@Ohiodad51 It bothers me that blogs would further seek to exploit students and safe spaces this way without truly understanding and portraying the dynamics in play at the campus (to readers) and what safe spaces truly are…
This video and website smacks me as rhetoric pure and simple. Something is wrong (to me) when college students become your public enemy #1 … Thats just my opinion though.
Pretty well behaved? You can’t possibly be serious. To the extent anyone does actually take you seriously, free speech as a concept is obviously implicated here. It is equally obvious that places of learning should think hard and long on the benefits and drawbacks of permitting unbridled expression in all its forms. The government is only implicated if the question is a restraint on the right as guaranteed by the constitution. But to state that free speech as a principle does not exist outside of the federal government is simply wrong.
@runswimyoga, I agree that college students should not be “public enemy #1”, noir should they be exploited. That said, I am not sure I grasp the idea that people are not allowed to state that the ideas and attitudes expressed in the various videos are both wrongheaded and anti ethical to the free exchange of ideas. How else do individuals learn? Surely you understand that the problem many of us have tried to highlight is the very strange idea that not only are protesters of a certain ideological bent absolutely correct, but that any disagreement with their perspective is not allowed and somehow nefarious. Sunlight has always been the best disinfectant, and I at least find it wrongheaded and more than a little dangerous to argue that it is wrong to disseminate unaltered video of the event itself.
More to the point, I posted the link in furtherance of another favorite quote of mine - “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” It seemed an apt point to make given the various disquisitions on how none of this stuff is actually happening on college campuses.
But don’t you also see for the students to get to this level of anger, there must be other history/ dynamics at play here? That a video taken (perhaps wrongly) in the height of anger wouldn’t necessarily portray the whole story of what happened to cause the explosion?
Have you ever yelled at your kids and boiled over? What if someone only shot the film of you (without your knowledge or consent) yelling at your kids and then portrayed you as a monster parent nationwide? Would that video be the whole truth?
Setting aside how we individually feel about “safe spaces”, I just really cannot find any way in my mind to justify the manner in which this man was spoken to. Video #4 starting at 2:30 was very hard to watch.
Over the course of the last 2 videos he must have apologized at least a dozen times in an effort to de-escalate the whole situation – nothing seemed to suffice. Quite honestly my perception is that he wasn’t quite sure what he was apologizing for. I wasn’t sure either – His wife’s email? Not remembering their names? Not listening? Not taking sufficient care of them? Coming to Silliman and changing things?
I am trying hard to understand the students’ complaints but he was in a no win situation. Nothing was going to get resolved at that gathering.
Why do we have to judge these students at all? Why do we have to pretend we understand and condemn their experience as wrong based upon snippets of video (illegally obtained) that plays into a rhetoric of others who aren’t taking part in their experience? Why not just listen and let the students figure it out without our condescension or further name calling /exploitation?
@runswimyoga, sure I get your point. But if I yelled at my kids in my front yard and my neighbor’s friend filmed it, I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in complaining that he was somehow wrong for doing so, or that he set me up to stage the event. Nor would it necessarily matter if I was usually a good dad. The actions as depicted in the video would tell you something about me, and depending on the scale of the “boiling over”, it might tell you quite a lot.
Additionally, I think there is more to do than simply validate the student’s feelings. That indeed is the point. Many of us believe that a college should be more than a place to validate feelings and preconceptions. And yes, of course there needs to be balance. But screaming at professors because of an e mail about college students using their own discretion, or setting up safe rooms with puppy videos and play doh because someone doesn’t like a speaker is way off the page, in my opinion.
And FWIW, no credible argument has been made, here or elsewhere, that the videos were illegally obtained.
And to turn your last question around, why shouldn’t the students listen to the professor? If one thing is clear from these videos and the several other incidents, it is that the protesting students seem completely uninterested in any perspective but their own.
Nicholas Christakis wrote a book about how people can influence everything another person does and experiences …
Let that sink in for a moment.
Do you really think he was taken aback by this whole scene that unfolded given the premise of his book?? Or perhaps could not susceptible young minds have been swayed by his conditioning to get a reaction that maybe he wanted them to give him given that he knew he had a reporter filming that day in the courtyard?
From the Amazon site about his book
https://www.amazon.com/Connected-Surprising-Networks-Friends-Everything/dp/0316036137?pf_rd_mnb=ATVPDKIKX0D34&pf_rd_stb=center-2&pf_rd_rat=0817NMRY4ZRQZM6P18TH&pf_rd_t3r=101&pf_rd_ptd=470938631&pf_rd_ied=507846&tag=buaazs-20&pf_rd_ptd=470938631&pf_rd_ied=507846
“Christakis sought out a collaboration with Fowler, a health systems and political scientist, and together they compare topology (the hows of a given structure) across different social networks to better explain how participation and positioning enhances the effectiveness of an individual, and why the “whole” of a network is “greater than the sum of its parts.” Five basic rules describe the relationship between individuals and their networks-including mutual adaptation, the influence of friends and friends’ friends, the network’s “life of its own”-but the results do more than promote the good of the group: they also spread contagions; create “epidemics” of obesity, smoking and substance abuse; disseminate fads and markets; alter voting patterns; and more.”
and
“Connected by Nicholas A. Christakis Md, PhD and James H. Fowler, PhD is a fascinating and intriguing novel. Christakis and Fowler expose the extraordinary connections within different social networks. The way they analyze how everyone is connected within “six degrees” of each other. It is also interesting how they adopted the conclusion that emotions can spread from and to “three degrees” away from you. For example, my friend’s friend’s friend is upset because her dog died, her being upset could ripple through the social network and upset me. In addition, they grasped my attention when they began to explain how our behaviors mimic each other. Christakis and Fowler have observed that people react in ways similar to their co-workers, friends and/or family. This observation makes me wonder how many of my reactions are mirrored reactions of those around me and how many are solely mine? Surprisingly they believe the way others portray people as attractive or not so attractive can also be spread through the “three degrees” and mimicry. I guess the idea of individualism doesn’t really apply in this novel because it is all based on the fact that we are all connected in some way whether it be personal and/or emotional.”
I thought the premise of their book was that some influences flow through social connections – perhaps more than we would think. This makes sense to me although their contention that it happens up to six degrees of separation is harder for me to accept. But I don’t perceive this influence to be something that can be summoned at will and am not sure it is predictable.
Are you suggesting that he had some sort of power through his social connection with these students that he was somehow able to “produce” their response? And that he was able to do so at a designated time and place when Lukianoff happened to be on campus? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but I think that is a pretty big stretch. My perception is that the confrontation unfolded organically.
He is an incredibly well trained (from the best IVY institutions!) sociologist, behavior and human nature expert, he was named one of the most influential people in the USA in 2009, and named in 2009 and 2010 Best in the entire world…!! You really mean to tell me he could not assuage some college students if he really wanted to??
With reviews of his book (that I have not read) stating things like I posted above
" they grasped my attention when they began to explain how our behaviors mimic each other. Christakis and Fowler have observed that people react in ways similar to their co-workers, friends and/or family. This observation makes me wonder how many of my reactions are mirrored reactions of those around me and how many are solely mine? Surprisingly they believe the way others portray people as attractive or not so attractive can also be spread through the “three degrees” and mimicry. I guess the idea of individualism doesn’t really apply in this novel because it is all based on the fact that we are all connected in some way whether it be personal and/or emotional."
I do not feign to be so naive that this is all happenstance … I have learned that many people have ulterior motives and agendas and so much is due to politics that are unseen to what we are aware of… by digging you may uncover more than the surface story… I definitely think there is more to this story!
There are two months of history (or more) that wasn’t captured in a video.
The students viewed the Halloween email, sent by his wife in response to the students comments about what is appropriate costumes for Halloween, as not her call and racist.
The students listened to the professor. They listened to the professor before this gathering occured. The professor wasn’t listening.
I listened to a podcast about this. Maybe it was from one of these authors.
I think the above is true. I do this all the time. I think we all do.
We can affect other people’s behavior by our own behavior and the professor knows this.
This video is posted in various ways; with the headline “Crazed Yale students attack staffer…” and “Yale students yell at Professor”
Would the general public’s reaction to the video be any different if the headline read “Upset Yale students yell at dorm parent”
I’m reading a book by a Yale prof about propaganda, but not posting any quotes.
Article from the Brown Daily Herald about a free speech debate between Lukianoff and Professor Stanley Fish:
http://www.browndailyherald.com/2016/09/16/free-speech-debated-constitution-day/
"After listing this variety of situations where free speech can be curtailed, Lukianoff then defined his two beliefs that make him “radical” in his defense of free speech. The first principle is the bedrock rule where, “you can’t ban something simply because it’s offensive … (because) offensive is too subjective,” Lukianoff said. Next, he defended “viewpoint neutrality,” which means “you can’t ban viewpoints you dislike,” he added.
Lukianoff ended his talk with the advice: “Make it a goal to seek out smart people with whom you disagree.”
"…Fish said. Universities must protect themselves against outside forces that try to shape their political agenda by employing “gatekeepers” — like deans or professors — who choose what voices should be heard on campus.
Engaging in academia and social justice in the same space is “a debasement of teaching and of social justice,” he said.
“The university is less democratic than it is Darwinian,” he added."
@alh, yeah, I think that most reasonable people would still find the screaming and moral certitude evident in the videos off putting, even if the headline was written as you suggest. That is why the attack has been on one of the people who shot the video, and why people who support the students want such things banned. Because the conduct exhibited is indefensible.
And I know I started this digression, but my intent was not to start another round robin on “watch these crazy kids on the video - no, I don’t like FIRE, they’re bad”. I personally find Reason to be a thoughtful, serious publication with a worthwhile voice to contribute to the larger culture. I think the article makes some good points on the debate here, namely the difference in how safe spaces are perceived and whether the more expansive definition on display in the Yale case is supportive of marginalized students or anti intellectual. Anyone have thoughts on that?
The Yale case is not an academic issue. This isn’t some anti-intellectual issue.
The residence is perceived as a safe place because the residence is a safe place. This is according to Yale.
The students were hurt by what they perceived to be a racist email sent by the master of their home and the professor did not understand this and instead tried to turn this into a free speech issue. This made things worse.
The professor wasn’t listening.
But “safe place” isn’t just defined as “what some people think of as safe.” The young woman in the video (I’m not recalling her name) doesn’t get to define what SHE considers safe space for everyone. Who died and appointed her queen?
I don’t know how many people here listen to On Point, the podcast and radio show hosted by Tom Ashbrook. There was a show that aired recently about safe places and triggers. Among the guests were a Univ of Chicago professor and a couple of Univ of Chicago students.
I thought it was a very interesting show with differing views. The show was 45 minutes, but if you listen at 1.5 times the normal speed, the show is only 30 minutes. 
No, the students weren’t READING the actual words put in front of them.
If the Christakis email had said, “We think it’s great fun to offend others. Here are costumes we recommend. Sexy Pocahontas! Slutty Anne Frank! Sombreros for all! Aunt Jemima! We ourselves are going to be dressing up in blackface, see you on the quad! Happy Halloween, kids!” you would have an actual point that it was a racist e-mail.
The email said, in plain English - we think you students are well equipped with the tools of discourse to confront and discuss instances of costumes that may offend you and we trust that you would be able to resolve such things because you’re smart and empowered; you don’t need Yale to ‘babysit’ you in that regard.
Just because stupid people interpret that as a “racist” email - or perceive it to be a “racist” email - doesn’t actually MAKE it so, dstark. I don’t really give a rat’s behind about their “perceptions” of the email if they aren’t actually grounded in reality. Perceptions can be wrong, you know. And in this case, their perceptions were indeed wrong. They attributed racism to an email which wasn’t racist. So they don’t get excused for their overreaction.
I listened to the OnPoint podcast about safe places and a Chicago professor said students should confront those who wear costumes they perceive to be racist.
Well… The students were confronting the professor and her husband for what they perceive to be a racist emai sent by the masters of their house.
The students aren’t stupid.