Well, she failed miserably if that was indeed her goal. Because it sure looked like her message was shut up and do what I say.
At some point your argument runs into the actual meaning of the words used. A person screaming “be quiet” and “shut up” and “your job is to do x, y or z” is not seeking to engage in debate. Similarly, the professor saying “I disagree” is not in any reasonable version of reality “pushing” kids.
And what evidence do you have that Lukanoff “was brought along to film”. And why exactly was it Christakesis’ job to stop FIRE from publishing the video? Was it shrieking girl’s responsibility to stop the students visibly filming her diatribe from disseminating those videos?
It is obvious that the argument that the video shouldn’t have been posted is based entirely on the fact that “shrieking girl’s” actions were dispicable. It is a lot easier to demonize the other side when there is no contemporaneous record.
“The message the girl in the Silliman quad wanted reaffirmed was “be thoughtful” about how your actions affect your fellow students and the context in which she wanted it reaffirmed was her home away from home and the people from whom she wanted reaffirmation were the couple whose job it was to make that home a welcoming and comfortable place for a diverse group of residents.”
She chose a pretty un-thoughtful way to make her point. Shouting “be quiet” is not the hallmark of someone engaging in thoughtful dialogue. What pretzels you will all twist yourself into to avoid saying that she was immature and out of line. Which are not Cardinal sins but by god, own it.
Is there a video of this? Would love to see it
BTW, just a little observation. Social media is so brutal nowadays. One slip and it may haunt you for the rest of your life. Jerelyn Luther, the girl who lost it in the Yale video will now forever be defined by that one outburst. It is as if that is all she is as a person. There is nothing to her other than this short video clip.
I am sure we all have moments where we have been less than stellar in our behavior specially as college kids. Could we withstand something like that being posted online and then being ridiculed for years about it?
I guess what I saying is that irrespective of how we feel about the issue, we can always choose to either have compassion for or contempt for this young lady.
Isn’t that the most pronounced way to express our individual freedoms?
Lukianoff said he was filming to protect his friend (Christakis). Note that Christakis approached the kids (who were chalking the quad) – the kids didn’t confront NC. And NC approached the kids with Lukianoff in tow rather than solo or with his wife. I’d be curious to know whether he identified Lukianoff to the students.
Here’s Yale’s policy in filming:
"Out of concern for the privacy of our students, faculty and staff, we do not allow cameras or any other recording devices into our residential colleges or the gymnasium. In rare circumstances, we may allow cameras into our classrooms, but this must be arranged well in advance.
Access to some iconic locations is granted on a case-by-case basis. These locations include:
Sterling Memorial Library
Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library Residential College courtyards
Woolsey Hall
Battell Chapel
Harkness Tower"
Even if Lukianoff didn’t know it, presumably NC did or should have. NC should have told L not to film in the courtyard. NC is the person Yale put in the position of enforcing/implementing school policies at Silliman.
Then the question becomes, if xx % of the students in the class decide to stay away, can the Prof legitimately test on the topic? And then, what’s the academic point?
I would have been ashamed to find any of my children behaving that way. I’ve often cringed at some of my children’s responses that at times seemed a bit boorish and uncouth but these people are beyond the pale. None of mine would expect people to apologize or berate a professor in such ridiculous way. How crass and unproductive these people are. We have devolved.
@Marian Good point about the timing! This feels like grandstanding …in a divisive polarized time in our country.
@bluebayou A better time would be in the school year after UCH has an actual incident that has happened…
ESP since the dean has used an alternate meaning for the words trigger warning and safe spaces than what actual on campus activist groups use the wording to mean…
This thread was merged and was a little confusing to me for a while, because the two threads seemed to me to be having different discussions.
Exacademic had some explanatory posts on the Chicago letter, which were very illuminating and educational to me. They are early on in this merged thread.
I appreciate those with faculty experience taking the time to write here. Thank you.
I actually think that before an incident was the best time. Once there’s an incident some people tend to get too invested in the specifics and the free speech component gets submerged (or appropriated by people with other agendas). I think the letter had one ill-considered paragraph (trigger warnings/safe spaces) which functioned as a kind of dog-whistle and distorted what I assume/hope was the main message the Dean wanted to convey.
That’s possible, I suppose, but what about the current students about to walk into midterms/finals? (On a quarter system, seems like a test is always next week!) How would that address Marian’s point about “trapped kids”?
(Hint: one reason why a lot of academic policy changes get announced during the summer.)
@bluebayou BC of the Dean misconstruing the terms trigger warnings/ safe spaces from what activist groups actually use them to mean, son has some LGBT activist friends about to attend U Ch who feel like it is was an unfair assault on them/ their work because they don’t actually get to campus until Sept 16 …so they can’t invite a counter discussion of what those words actually mean and are used for.
and interestingly the story has been picked up by majority of major media outlets… which further puts those groups in an harder place to defend/ define their message… who is getting to have a discussion… seems like just the dean to me
One thing that doesn’t get discussed much (at least not that I have seen) is the impact of the articulated demand for “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” on other students. As someone noted upthread, this has been translated in multiple ways. At my DS’s high school, students frequently label other students’ comments as representing the “rape culture” and talk, sometimes in jest, as triggers. My DS, who is quite liberal, is worried that he may inadvertently say the wrong thing in college and get suspended. He doesn’t have much of a filter, perhaps the result of his ADHD, and is sure that he may say something in jest to a friend or make a sarcastic comment and end up getting the boot because he has inadvertently sexually harassed or triggered someone. College needs to be safe for all students and if we regulate too much, not only are we impinging on free speech, but we are also making all students feel vulnerable to being identified, perhaps falsely, as sexist or racist.
@pittsburghscribe
"is worried that he may inadvertently say the wrong thing in college and get suspended. He doesn’t have much of a filter, perhaps the result of his ADHD, and is sure that he may say something in jest to a friend or make a sarcastic comment and end up getting the boot because he has inadvertently sexually harassed or triggered someone. "
schools don’t want litigation (on either side) so I don’t think he is going to see a lot of frivolous suspensions… I don’t really think this is what is meant by trigger warnings or safe spaces
“So would you be ok with “trigger warnings” if they were not called trigger warnings?”
I think it’s a very bad name that sets up the situation in a negative way that focuses on the listener rather than the content. I’m much less troubled about a “content list” than I am about a trigger warning because it does not posit that some vulnerable groups are just too explosive to cope with learning. That is how a lot of observers are seeing this.
As I said above, I am not seeing trigger warnings for veterans. I’m seeing them for women, and I am concerned that this plays into long-standing narratives about hysterical women who are too emotional for higher education. Calling them something more value neutral would be a good start.
@runswimyoga - he knows that speech has consequences and he knows the legal definition of sexual harassment. The reason why he knows it is that a good friend of his was suspended for alleged sexual harassment. The problem is what the friend said was crude, but it was not sexual harassment. Unfortunately, the suspension went into effect immediately. I did help his friend get the principal to retroactively re-label his offense as the use of inappropriate language so that he didn’t have to tell colleges he was suspended for sexual harassment. The reality is that a lot of people, including high school administrators and high school and college students, don’t know what sexual harassment really is. Crude banter between friends is not sexual harassment.
I think you are right that he is unlikely to be subjected to a frivolous suspension in college, where administrators are much more sensitive to litigation and more educated as to what things like sexual harassment really mean and I have told him that. But high schools are becoming overly sensitized and I can’t imagine that he is the only one who fears that college may be similar.
“I’m seeing them for women, and I am concerned that this plays into long-standing narratives about hysterical women who are too emotional for higher education. Calling them something more value neutral would be a good start.”
YES. It plays into right wing narratives about cushy, protected students who can’t handle alternate thoughts or a minute’s worth of discomfort.