
> That’s clear in the book itself, which makes unmistakable allusions to the
> Yale ugliness. “I have seen the effects of overidentifying with one’s group
> and witnessed mass delusions up close,” he writes. He rues America’s intense
> polarization, which perhaps makes this “an odd time for me to advance the
> view that there is more that unites us than divides us.” But advance that
> view he does.

Is it strange to anyone else that there'd be a run on sentence that starts
with discussing how deluded some people are and ends with trying to claim a
moral stance for unification?

~~~
thaumasiotes
You quoted four separate sentences. They all appear to be well-formed. Which
one are you calling a run-on sentence?

------
nkkollaw
I hate outrage culture. This must really end.

------
despera
The whole article reads like middle-aged man's crying for attention.

Well, i guess could be worse though. For example, over a decade Yale's
professor (now moved to Oxford) Stathis Kalyvas has even tried to whitewash
the greek military dictatorship.

Anyway, it's only a healthy sign that young people don't stay silent to
racism.

~~~
MagicPropmaker
I'm glad young people at least think about not staying silent to racism.

However, do not forget, these students were yelling at a man for a letter his
wife wrote. That is not defensible. It's also sexist--as if the man is the one
who's really behind all the wife's thoughts and can't think for herself.

It's too bad you can't say silent to sexism.

~~~
Yetanfou
It is too bad that so many people are so quick to put an _-ism_ label on
anyone and anything which they do not agree with, without giving a moments
thought to whether that label is really applicable and whether such overuse of
the terms might end up doing more harm than (supposed) good.

It is even worse that this attitude is so prevalent in institutes of higher
education where an open mind to a different view is _essential_ for the
institute to achieve its intended purpose.

Were this all confined to the realm of digital communications I'd suggest
implementing rules around the misuse of _-ism_ labels so that the negative
effects of a misapplied label would backfire, something akin to a moderation
system. As it stands now it is totally free of consequence to heap someone
with a bucket of _-ism_ s in the hope that some of them will stick.

~~~
MagicPropmaker
I was making the same point you are, though I was more subtle.

------
Haga
One must be gentile, I guess. Of cause, the lower classes have no way to be
that, stuck in a lowest wage war inflicted on them from up high. Well, this
new aristocrats will do with the land of the free what they always do to
societys. Human nature 1:constitution 0. Just another copy of Europe.

