@dstark
Cooperative debate is alive and well despite the naysayers!
I believe it was mentioned that the student from the video received harassing emails/phone calls etc because her identity was known that she left school. Not sure if she returned.
My husband’s 104 yr old grandmother lived to witness the UCB Free Speech Movement (watched as students protested up College Ave) and folks were calling it the “end of civil discourse” then.
I think we all survived that…and are none the worse for wear
Depends on how they interpret it. If they only allow one point of view on campus and then call all opposing views “retreating” and whatever else, then no, this letter does not give me more respect. We will see how it pans out.
@alh, there is most definitely a “free speech fallacy” on campuses. I’ve seen it on my own and it hasn’t been pretty. Universities must understand that they have a unique position to produce, mold, and set mindsets on their campus. Their positions demand that they allow such fruition of ideas to be grown in a culture where fear is not a catalyst for their actions. Debate can be troubling, yes. Discourse can be discouraging, sure. But there’s nothing quite so ugly than shooting out a steaming product that wilts at the signs of intellectual disagreement.
I don’t see the need for Play-Doh and teddy bear filled rooms on a college campus for adults. I believe the presence of them is reactionary and does not solve the root matter at hand.
“lukianoff used the incident he filmed, and put on youtube, for self promotion. He made out very well.”
So WHAT? I don’t care if he made a million dollars off it - how does that change or excuse her inappropriate, childish, discourse-shutting-down behavior? This is the lamest set of rationalizations. It’s like your kid hit someone else’s kid on the playground, the other kid’s mother saw it, your kid got caught and you justify it by saying the other kid’s mother shouldn’t have been on the playground, she should have been at work instead.
Not hitting you specifically with this, @Zinhead, you’re just the most recent to have done it. It’s been in heavy use among lots of people from both sides in this thread, it has.
One other thing often left out is that the entire focus of criticism assumes both parties are equals with the same level of power dynamics which isn’t the case.
The head of Silman and his wife are Yale Professors and one is the head of the residential college concerned. They have established positions of power within the university and also placed in a position of trust vis a vis the students at the RC concerned. The other side is a student who hadn’t had the decades of life experience, graduate degrees, and a position of power over students like her in areas ranging from being able to be given the greater benefit of the doubt by virtue of their established university positions, powers to enforce university rules according to their own discretion…whether it’s grades in the classroom or enforcement of university rules/regulations, etc.
And one effectively abused his position of trust and power by inviting a “friend” who has had an established partisan agenda to film inside of an area not opened to the public.
Those who defend him are either ignoring this great disparity in power dynamics or don’t care about it because unconsciously, folks in established positions of power in institutions/society not only tend to be given the greater benefit of the doubt, there’s also the prevailing belief among some that it confers greater rights for them to speak and act at the expense of those with less power than themselves…such as the students they are supposedly supposed to teach and in the position of RC head…serve as a supportive caring surrogate older brother/parent away from home figure.
@cobrat
Well said! Thank you!
As to the analogy previously posted…well…Lub (FIRE ) would be the creepy guy invited to a private playgroup, lurking in the bushes, filming your kid’s transgression and selling it on the web. Hardly an upstanding guy!
Moreover, these are the sorts of actions which reinforces the already strong distrust many marginalized groups already have towards those from the dominant majority…especially authority figures such as Profs due to past negative experiences with authority figures being dismissive at best or exhibiting marginalizing attitudes/behavior towards them during their formative years
It is Profs like that couple which make it harder for well-meaning Profs from the dominant majority to establish a good rapport with marginalized students as they now must work even harder to earn the trust of marginalized students due to the actions/attitudes of their more hamhanded colleagues.
Especially considering if someone from a marginalized group is wrong and makes a mistake in misplacing trust in a Prof or authority from the dominant majority, the consequences he/she faces in his/her career and sometimes even life are usually far worse than the reverse.
@cobrat: Power dynamics are totally irrelevant to this issue, unless you’re arguing that the dynamic is such that the students would be afraid to film. Many of them were filming, so that would be a tough sell. Plus, as I recall only one side was shouting. Subordinates aren’t known for shouting at their superiors.
I further have seen no evidence that the professor invited Lukianoff to film. My understanding is Lukianoff began to film of his own volition. He did so concurrently with several students.
I also resent your implication that I have ignored this power dynamic because I am unconsciously giving Lukianoff or the professor some extra leeway or extra right. I’m ignoring this supposed power imbalance because it is both laughably implausible (directly contradicted by all available evidence) and totally irrelevant.
“One other thing often left out is that the entire focus of criticism assumes both parties are equals with the same level of power dynamics which isn’t the case.”
(patiently) Different power dynamics are not an excuse for the “lesser power” to mouth off. She owed him the same courtesy of listening and dialogue as he gave her. You seem to be under some impression that the “stronger power” owes a greater level of deference and willingness to change one’s mind than the “lesser power” owes to the stronger power. This is, of course, not true.
“there’s also the prevailing belief among some that it confers greater rights for them to speak and act at the expense of those with less power than themselves…”
Except that’s not what happened here. You have it exactly backwards.
Even if RC had the “greater power,” he in no way acted as though it conferred upon him a greater right to speak. He invited her to speak. He invited her to dialogue. SHE is the one who did the “you shut up” maneuver. SHE is the one who felt that her opinion had to dominate and he needed to stifle himself.
Just because you (generic you) feel marginalized does not mean you are then owed “reparations” for it by having your opinion automatically dominate. Sorry. Too bad. Your oppression doesn’t make you the boss of me or anyone else, and you don’t get to accrue victim points that you are entitled to cash in.
Tonymom forgot to mention that the whole RC master family also lives in the college. So when the angry mob congregated under the windows of their home and started screaming obscenities at the master you can say that their “safe space” was violated too. Really violated as opposed to some hypothetical ideas about Hollyween costumes.
You know, perception isn’t always reality. Just because you (again generic you) “feel” oppressed by white/straight/affluent people doesn’t actually mean that all white/straight/affluent people have banded together in a mass conspiracy to oppress you.
