
We dissent - zabramow
http://claremontindependent.com/we-dissent/
======
tptacek
_Above all, we are disappointed that you and President Chodosh weren’t brave
enough to come to the defense of a student who was told she was “derailing”
because her opinions regarding racism didn’t align with those of the mob
around her. Nor were you brave enough to point out that these protesters were
perfectly happy to use this student to further their own agenda, but turned on
her as soon as they realized she wasn’t supporting their narrative. These
protesters were asking you to protect your students, but you didn’t even
defend the one who needed to be protected right in front of you._

It's like nobody on any side of any of these university free speech issues can
keep themselves on the rails. These people don't seem to get it either.

Students don't need "protection" from free speech, nor does anyone need to be
rescued from the "mockery" and "humiliation" of an accusation of racism.

Demands for journalism-free "safe spaces" are bad, but so too is the idea that
accusations of racism are so beyond the pale that people need to be shielded
from them by institutions.

~~~
wfo
It certainly seems that the mere accusation of racism (or not even racism --
just not making race your primary focus and language of discussion) is career-
destroying.

What I got from reading the article was the notion that the head of an
academic institution should not sit by and let a frothing mob that argues by
fear and destroying careers and screaming and swearing run any and all
discussion at the college; rather try to enforce a more cordial and respectful
mode of communication, be brave in his or her rejection of this attitude and
stand as an example to others that respect and dialogue are the cornerstone of
the mission of education.

The only "protection" they need is to be secure in the knowledge that the
enormous amount of abuse and harassment and attempts to attack their
livelihoods will be met with a firm defense of their ability to have opinions
by those in power, not a request for their resignation.

~~~
tptacek
The idea that some forms of speech are "career-destroying" and must be
suppressed is isomorphic to the idea that, for instance, an email about
Halloween costumes can be insensitive enough to cost a faculty member their
job.

~~~
JoshTriplett
I have no problem with the idea that certain forms of speech should end your
career. If someone starts yelling slurs at people, they shouldn't have a job
that involves interacting with people anymore. That doesn't infringe upon
their free speech rights; they can say anything they like, _and others can
respond accordingly_ , which includes firing them or choosing not to hire
them.

The question then becomes where to draw the line: _what_ speech deserves that
level of response? And that seems like a topic people can vigorously disagree
about.

In particular, any conflict of fundamental values generates heated debate.
It's "easy" to evaluate a conflict between a fundamental value and something
that isn't: the fundamental value tends to win. That's part of why people
rarely change their minds about fundamental values; not necessarily a feature.
But when a conflict arises between two fundamental values (say, "free speech"
and "non-discrimination") that many people hold simultaneously, people have to
actually think to resolve the issue. You'll get some people taking sides (such
as declaring "free speech" absolute and telling people to grow a thicker
skin), but you'll also get people learning to define their values more
precisely (e.g. your right to speak doesn't require others to listen without
reaction, or to give you a platform from which to speak).

~~~
tedunangst
Should they get their job back when they stop yelling slurs?

~~~
ddingus
Depends. They will have demonstrated a basic lack of consideration important
for that sort of work.

It is on them to make the case they now will demonstrate that consideration.

A very common thought will be, "they do, until they don't" and their case will
center in on that risk. If successful, they will improve on that basic dynamic
over time spent demonstrating that consideration.

~~~
progressive_dad
"I don't want to spend my life not having good food going into my pie hole.
That hole was made for pies."

-Paula Deen

~~~
ddingus
Case in point, yes?

------
rdancer
These intellectually bankrupt movements horrify me. Perfectly-well-meaning
people, while supposedly building a bright tomorrow, create hell. Just like
the 1950s Czechoslovakia. University execs scared not to cater to idiotic
demands, public shaming, double-speak, government-sanctioned kangaroo courts.

It's like _Lord of the Flies II: The College Years_.

I would like to know if the Hitler Jugend were like this, too?

~~~
randomname2
Indeed history repeating itself. Book burning started on college campuses as
well.

Not necessarily the Hitler Jugend, but Fascism was also considered an
"intellectual movement" in its heydays, very popular on college campuses with
perfectly well-meaning people.

~~~
_delirium
I don't think you're correct on that point historically. Fascism was mainly a
lower-class phenomenon, not really rooted in universities or intellectuals.
There were certainly a handful of intellectuals who did align with it
(esoteric pagan types in the Völkisch movement, some racial theorists, and a
handful of philosophers), but it wasn't their main base. For one thing, German
universities at the time had a quite large proportion of Jewish faculty and
students, who for obvious reasons were not sympathetic to the Nazis. And even
the right-wing part of the intellectual milieu mostly aligned with the older
conservative parties, not with the Nazis, who they saw as uncouth rabble. As a
result, the Nazis had to impose themselves on universities against
considerable resistance, and to do so had to fire a large proportion of the
faculty, and then appoint a bunch of its own functionaries to replace them.
There's a reason Hitler gave speeches in places like beer halls, not the
University of Munich.

~~~
vlehto
Fascism and Nazism are not the same thing. Nazism is subset of Fascism. Which
is lot more international phenomena. And it has had limited support in various
places.

My home country fostered few Fascists movements before and during WWII. One of
them included lots of people from academia. While curiously there is no
mention anywhere that they would have persecuted domestic ethnic minorities.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_People's_Movement_%2...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_People's_Movement_%28Finland%29)

------
nugget
These protestors just hurt themselves in the long run. That's the saddest
part. ''The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.''
Yes, and we all have a moral obligation to stand up to injustices that we see.
But embracing victimhood as an identity does nothing for you. It keeps you
stuck where you are and unable to move forward. You start to mistake pity for
respect. University administrators are doing them a huge disservice by making
them think otherwise. In the lion and tiger filled jungle of the real world
they are in for a rude awakening.

Marcus Aurelius, writing two thousand years ago:

"Our actions may be impeded, but there can be no impeding our intentions or
dispositions. Because we can accommodate and adapt. The mind adapts and
converts to its own purposes the obstacle to our acting. The impediment to
action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way."

I wish I had more than one upvote to give this editorial.

------
seibelj
I wrote a long argument but deleted it all in favor of this. Everyone needs to
toughen the fuck up and stop being offended so easily. Someone insults you for
being different? Welcome to real life, get some thicker skin.

~~~
__derek__
That's a very easy thing to say from a place of privilege, with current and
historical institutions set up to protect and enforce your (and my) interests.

Edit: Here, I'll put it better: by telling people from historically
disadvantaged groups to buck up and be quiet, you're effectively saying, "I
reject your understanding of your experiences, so your perspective is
invalid."

~~~
drumdance
How about asking them to behave like their role models? I cannot imagine MLK
refusing to talk to the media, or his follower breaking into tears because
someone said something they didn't like.

He loved the media because he knew it was his best ally. The media loved him
because he was courageous.

~~~
Retra
Not everyone knows their role model. I mean, the closest thing to my role
model would be Richard Feynman, but there's no way I could behave like him. I
wouldn't even know where to begin.

~~~
robotresearcher
Bongoes.

------
twelfthnight
In high school, I had a teacher who had a rack of books/comics which he lent
to students. One day, a single student complained about curse words / nudity
in some of the books, and the teacher was forced to take those books out of
the school. This struck me as silly. Why let one person's complaint take away
this great thing for all of the students?

Also in high school, there was a girl who was into hard core music and died
her hair blue. She was routinely mocked in the halls for being weird. This
also struck me as silly. Why should a person, just because they have a
minority interest / opinion, be forced to deal with such harassment?

I'm empathetic to both sides of this issue. However, I think we should
generally err on the side of not harassing people, even if that causes
unnecessary inconveniences for the majority sometimes.

~~~
rdancer
I don't think you're making your point very well: Being forced not to bully
Bluelocks does not inconvenience you. Having the opportunity (not obligation)
to read something you don't want to read does not inconvenience you either.

If anything, we should, in a secular state, agree that people differ in their
view of morality, and we should be tolerant of each other's needs, perceived
or otherwise.

~~~
iamsohungry
> If anything, we should, in a secular state, agree that people differ in
> their view of morality, and we should be tolerant of each other's needs,
> perceived or otherwise.

The problem is that some people's perceived needs are not compatible with
other people's perceived needs. In order to decide which group gets their
perceived needs, I think it makes sense to have a societal conversation about
which of those perceived needs are actual needs, and which of those perceived
needs are just wants.

------
pducks32
I just wanted to say that I was reading the comments here and it hit me that
this is the Internet I love. So often we talk about dialogue and having a
conversation and I really believe the Internet is perfect for that because its
hard to raise your voice on the Internet and silence someone else, but we
rarely get it because—for example—Facebook isn't very threaded and you have
your name attached and are only having a conversation with your "friends" so
its insular. On the other side is Reddit where charged things like this just
don't work well. However on HN people write thoughtful, dissenting, sourced,
and well-written arguments and we have full discussions. It's fantastic. This
is the Internet I love.

------
hackuser
Just a thought for those trying to figure out what's going on: If you find
what the protest movements are doing to be challenging, that's the idea.

Much social change begins this way; it's like disruption in tech. People find
the whole idea of it challenging to their worldview and comfortable status
quo, and they (we) respond predictably - angry, scared, dimissive. It's
_heresy_. But if the status quo worked so well, we wouldn't need social
change. In some cases, people get the idea and come around and what was heresy
becomes the new status quo (for the next generation to up end, upsetting the
current protestors when they are older and settled). It's similar to early
adoption of disruptive technology.

That doesn't make every disruptive idea, socially or in tech, good, but the
fact that it disrupts your social ideas is not, in itself, problematic.

For myself, when I feel myself responding that way, I try to take it as a sign
that there's something beyond my perspective that I don't understand.

~~~
BoxFour
Caveat: This is a response to a more general concept, not necessarily
applicable to this particular issue

> Much social change begins this way

Much social change also DOESN'T begin this way (see: OWS), and it can be
frustrating for people who agree with the underlying principles behind
protests but think the execution is disheartening and misguided.

Especially because these kinds of movements tend to be the story that gets
told: People with thoughtful dissents get eclipsed by the more vociferous and
extreme (one could argue that this is because extremes tend to be better
fodder for the media).

> For myself, when I feel myself responding that way, I try to take it as a
> sign that there's something beyond my perspective that I don't understand.

I think that's a somewhat simplistic view of it. It's entirely possible to
understand and have a developed perspective of an idea, and to still reject it
- sometimes vehemently.

Sure, some disruptive ideas are very challenging and ultimately end up being a
good thing. The vast majority are not, though. Sometimes those disruptive
ideas are detrimental, and it's not hard to see why people get angry when
those detrimental effects start surfacing in visible ways (e.g. anti-
vaccination).

~~~
hackuser
> it can be frustrating for people who agree with the underlying principles
> behind protests but think the execution is disheartening and misguided

I agree, but I also know that Martin Luther King got the same response; he was
unpopular at the time; see his Letter From a Birmingham Jail [1] for his
excellent description of his point of view. [EDIT: Covered in much more detail
in my other post [2]] From the perspective of the challangers, our status quo
beliefs and approach aren't delivering. From the perspective of many social
theorists, nothing really changes until you up end the current order. As long
as the status quo can sit comfortably at their desks and on their sofas, they
won't be motivated to change. I haven't studied the question, but that seems
plausible to me.

I don't know enough about these protests and their issues to form an opinion
yet; I'm just not going to reject them because they are disruptive to my
ideas. In fact, no matter what I end up thinking about them, it's a good
opportunity for me to re-examine my own beliefs.

[1]
[http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...](http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571341](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571341)

~~~
BoxFour
> I agree, but I also know that Martin Luther King got the same response;

It's funny you bring up MLK Jr. Here he is on Malcolm X:

> I met Malcolm X once in Washington... but I totally disagree with many of
> his political and philosophical views... I have often wished that he would
> talk less of violence, because violence is not going to solve _our_
> problem... I feel that Malcolm has done himself and our people a great
> disservice.

Emphasis mine there. MLK Jr. clearly understood he and Malcolm X were aiming
towards solving the same problem, but with very different approaches to it
(and MLK Jr. disagreed heavily with Malcolm X's approach clearly).

> From the perspective of the challangers, our status quo beliefs and approach
> aren't delivering.

That's a perspective of many people. Again, many people agree that problem XYZ
is _our_ problem. We can disagree on many other things besides that.

> From the perspective of many social theorists, nothing really changes until
> you up end the current order.

I suspect that's a contentious view point. There are certainly many recent
historical examples that would be evidence against that theory on both fronts:
Both significant changes occurring gradually, and upheavals that ended up with
results similar or worse compared to before the upheaval.

> As long as the status quo can sit comfortably at their desks and on their
> sofas, they won't be motivated to change.

I assume the "status quo" here means the general populace, and again I think
there are plenty of examples of change occurring even though the general
populace wasn't affected much.

Same-sex marriage in the US is a perfect example: The general populace didn't
do much other than agree that it was time to end the silly prohibition on
same-sex marriage. Certainly a minority of the populace was very active in
making sure that it became a reality (and vice-versa), but the general
populace really didn't do much to effect that change other than perhaps do
their civic duty in voting.

(Even then, a small influential body unaffected by the populace had the
largest effect)

> I'm just not going to reject them because they are disruptive to my ideas.
> In fact, no matter what I end up thinking about them, it's a good
> opportunity for me to re-examine my own beliefs.

Sure, and similarly it's worth evaluating whether thimerosal causes autism.
Might as well be safe. But once we've evaluated it and decided that it's not a
valid concern, it's perfectly appropriate to reject the idea that vaccines
cause autism.

I would further argue that it's appropriate to be angry at those espousing the
idea that vaccines do cause autism, because there are detrimental effects
involved if that idea were to take hold at large.

My point being: Not all disruptive ideas are necessarily worth being evaluated
over and over again, and some disruptive ideas are harmful and it's
appropriate to call them out as such.

It's also hard to disentangle a disruptive idea from its agents, and it can
also be appropriate to call out those agents acting inappropriately even if we
agree with their disruptive idea (as MLK Jr. did to Malcolm X).

------
hackuser
Here's a perspective on why the protesters seem to dislike news media
coverage. (I'll add that there is much criticism here with little
investigation of the actual facts and assertions of the protesters. I'm not
trying to take a side, but to add some substance to the discussion.)

"There’s a good reason protesters at the University of Missouri didn’t want
the media around"

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/11/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/11/theres-
a-good-reason-protesters-at-the-university-of-missouri-didnt-want-the-media-
around/)

 _Certainly, Tai - like any journalist - had a legal right to enter the space,
given that it was in a public area. But that shouldn’t be the end of this
story. We in the media have something important to learn from this unfortunate
exchange. The protesters had a legitimate gripe: The black community distrusts
the news media because it has failed to cover black pain fairly. ..._

I've read plenty, for many years, that corroborates this point of view.

~~~
facepalm
You could formulate that in a more straightforward way: people don't want
stuff they disagree with being written in the newspaper.

~~~
rdancer
people don't want _to be libelled_ in the newspaper

~~~
Jeema101
Opinion is not libel.

~~~
rdancer
You're correct. Defamation set in print is libel.

------
kelukelugames
The main criticism is that Dean Spellman referred to a marginalized student as
"not fitting the [Claremont Mckenna] mold". This is harmful. It is more than a
poor choice of words. She should have apologized and done some training.

But the students are young and have no where else to direct their frustration.
I hope Spellman can land on her feet. And I hope minority students can feel
less marginalized on campus.

~~~
001sky
I'd disagree, completely. Its just shitty english grammer.

The notion that somone might not "fit [a] mold", is a trivial comment. The
implication that if someone mis-states this comment as saying someone might
not "fit [the] mold" is simply the substitution of the definite for the
indefinite article.

Put another way, there is no "literal" truth to the comment. There is not [a]
mold; nor are there [any] molds that exist (in the literal sense) at any
college. That whole expression is a figue of speech.

TLRD--this whole thing is about a fucking typo in an e-mail.

~~~
kelukelugames
I hope you don't disagree completely with wishing Spellman luck in finding
another job and the students being in a better place too. ;)

Of course Spellman didn't intend to hurt, but leaders should have more
situational awareness.

I wish people here had empathy for the students. Being a minority in this
country can be hard. They are not upset because of a single grammar mistake.
They've experienced dozens of slights and want the campus administrators to be
more aware.

For example, here is a video of the Ithaca incident: [1]. The panelists had a
tone deaf moment due to a poor choice of words, and it's a moment that any of
us could have had. Of course, if you think it's 100% okay to refer to black
people as savages then we won't ever find any common ground.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-QNeQR3WAg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-QNeQR3WAg)

PS Look for the guy in the green shirt at the end of the video.

------
javajosh
I like it. I stand by and watch some leaders stubbornly refuse any culpability
at all no matter how universal the detractors, and other leaders crumble at
the first sign of frission. Clearly both are extreme reactions, and
problematic. I (we?) want leaders who don't pull a GW Bush and stick their
fingers in their ears for all criticism. We also don't want people like the
CMC chairwoman who give up so easily. I'm not sure what the middle ground is -
maybe Nixon? You resist for a while, then you give up. And in return, we let
you "retire" with some semblance of dignity. Or you resist for a while, the
attacks fade away, and you live to fight another day. Seems fair to me.

------
hackuser
The best place to start understanding social protest and its disruptive
approach (not unlike the disruption practiced by many in SV) is Martin Luther
King's Letter From a Birmingham Jail. I recommend the whole thing, but here
are excerpts [1]

\--------

 _16 April 1963

My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent
statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." ...

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement,
I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that
brought about the demonstrations. ...

My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil
rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an
historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges
voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their
unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be
more immoral than individuals. ...

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a
tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced
to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no
longer be ignored. ...

I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly
opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent
tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was
necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from
the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative
analysis and objective appraisal ...

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great
stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's
Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted
to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence
of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who
constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree
with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set
the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of
time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient
season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating
than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is
much more bewildering than outright rejection._

\--------

[1]
[http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...](http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)

~~~
drumdance
And unlike today's protestors, he would not ask that the media give him a
"safe space," nor would his followers cry over words. He knew that the very
presence of the media when they filmed his protests made him safer than
without them.

~~~
erikpukinskis
You have no right to speak for a dead man. Stand up for your options and
present them as your own.

~~~
drumdance
That cuts both ways. Social justice types like these claim the legacy of King,
so much so that they call people like Ben Carson an Uncle Tom. (I don't
support Carson by any means, but resorting to insults hardly bolsters ones
moral position.)

~~~
hackuser
> Social justice types ...

Who, specifically? Nobody said that. The person you are criticizing is your
own fictional creation.

~~~
drumdance
> Social justice types:

People like this: [http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_29111364/cu-boulder-
ra...](http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_29111364/cu-boulder-racism-
protest-canceled-after-african-american)

~~~
erikpukinskis
No one in that story is speaking on behalf of Martin Luther King.

------
rrauenza
Reminds me of the warnings in this article
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-
codd...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-
the-american-mind/399356/)

------
archagon
Say what you will about the situation, but every time something like this
happens, I end up being far more aghast at the reactions (see the article
comments) than the original incident. It's really gross and a good indicator
for why these flare-ups keep happening.

------
Shivetya
Sorry, but this whole college uprising is way too coordinated and the idea of
personal space/safe space, college costs, and the like, are just political
staging for the 2016 election similar to how OWS was for 2012. Its all backed
by groups with connections to political players who need to energize this
group as the candidate they will be stuck with is damaged and boring goods.

Figure the focus of one campaign will simply be "fixing" college, from how
students are coddled to offering to pay for it all. Just watch.

~~~
scarmig
That's pretty conspiratorially-minded.

Hillary Clinton's campaign, to the extent it has an opinion, would prefer
these mini-conflagrations simply not happen during the election year. They do
nothing except inflame the Republican base and alienate everyone except a
small subset of student and Tumblr activists. Their very existence suggests
that sooner or later she'll have to engage with the topic, which is a negative
sum game for the Democratic candidate compared to yelling about how crazy the
Republican candidates are.

------
joesmo
I wonder what these students will think when they get into an industry like
software programming that's full of racism and sexism that they have no
control over (if they manage to get past those obstacles to get in in the
first place). They are doing themselves a disservice by not learning how to
deal not only with people who hold different opinions than they do, but also
with people who are blatantly racist, sexist, or just plain assholes. While
the rest of us are trying to deal with the real issue of the loss of free
speech due to surveillance and censorship by authorities, they're contributing
in their own little ways the final blows to a free society, a contribution
undoubtedly much lauded by the traditional enemy of free speech, the state.
And in return, they make absolutely no positive difference to the status quo
whatsoever.

Even the hunger strikes are cute. A reminiscence of Ghandi? Seriously? It take
a lot longer than a week to die of starvation and I doubt any of those
students have the resolve to see a hunger strike out. The dean bowed down to
cowardice by being a coward herself so it's clear she's not cut out for the
job. I wonder if there are still people who are cut out for it?

As far as the issue of "safe space," if these students think such a thing
actually exists, they're too stupid to be attending college. A better
admissions process should weed them out.

~~~
quonn
> when they get into an industry like software programming that's full of
> racism and sexism

Is it like that in the US? Really? Especially when compared to other
professions. I do not know, but I have serious doubts. Please enlighten me.

~~~
gkop
_It depends who you ask_. From my vantage point, sexism is thankfully and
rightfully getting increasing attention in recent years in the software/tech
sector, but still persists widely. Unfortunately America is still full of
racism, including in software development, and so far tech has done very
little whatsoever to heed the problem. I can't answer your last question, I
don't know if tech is any more bigoted than other professions, my career has
been exclusively in tech.

