
The New Intolerance of Student Activism - trevin
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/?single_page=true
======
peterhadlaw
Those students should be embarrassed. Yelling at someone who gives so much of
their time to help build up the students. In such an belligerent way at that -
either my way or the highway. On to of it all, the have the lack of dignity to
suggest that because of an email that hurt their feewwwings they can't live in
their luxurious dorms... Give me a break. What's are some of our people
turning into?

~~~
norea-armozel
That's not the full story. It seems much of the issue revolves around a series
of complaints at least going back to last year where separate incidents of
racism (one case where Swastika labels were found in a dorm hallway) that went
unanswered. At this point in the story, I'm not buying the theory that one
letter is the cause of the mess. Bureaucrats are always lazy and unwilling to
address concerns in any situation/setting in my experience. Yale wouldn't be
the exception is my bet on this heuristic.

~~~
peterhadlaw
I'm Polish. Honestly, if I found a Swastika, I'd say a prayer for the sorry
sh1t that has such a messed up mind as to even use a Swastika. People are so
sensitive and I'm sorry but I think I have a bigger beef with a Swastika than
any person of color will ever have.

~~~
norea-armozel
That doesn't justify such things happening on a campus. I'm sorry, but if I
found another student doing that sort of nonsense I would file a complaint
with the university to have them ejected just on the matter of defacing
property alone (the racism component just is salt in the wound imo). If people
can't act with some taste or courtesy then they don't need to be in any
university or college, imo. I already had my fill of shrill conservatives at
Wichita State to deal with this nonsense.

~~~
zaccus
If it's for defacing property, sure. That should be punished. But I'm not cool
with punishing people for expressing an idea. Lots of people believe things
that I strongly disagree with, or even find
deplorable/offensive/vile/whatever. I acknowledge my difference of opinion and
get on with my life without acting like a crybaby. That's part of being an
adult.

Free speech is more important than your feelings, or mine. This might not be a
popular opinion anymore, but I don't think anybody should be kicked out of
school _just_ for drawing a swastika, or saying anti-semitic or racist things.

------
mbfg
Wow this is disturbing. One wonders whether this is a transitory time for kids
that they grow out of, or if the future becomes more dystopian quickly.

I also wonder if this is a just a symptom of rich-kid schools. I can only hope
your typical state-school student body is more rational.

------
norea-armozel
The conclusion of this article I think is overly simplistic and it's driven by
a need to justify various forms of bigotry under the guise of free speech,
imo. Certain ideas shouldn't have an airing since their time has come and
gone. We no longer need to 'learn' about eugenics since it's been shown to
never fit with the scientific evidence.

For example, transphobia has been deliberated in the marketplace of ideas and
they lost out to the evidence to the contrary on numerous points (ex. claims
that transgender individuals commit more suicide post-GRS has been proven
false by numerous studies). There's no more room for debate on such issues. If
people want to continue to "teach the controversy" or whatever, they can do it
on their own time but not that of other's.

~~~
pram
lol at this prole defending orthodoxy in the hallowed halls of Wichita State.
umm there is NO room for debate heretics, the matter is canon

~~~
zaccus
I think he's criticizing your idea that:

>There's no more room for debate on such issues.

There is always room for debate on any issue. It might be a one-sided debate,
but you're clearly implying that the debate should be suppressed, which is
absurd.

~~~
norea-armozel
So, human rights should be debated as to warrant their existence? I don't
think so. If that makes me a the "big meany weany" for folks like him then
good. I don't have time for it. Being transgender myself and having to deal
with all the issues that it comes with on a personal level makes less
empathetic towards non-transgender people's concerns. Simply put, if he and
others thinks my life should be contingent on his feelings then I'm just not
going to discuss the matter with him. I'll just cut them out of the
conversation entirely. Nor do I owe them or other people with similar
sentiments a say in my life. If I pay my way (which I do) then you get zero
authority over my life: fact.

I've heard for _years_ that being transgender is bad, evil, and all other
kinds of undesirable adjectives without a hint as to how or why. And when
something that resembles a coherent argument is made, I often find it's
dependent on an irrational belief that's easily dispelled. Even when the
arguments are dispelled the opponents refuse to acknowledge it and move on.
They just double down on the vitriol and expand their program to deny rights
to even access opportunities in the marketplace, be it healthcare or
employment opportunities. When it becomes a choice between living in the
closet (probably killing yourself in said closet) or living outside the closet
and getting abused for being transgender (physically, economically,
psychologically, and so forth) then enough is enough. There's literally zero
excuses to be made. And many like myself now have a zero tolerance policy in
debating the matter.

Either you're on board for civil rights or you're not. There's no nuance from
the opposition. The opposition made their argument and it was lacking. Deal
with it.

/rant

~~~
13thLetter
> So, human rights should be debated as to warrant their existence?

Yes. Everything can be debated. If you are unable to defend your preferred
position in a debate, maybe it isn't as perfect and obvious as you thought it
was.

> And many like myself now have a zero tolerance policy in debating the
> matter.

Great! It's a free country. You don't have to participate in any debate you
don't want to. But if, rather than just bowing out of debates, you start to
demand that everyone else just step in line with your position, and threaten
and mob them if they don't... well. Then I'm afraid we have a problem.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Yes. Everything can be debated.

Fundamental moral axioms _cannot_ really be debated (in the sense of rational
argument based on logic and evidence); they can only be accepted or rejected.

Furthermore, if you can't agree on them, _nothing that rests on them_ (that
is, any question of _should_ rather than _is_ ) can be debated either.

~~~
13thLetter
Let's say that you're right about that.

What's the consequence, then? War of all against all, as the Yale students
seem to want? Or we learn to coexist with people who have different
fundamental moral axioms from us?

I vote for option B.

~~~
norea-armozel
If you want people to peacefully coexist then you have to establish civil
rights. No one's existence should be contingent upon personal sentiments or
arbitrary morals. Either, we all have the same rights or we have none. There
should be no debate as to who should have these rights as they benefit all.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
But rights depend upon 'personal sentiment or arbitrary morals' all the time.
Who I rent out my upstairs room to - I'll decide. Which clubs I join; what
movie theatres I frequent. And these things have economic/social impact beyond
me - the theatre will close if it doesn't show movies acceptable to a large
enough population etc.

So we argue about 'privilege' like that can make a difference. Its at root,
the majority vs minorities. The game will always be slanted toward the
majority, because free market etc.

I'm in favor of peaceful coexistence, and treating everyone fairly. But I'm
only one. The market (there are markets even in non-commercial/social
transactions) will dominate the game.

I'd be more interested in following the dialog, if there was one. We have
folks making up rules on every side; inventing new words and theories and
constructs. And shouting down folks from other viewpoints. Its all designed to
impede real dialog.

~~~
norea-armozel
"But rights depend upon 'personal sentiment or arbitrary morals' all the time.
Who I rent out my upstairs room to - I'll decide. Which clubs I join; what
movie theatres I frequent. And these things have economic/social impact beyond
me - the theatre will close if it doesn't show movies acceptable to a large
enough population etc."

Economics doesn't factor into law. SCOTUS on the matter of Equal Protection
has already spoken so economies adjust to legal realities (not vice versa).

"So we argue about 'privilege' like that can make a difference. Its at root,
the majority vs minorities. The game will always be slanted toward the
majority, because free market etc."

Privilege in racism is the concept that you and I based on our ethnicity can
take certain conditions for granted. For example, I'm white so I rarely feel
need to change my behavior when a police patrol car passes me on the road but
a person of color is acutely aware of the situation and must act above/beyond
what the well adjusted citizen should act (more polite, more timid). Privilege
is the freedom to not notice a power disparity since you have all the power or
the social norms in your favor to acquire it. Markets don't factor into it
either. Markets are the affect of social orders not their cause.

"We have folks making up rules on every side; inventing new words and theories
and constructs. And shouting down folks from other viewpoints. Its all
designed to impede real dialog."

Okay, I'm not going too mean here but do you realize that POC aren't a
position of power, right? If I get caught with a blunt I'm more likely to get
a slap on the wrist since I'm white versus a person of color who may get a
judge who'll throw the book at them. Just by being white I have a
statistically better chance of lesser sentence for just about any crime.

Just because POC say mean things to you on Twitter or to your face doesn't
equate being shouted down. They (and you) have a right to not associate nor to
consider any ideas if they (and you) so wish. So, please don't assume the
"truth is the middle." It's time for people to just accept that the truth in
this matter be it racial equality or LGBT (emphasis on the T imo) rights is
very clear. The only debate should be on how best to handle the injustices in
question.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Sure I've followed the issue enough to know (some of) the jargon. But labeling
it doesn't solve it, that's my point.

That's all fine theoretically. But in the end, a theatre showing films of
interest to a minority will close, if they haven't got enough population to
support them. Markets squeeze folks out all the time. All the laws in the land
won't change that.

Training, oversight, education can all make a difference. I'm with you on
what's right. But its tilting at windmills to try to legislate much of it.

~~~
norea-armozel
"Sure I've followed the issue enough to know (some of) the jargon. But
labeling it doesn't solve it, that's my point."

Labeling is part of identifying problems which is necessary to figure out what
needs to be fixed.

"But in the end, a theatre showing films of interest to a minority will close,
if they haven't got enough population to support them. Markets squeeze folks
out all the time. All the laws in the land won't change that."

Again, your example isn't even applicable to the real world problems that pose
POC and other minorities. Can you actually stay on topic?

"But its tilting at windmills to try to legislate much of it."

And yet even George Will of all people in an interview on Econtalk (years ago)
said that affirmative action may have done some good considering the time it
was enacted.

So, I think you're in the minority here in terms of opinions.

