
The New Intolerance of Student Activism - gearoidoc
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/#article-comments?single_page=true
======
bendykstra
I found one quote in an op-ed in the Yale Herald regarding the controversy
especially surprising and revealing.

> They [Erika and Nicholas Christakis] have failed to acknowledge the hurt and
> pain that such a large part of our community feel. They have again and again
> shown that they are committed to an ideal of free speech, not to the
> Silliman community.

It is simply incredible to see anyone criticized for having a strong
commitment to the freedom of speech. It's all the more amazing that it
happened in a newspaper and on a college campus. The paragraph (as well as the
rest of the piece) also seems to acknowledge that the demands of the
protesters are at odds with the rest of the community's right to free
expression. At a minimum, it acknowledges that the Christakises' position is
one of principle, while failing to respect that fact.

The newspaper is offline now, but the op-ed was located at
[http://yaleherald.com/op-eds/hurt-at-home/](http://yaleherald.com/op-
eds/hurt-at-home/). It's still available in Google's cache.

~~~
locopati
They seem to be okay with freedom of speech for themselves, but not for the
freedom of speech that goes with a reaction. Furthermore, why should freedom
of speech trump community? We all recognize that in certain groups you don't
just say whatever you want for the sake of it (e.g. try that at work and see
how long you last); harmony within a community is important. Arguing for
knowingly offensive speech/actions negates the importance of harmony.

~~~
Jtsummers
Per the letter she isn't arguing for offensive speech, she's asking (among
other things) when does certain speech (here represented by costumes) become
offensive? A paraphrase: Why can my friend's 5-year old _white_ daughter dress
as Mulan, but a 22-year old white woman can't? That's a valid _question_.
She's not declaring that the latter is ok, but _asking_ why we currently
accept the former and not the latter. At what age is the distinction made
between "Oh, she's so precious" and "She's appropriating a culture that's not
her own!"?

And if you want to go with community and what's appropriate. It's a fucking
college. Colleges are places of discussion, learning and debate. College is
the place to be offended. To learn why something is offensive, why something
else is not, and determine whether offense is appropriate or not.

~~~
iofj
As a non-American, what is wrong with a 22-year old white woman dressing as
Mulan ?

~~~
Jtsummers
I don't know. But some people find it to be crossing a line. I don't get it,
but I'm also not in a particular minority group (religious minority in my
area, but I don't get upset about sexy nun costumes) that's commonly
discriminated against.

Some people might see it as cultural appropriation. But it's a fictional
character. Similarly, my ex-girlfriend often (with the approval of her
Taiwanese and Chinese friends) dressed in some traditional Chinese outfits for
Halloween for several years. None took offense, they encouraged it!

It's really hard to tell what's going to offend and what's not.

~~~
vectorjohn
The concept of cultural appropriation as somehow offensive is misguided in my
opinion, but

"with the approval of her Taiwanese and Chinese friends"

Is the wrong argument to make. It's the equivalent of "I say offensive black
jokes around my black friends and they think it's funny."

~~~
Torgo
The aggrieved always initially present their offense as being representative
of the entire community of x. Saying "my friends are OK with it" is a way of
saying "you don't speak for all X" and puts them in a position of replying
"well maybe the people who know you best and live in your community aren't
offended, but they should be according to this essay on critical race theory.

------
Zikes
There is a disturbing trend over the past few years of using social activism
as a pretense for outright harassment and bullying. The most disturbing part
is that it allows the harassment to happen completely out in the open. The
harassers will gladly sign their own name to the actions, with the implication
that if anyone should question them then their detractors will be the next
target.

Welcome to the New McCarthyism.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> The harassers will gladly sign their own name to the actions, with the
> implication that if anyone should question them then their detractors will
> be the next target.

> Welcome to the New McCarthyism.

New? How does this differ from the Old McCarthyism?

~~~
avn2109
>> "New? How does this differ from the Old McCarthyism?"

I'm not the OP, but I think the OP's claim is that this McCarthyism pretends
to be about social issues instead of pretending to be about communism.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Communism, as presented and as applied, was and is nothing but a social issue.

~~~
avn2109
Undoubtedly true in one sense of the word. But "social issues" for today's
Yale undergrad probably pertain more to The Patriarchy and racist
microaggressions than to the things that most self-professed communists
discuss.

------
CM30
Anyone remember when students seemed to be actually fighting for freedom of
speech, and universities were about challenging people's ideas and
assumptions? What went wrong all those years ago?

Seriously though, this sort of thing worries me more than any government
activity or corporatism. Who needs authoritarian politics where (what seems
like) a decent amount of the next generation wants to shut down anything they
deem 'offensive' or 'uncomfortable'?

~~~
calibraxis
The Christakis family is quite powerful at Yale, certainly in comparison to
the students trying to get them replaced. They were Co-Masters at a Harvard
house, and one of them extended that position to Yale. In 2009, one made Time
magazine's list of the 100 most influential people in the world.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_A._Christakis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_A._Christakis))

Yale students do not get to run their own university. So when they want to
replace some backwards, incompetent administrators, they must turn to
activism. They can't merely decide to hire better ones.

> "this sort of thing worries me more than any government activity or
> corporatism."

Thanks for sharing your priorities. Government and corporations are the
dominant power structures which lead to international mass murder ("war"),
subordination/obedience, surveillance, mass incarceration... But students
replacing backwards administrators are most worrying of all.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
I think the poster may have a point. Student activity is an indicator of where
society in general is going. If students are so easily swayed by their
definition of intolerance, it can have serious ramifications throughout
society.

Those students become the next consumers, neighbors, managers, politicians,
lawyers, judges, and, indeed, activists. Their power is not in angry protests,
it manifests slowly, in the kinds of products people sell or buy, or laws we
promote or demonize.

The reason I suspect student intolerance is perceived as a big problem is that
for whatever nasty things THE SYSTEM is up to today, those students represent
who will run it tomorrow.

~~~
oh_sigh
There were approximately 20 students that I saw in the video. Out of
thousands. I think society is going to be okay.

~~~
andrewmcwatters
And yet I can't read HN without seeing this garbage.

------
gregshap
The problem with this article is that the author is claiming that all this
outrage is over one email, and thus the reaction is disproportionate and
damaging.

The outrage might be over the top for a single email, but that is not the
context experienced by the students protesting. As a white guy with a good
job, the Atlantic author and I share the privilege to experience race if and
when we choose. From that perspective, it's easy to call this "a fight over
Halloween costumes"

For the women who say they were turned away from a "white girls only" party,
and for many others, it's not a fight over an email about Halloween costumes.
It's about having administrators who acknowledge the reality that they
experience on an ongoing basis:

It's worth reading another side of the story before jumping to conclusions:
[https://medium.com/keep-learning-keep-growing/what-s-
really-...](https://medium.com/keep-learning-keep-growing/what-s-really-going-
on-at-yale-6bdbbeeb57a6)

When you see all the context that the Atlantic author, Mr Friedersdorf,
chooses to ignore, you should think about the political agenda behind a piece
like this.

~~~
norea-armozel
I'm glad you mentioned this. I was on the fence initially and even had a bit
of a spat with Popehat on Twitter over it (blocked by him now, heh). In the
end, I'm getting really tired of people taking one side of an issue as the
universal truth when there's much more going on. Some people may not be good
at explaining things like the woman in the FIRE video, but that doesn't seem
to be the entire story or even a significant part of it.

Worse yet, some are taking this as a launching point to dispose of the "safe
space" concept without knowing what exactly defines a "safe space." For people
who don't have anything to lose (white, rich, heterosexual, and non-
transgender) this is fine. But for the rest of us who depend to communicate
and get support on safe spaces online and offline it's a big deal.

~~~
Zelphyr
_In the end, I 'm getting really tired of people taking one side of an issue
as the universal truth when there's much more going on._

This is what I find missing in most discourse anymore. It's like nobody has a
feel for nuance anymore so every issue is black or white and couldn't possibly
be anything else.

------
marcoperaza
Most troubling is that no one stands up to these bullies. I saw this firsthand
as a student at a similar institution in the last few years. The faculty,
administration, student leaders, and even trustees at these schools are split
between a minority who support the activists and a majority who dare not speak
out, lest they become the next target. Instead of standing firm and true to
the age-old academic principles of free expression, inquiry, and exchange of
ideas, they try to appease these groups in hopes that they'll go away or move
on to another target. But each extorted victory only emboldens them more.

~~~
sotojuan
They appeal to these groups because they bring money. I go to a Jesuit school
and they appeal to these groups as well (even if they couldn't care less about
Jesuit values) because well, they pay.

------
rm_-rf_slash
I have a theory that the Internet has done two things to make people less
tolerant of others, instead of more.

First is the echo chamber phenomenon, which I'm sure we are all familiar with
and requires no further introduction.

Second, I suspect, is the amazing speed at which technology has upended the
world. Where technology can have an impact, it can change things at light
speed compared to what our parents and grandparents put up with.

Take TV for example. For decades, televisions were tiny, expensive black-and-
white boxes. Then after a while they became affordable, small-but-not-tiny
black-and-white boxes. Took a bit longer until color television was the
standard, less time for decent resolutions to be expected, even less for
HDTV/4K. Not to mention the proliferation of content from 1-5 channels to
thousands.

I believe that as technology changes life at a rapidly increasing pace,
people's expectation of a rate of change is accordingly affected. We want
things now, or tomorrow, or next week if we're really looking forward.

Mix that attitude with an echo chamber and you have a sizable cohort of well-
meaning young people who are perturbed - if not outraged - that the societal
ills of thousands of years of cultural development haven't been resolved
yesterday, and anybody who calls to question the new attitude or the speed of
its implementation must have a racist/sexist/pro-refined-sugars agenda.

~~~
caskance
As long as the change is a good one, it's for the best that it be done
quickly. Look at how quickly public opinion shifted on gay marriage and
marijuana legalization relative to similar issues in the pre-internet age. I
expect that most people on hn approve of those changes and are therefore happy
that they don't have to wait another 30 years for them to be enacted.

------
vezzy-fnord
When I saw the reemergence of postmodern feminism and critical theory brewing
up over the past couple of years or so, initially on fringe alt-media like
Tumblr blogs, I just expected it'd be another brief intellectual trend that
would fizzle out.

Nope, it exploded into an all-out culture war I couldn't have imagined.

Unsurprisingly, all this identity politicking has been met by a swift
reactionary movement in bile like _The Daily Stormer_ becoming surprisingly
popular given how niche the ideology generally is. It's a buffoonish
competition of "more persecuted than thou".

Meanwhile, liberal values get to bite the dust.

------
rayiner
Only $13.81, new: [http://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-Mind-Education-
Impove...](http://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-Mind-Education-
Impoverished/dp/1451683200).

> The student explodes, “Then why the fuck did you accept the position?! Who
> the fuck hired you?! You should step down! If that is what you think about
> being a master you should step down! It is not about creating an
> intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It’s about creating a
> home here. You are not doing that!”

Bloom places a heavy emphasis on extolling to college students the virtues of
western intellectual tradition, and reactions like this one show why.
Willingness to entertain ideas that could cause social disharmony is actually
pretty unusual among world cultures. It's unusual in the western world, but
even more so nearly everywhere else. It's not the natural order of things.
It's a discovery, an achievement, but one that can be lost to time.

------
jimkri
From what I have experienced in college so far is that either a student has
experienced something or not, and the students who have not experienced
something are the ones to protest. Students who have not experienced racism or
Genocide-from the article- only know it from what they learned in school,
online, or some other medium. So when they think they hear something that is
about those "things" they jump up and go crazy. The last part of the article
is what I am mostly talking about.

I could also talk about the first part too, like the video of the girl yelling
at Nicholas is so interesting. You want to stand up for something, yet you
cannot have a conversation about it and just yell at the man?

------
Mikeb85
When political correctness goes wrong...

Seriously though, what is wrong with people these days that they can't even
have a dialogue?

Is this the result of the us vs. them propaganda started by George W. Bush?
The result of an education system which forces students to only memorize, and
not to think? The result of a generation of helicopter parents?

Regardless, it's scary to think that in this day and age in which we consider
ourselves so 'progressive', people attack others' beliefs (even very moderate
ones) with a zeal that would make ISIS proud...

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> Seriously though, what is wrong with people these days that they can't even
> have a dialogue?

Postmodernism. Seriously.

When you teach that there is no real truth, that "truth" is merely a
sociological construct, that all speech is only about power (because it
literally _cannot_ be about truth), and a bunch of impressionable 18-year-olds
listen and believe you, and start to act on what they believe, this is what
you get. Why would you expect something else to happen?

[Edit: slight softening of language, so that it was not unintentionally
accusative.]

~~~
Mikeb85
Not going to lie, wasn't expecting an answer. I really like your explanation
(if not the direction it may lead society)...

Edit - your language was fine. I still like your explanation. Provocative
language belongs in discussions like this regardless, even though I didn't
take your message that way.

------
mcgwiz
I think understanding this situation completely requires an enormous amount of
empathy. Whether one agrees with the protesters or not, it's unfair to
characterize them merely as fighting against freedom of speech. I am sure they
recognize the speech aspect of this, but to them, that is second to what they
perceive to be the central issue: equality. Arguable perhaps, but I hold that
the issue of equality trumps that of speech.

This issue is related is part of a larger trend whereby arguably minor
transgressions trigger significant protest (see the Atlantic's coverage of
Oberlin). My take is that after an oppressed class completes the initial leaps
and bounds toward equality, tactics of old (e.g. nonviolent peaceful protest)
cease to effect further change. New tactics therefore must evolve in order to
close the remaining gap. This gap is relatively small, but its size isn't the
point - the fact that a gap, based merely on class identification, exists at
all should not be accepted.

The current tactics might not be perfect - I posit they are still evolving.
But they do effectively utilize available resources and processes (e.g.
content virality) to draw massive attention to issues.

As for their characterization by MSM (e.g. the protesters are "bullies", they
have fostered what is uncharitably called a "victimhood culture") we are
simply observing (or participating in) the attempt to resolve cognitive
dissonance between evidence of social inequality and the intellectual status
quo.

------
jegutman
It's pretty crazy to me that I fought with my campus 10 years ago for pro-
speech issues, it seems the administrations haven't gotten any more tolerant
of speech (if anything less tolerant) and the students now seem to be fighting
the administration in the opposite direction!

I think there are mix of issues going on here that are getting handled oddly.

1) Debating ideas versus the validity of groups. In my opinion if there's
overt racism, there is room for the campus to intervene to make sure they have
an inclusive environment. However if they're debating something (intentionally
picking something else) like whether or not there should be dogs on campus or
whether or not dog owning is a good idea in the abstract, this is a completely
fair discussion. Unfortunately both types of discussions are happening which
is making the debate more difficult.

2) Offensive speech Some people will hold and express ideas that others find
offensive. As long as this speech is not designed to directly dehumanize or
devalue contributing members of the community this probably has to be allowed
to have a healthy dialogue.

3) Lots of poor judgement. I suspect many of the incidents (other than the
overt racism which is separate) that have crossed the line were not intended
to be offensive, but I think some of them were deeply offensive. If you do
something deeply offensive I think it's reasonable to be received with a
somewhat hostile reaction (demands for apology, anger towards group, etc).
This is probably not the most effective way to engage people, better to try to
explain why what they did is deeply offensive. I think it's completely
reasonable for the school to try to encourage a positive, thoughtful
interaction between people without trying to police every minor injustice.

~~~
jegutman
This line pretty much summarizes the issue: "They’re behaving more like Reddit
parodies of “social-justice warriors” than coherent activists"

------
mcphilip
Reminds me of the "In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas" NYT op-ed [1] that
lists a lot of similar scenarios to the one at Yale.

I have no problem with an NA group asking participants to respectfully focus
on recovery and minimize talking about all the crazy shit you did as an addict
-- participation is voluntary, after all. Imposing a similar "safe space" in
the real world is obviously impossible. Attempts to ostracize those who dare
suggest that a university campus should model the real world instead of a safe
space is really insidious.

[1][http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-s...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-
shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=1&referrer=)

------
heapcity
If the students articulated a reasoned response instead of acting out an
emotional catastrophe; they would be ignored. The real issue is the 'viral
promo' culture which encourages ridiculousness and outrage.

------
roymurdock
The author fails to give this story proper context, and it seems like many in
this thread have not read the article and are simply venting based on the
title and a brief glance over of the author's arguments.

This is not a demonstration of "SJW" or students acting like sheltered
children. It's about students protesting against a campus culture that they
feel discriminates against them. Such as when a frat house explicitly banned
black girls from entering on Halloween. [1]

This is the closest the author comes to addressing the real issue, rather than
picking anecdotes and quotes to defend his thesis while hyperbolically [2]
bashing the "activists":

 _Some Yalies are defending their broken activist culture by seizing on more
defensible reasons for being upset. “The protests are not really about
Halloween costumes or a frat party,” Yale senior Aaron Lewis writes. “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.”

But regardless of other controversies at Yale, its students owe Nicholas and
Erika Christakis an apology. And they owe apologies to other objects of their
intolerance, too._

This is bad and misleading journalism written to generate views and stoke a
flame war by bringing in the popular theme of college-student-as-inept-
coddled-child-who-fights-for-trivial-things-and-bullies-others.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-
point/wp/2015/11/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-
point/wp/2015/11/05/a-confrontation-over-race-at-yale-hundreds-of-students-
demand-answers-from-the-schools-first-black-dean/)

[2] _This beggars belief. Yale students told to talk to each other if they
find a peer’s costume offensive helplessly declare that they’re unable to do
so without an authority figure specifying “any modes or means to facilitate
these discussions,” as if they’re Martians unfamiliar with a concept as
rudimentary as disagreeing in conversation, even as they publish an open
letter that is, itself, a mode of facilitating discussion._

~~~
tptacek
I read the context for the article in several other places, and the original
Christakis mail, and I think you're incorrect.

There _was_ apparently a racist incident at a frat house, but Christakis had
nothing to do with it. The ire Christakis faces appears to derive entirely
from the email Erika Christakis wrote. When the girl in the campus quad
screams at Christakis that he's disgusting, should resign, and should not be
able to sleep at night, she's yelling because he refuses to apologize _for the
email_.

~~~
roymurdock
I, too, read the letter, which was my impetus for doing further research of my
own. It seems pretty benign and progressive when read with no surrounding
context, so I found it hard to believe that some of the smartest students in
the country would have such a poor reaction towards it.

This was the big deal, apparently:

 _" There was so much coded language in that e-mail that is just
disrespectful," said Ewurama Okai, a junior._

I'm not arguing against free speech, but it seems like many interpreted her
comments to be accepting of a pervasive and ingrained culture of racism at
Yale.

It's unfortunate but understandable that some students got so worked up that
they behaved poorly and acted on emotion, rather than rationally, which they
later did with the petition and various letters/articles addressing the issue.

We should be focusing on the overall themes of the argument rather than the
specific anecdotes of what one student said or did which may not be
representative of the entire body.

~~~
tptacek
To me, it sounds like it's a crime to be wrong about something regarding
racial issues at Yale.

The Genius annotation of the letter makes a lot of totally reasonable
arguments, reasonable enough that I would characterize the whole letter as
"somewhat wrong-headed" now. But _so what_?

~~~
roymurdock
So if something is wrong, you fix it!

I'm not sure that calling for the Christakis' resignation is the correct
remedial action, but if you were being discriminated against, wouldn't you be
angry and ready to fight? Especially if you were promised a safe haven from
racism and discrimination at one of the country's most elite schools?

Most of the stuff I've seen on Facebook from Yale students has been directed
towards the frat, so I'm surprised there isn't more of a mention of that whole
incident in this story either.

~~~
tptacek
Well here's "activism" in a nutshell for you. By screaming, spitting on
people, and trying to oust them from their jobs, the protesters have assured
that virtually nobody who isn't already on their side is going to care about
their concerns.

If the Chisakises had an actual problem with racial insensitivity, their
opponents were given ample opportunities to allow Nicholas and Erika to hang
themselves with their own words --- the protesters wrote open letters, had
campus debates, &c. Instead, they jumped the gun.

~~~
roymurdock
The sad thing is that HN is responding in a similar manner, with people quick
to judge and condemn the students as spoiled children.

I don't have a horse in the race, and I wanted to call out the author's
blatant bias, and yet I was immediately downvoted to the bottom of the thread.

I am disappointed to see these knee-jerk reactions gaining consensus when we
have precious little insight into the issues at hand and how they are actually
being dealt with.

------
metaphorm
seems to me like a huge part of the problem here is treating the screeching of
tantrumming children as if it were the reasoned speech of mature adults.

at some point the university administration needs to simply stop acknowledging
this as an acceptable form of communication. it isn't. once those children
leave the university they'll discover that for themselves all too soon.

------
pm24601
As a liberal, I am embarrassed by the simplistic display of liberal values at
Yale.

It all seems rather childish. Erika wrote the most open wise letter that
basically expressed the desire to not render judgement.

The students are angry that they didn't want to judge others.

Sounds a lot like the troubles Jesus got into personally.

------
cousin_it
Anyone who says "apologize to me" is a schoolyard bully imagining themselves
as Rosa Parks.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
There are situations where the only way to create progress is for the
perpetrator to realize that what they did was wrong, _why_ it was wrong, and
try to fix things (as much as possible). It's not a totally wrong concept.

The way it's being applied on college campuses is insane.

------
Overtonwindow
College is changing so much. Ten years ago college was a place where you went
to be challenged in your beliefs, ideals, perceptions on reality and society,
and be regularly offended by people and ideas that were not your own. I can't
imagine trying to go to college today. We've traded freedom to learn and
express ourselves, for the freedom to be free from anything uncomfortable or
offensive in any way. WTF.

------
Nadya
The use of poisoning language is what has given them power for so long.
Luckily their overuse of labeling _everything_ to be problematic/racist/sexist
is going to be their downfall. When air conditioned offices began to be
labeled sexist [0], reasonable people began to see through all the bullshit.

It is sad that the absurdity has been allowed to go on for so many years
before the average person decided to be reasonable and push back. I'm glad
that people are finally waking up and realizing that a culture where _dressing
up for Halloween_ is "potentially offensive" is absurd [1].

I fear a world where I can no longer purchase a kimono because it has been
labeled as "potentially offensive" and "cultural appropriation" of the
Japanese people by a group of disproportionately white "progressives". While
ignoring how the Japanese people feel about it, of course. Also - even if you
were Japanese you wouldn't be allowed to wear a kimono. After all, it is
possible to appropriate your own culture [2].

[0] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11760417/Air-
co...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11760417/Air-conditioning-
in-your-office-is-sexist.-True-story.html)

[1] [http://www.geneseo.edu/community/show-your-true-
face-2015](http://www.geneseo.edu/community/show-your-true-face-2015)

[2] [http://www.mrctv.org/blog/ontario-high-school-halloween-
cost...](http://www.mrctv.org/blog/ontario-high-school-halloween-costume-can-
t-appropriate-your-own-culture)

------
chris_wot
If the students are bullying, then name them! The only way I can see to stop a
bully is to fully expose them.

~~~
Zikes
This is exactly the tactic those bullies use on their victims. "But it's okay
because we're on the right side" is exactly the reasoning they use, as well.

~~~
protonfish
But right or wrong is what is of actual importance. Your attitude of
relativism is at the heart of anti-intellectualism: the belief that there is
no difference between right and wrong, it's all just opinion. I do believe in
right and wrong, and I believe you should fight for what is right using the
best techniques you can.

Saying that effective tactics should not be used because bad people also use
them only disempowers those under attack.

~~~
Zikes
I do believe in right and wrong, but I do not believe that there are no bad
tactics, only bad targets. Internet vigilantism isn't going to work out for
anybody, it'll only perpetuate the cycle without resolving the core issues.

------
Overtonwindow
Who was it that said "You have freedom of speech, not freedom from speech" ?

------
imgabe
Universities are dead a source of innovation and critical thinking. They'll
probably lumber along for another century or so from pure inertia, but the
people with really new, radical ideas are going to go elsewhere.

Between the censorship, "safe spaces" where people refuse to even think about
an idea they find offensive, the decline of academia as a viable career path,
and the overwhelming tuition costs, I think talented and ambitious people are
going to be spending as little time as possible at universities in the future.

------
littletimmy
At least part of the blame lies in these colleges' Women and Gender Studies
departments. I don't know if any of you have ever taken a WGST class, but at
my school (Ivy) it was essentially institutionalized activism. People were
_taught_ that they were victims. It had very little intellectual depth, no
alternate theories were taught, and the students who did best were the ones
who "felt" the strongest about the "injustices".

These students then take these lessons out into the open, and are infernally
convinced that they are _Right_ and everyone else is wrong. It is shameful
that these pseudo-philosophies are allowed to be taught in school as if they
have any intellectual depth. Their only purpose is to radicalize the students
into being loud self-righteous people.

So there's that, plus there are completely ineffectual helicopter parents who
have coddled their children so much that they grow up spoiled. I saw the video
of that person at Yale shouting at the professor - if my mother saw me do that
she'd slap me in the face. What a despicable display of disrespect towards a
reasonable man.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> People were taught that they were victims.

As opposed to what? Teaching that we live in a fantasy world where everyone is
actually treated equally?

~~~
littletimmy
There's a middle ground between victimhood and equality.

"To accuse others for one's own misfortunes is a sign of want of education. To
accuse oneself shows that one's education has begun. To accuse neither oneself
nor others shows that one's education is complete." \- Epictetus

------
Steko
No surprise that literally the worst article on the Yale race issue would be
the one that shoots up HN.

> Erika Christakis' ... message was a model of relevant, thoughtful, civil
> engagement.

That is a parody of bullshit.

She refers repeatedly about "censure and prohibition but do read the email she
is complaining about [1] and tell me where the requirements are:

[1] [http://pastebin.com/TLGSdaTg](http://pastebin.com/TLGSdaTg)

> 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

From the genius annotations to her email [2] by April Joyner:

[2] [http://genius.com/8083098](http://genius.com/8083098)

> 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

 _This is an example of a straw man argument. The original email from the
Intercultural Affairs Council said nothing about blond-haired children wanting
to be Mulan—or children at all. The email listed “wearing feathered
headdresses, turbans, wearing ‘war paint’ or modifying skin tone or wearing
blackface or redface” as examples of Halloween costumery that could be
culturally insensitive. Christakis also likens college students, most of whom
(legally speaking) are adults, to young children._

~~~
tptacek
There are plenty of things in Erika Christakis email I disagree with too. But
the student protesters aren't demanding that their disagreement be heard.
They're demanding that Nicholas and Erika Christakis resign from their
position over it.

~~~
Steko
My main point here was the tone of Friesendorf's article and his ridiculous
glorifying of Erika Christakis' email which starts off 'I don't wish to
trivialize' and then proceeeds to (foreshadowing) actually trivialize the
issue by reducing concerns about college students in blackface to 6 year olds
wanting to dress up like Mulan.

For the larger issue of whether her husband or she or both should resign/be
fired or not that's a more complicated issue and I don't see much of a serious
conversation in the comments here. For people who's job description includes
being "responsible for the physical well being and safety of students" to be
this tone deaf on race[1], resignation strikes me as a legitimate demand.

[1] "Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away,
or tell them you are offended." The less said about 'look away' as a policy,
the better. As far as 'telling people what is offensive', correct me if I'm
wrong but isn't that exactly what was happening in the first place when they
sent out an email that essentially said 'maybe don't be an asshole this
Halloween'?

------
the_watcher
The Atlantic (and, unsurprisingly, the current season of South Park) have done
a great job highlighting the problems that extreme PC-culture can create.

------
dudul
I'm not gonna get down the rabbit hole of discussing if these students are
coddled or if they behave like little kids, but it is very scary how their
first reflex is always to go after the job of the person who disagrees with
them.

In today's society it is incredibly violent to go after another person's job.
It is what they've been doing for many years, 8 hours a day, it is a way to
provide for their families. You're basically trying very hard to hurt a whole
household just because one person disagrees with you.

~~~
masterleep
It is certainly a misguided and disproportionate tactic, but it is not a
violent one.

~~~
7afc2c69fd4fde6
This is absolutely violence

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IEFD_JVYd0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IEFD_JVYd0)

~~~
tptacek
No, it's not. It's yelling. Yelling is not violence. Words mean things, and if
you need an illustration, think of all the times the police have used the
false equivalence between discourteous or angry speech and violence in order
to harm people.

------
dudul
Considering the reactions here to this incident, I wonder if at some point
there will be a counter reaction by certain colleges.

I wonder if some universities will start advertising that they don't care
about "safe spaces" and "puppy time". In the end, in the US, universities are
in it for the money, and there seems to be a market for students who want to
learn and not have to deal with this BS.

~~~
natrius
The danger of cultural waves like this is that there might not be a market for
schools that stand up to it. If this mentality is prevalent enough in a whole
generation of students, there may never be a school willing to stand up to it.
It'll just become the new normal.

~~~
caskance
Come on now. There will be at least _a_ school that stands up to it. There are
still universities that ban premarital sex, for crying out loud.

~~~
MrZongle2
Sure. But will they be around in another generation? If so, will they still
hold on to their (current) set of values?

------
Avshalom
Alternate theory: Professors may go on leave accept lucrative private industry
jobs then come back 5 years later to a promotion. Mean while people who have
social and institutional power will continue to pretend that these students
were a threat to the status quo.

------
carsongross
It is unfortunate, but traditional liberals will have to ally with some rather
distasteful right-wingers to end the insanity.

~~~
sea2summit
SJW's are authoritarian, much like distasteful right-wingers. These people are
like a secular version of the Christian Right.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Wow, I never saw it quite so clearly like that. You are right. The SJW angle
really is the "logically" equivalent doctrine of religious dogma.

------
tribeofone
PCU into the Netflix queue!

------
zeveb
As far as I can tell, all the students in this outrage should be expelled. I
doubt even a community college would want them; let them wallow in obscurity
and reflect on their misdeeds.

~~~
Zikes
It's their position as victims that lets them get away with these actions in
the first place. Further "victimizing" them will only give them more power. It
will let them further capitalize on the "David vs Goliath" war against the
university itself, and the media will inevitably side with the underdog
victims.

~~~
giardini
I disagree.

Expel them, escort them off campus, get restraining orders to keep them away
both physically and virtually. Shut down all of their student accounts and
access. When they resist toss 'em in jail and sue them.

Responding weakly to this kind of madness (and it _is_ madness) will only lead
to anarchy.

~~~
Zikes
Individually, they are expressing freedom of speech. What is the basis for
expulsion, jail, and civil suits?

~~~
giardini
No reason need be given for expulsion. Yale AFAIK is a private university and
business and can do as it wishes.

The reason for jail would be violation of a restraining order. The reason for
civil suit would be damages to the university's image or property.

The problem could be cleared out in 3 days and not a stir of it left after a
week, were the administration willing to maintain control of their campus.

