“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.”
So let me get this straight.
It’s not ok to stereotype, let’s say black people, based on the actions of some of them. (This is a correct statement,)
But it’s ok to stereotype other types of people as not being trustworthy because some other people who might have held that same profession might not have been trustworthy.
What an interesting double standard! “Oppressed people” resent being stereotyped, but it’s ok for them to stereotype others. Politics of resentment.
@CCDD14
“Angry mob”?..wow…I’d hardly say a girl screaming at him is an angry mob. And yes it was his home as well so goes to wonder why so many of his student residents didn’t mourn his loss…
These kids feel pretty strongly about their HOS and Deans.
And I’d argue Yale hires folks who have, or should have a pretty thick skin. At least be able to manage some students who may be getting emotionally charged about a subject they feel strongly about…
That’s why they are placed in those positions because they are to have the skills and experience to know how to deal with challenging situations and facilitate.
Again doesn’t excuse a lack of civility on the part of the student who yelled at him (hope he was able to get to his play dough and teddy bear room like those “snowflakes” everyone is deriding) but the “screaming girl” is not the poster child for social justice movements…as much as you all want her to be.
And YES this conversation jumped the shark a long time ago…on both sides!
Over a thousand posts, and both sides (yes, including the one I sympathize with) have dug in so thoroughly that we’ve all forced ourselves into boxes that are self-parodies of our initial positions.
I guess it’s keeping us out of trouble on the streets, so there’s that, at least.
This - I tried a few times over this thread to try to find common ground, and at each step there was no room for even simple understanding of the other side (on both sides really).
I don’t think anyone has even agreed with the opposing side in any way in the past 20 pages. That’s why I would agree that this thread has “gone off the rails” - It’s no longer a discussion but simply repeating very similar arguments over and over and agreeing with others.
Virtually none of these sub-arguments link back to the original topic in any meaningful way, yet posters are acting like the arguments are life and death.
I would still propose a simple solution: attempt to find a new revised definition of safe spaces and trigger warnings (I again suggest a rename of sorts to get rid of the charged connotations) that preserve all free speech while still having some level of understanding for the students they are intending to help. That isn’t an amazingly hard task really - I think we can all agree (if everyone can get off their high horse of “my position is right 100% of the time” that there are cases where both concepts are helpful, and some where there are clear misapplications that should be avoided and labeled as such - bad misapplications.
Yes, that Yale student is an example of a bad use of a safe space, by the technical definition. Yes, she didn’t deliver her message well, at all. She did it pretty over the top and a bit disrespectfully. But why is it so hard to see there’s a point she’s making about a community and the role of a community leader - not everything is a black and white case (which people have seem to forget in this thread), and scolding the student on the internet makes no progress.
The biggest gap between each side is that somehow, over 68 pages, no one has agreed on an exact definition for the two concepts that define this thread - neither has UChicago. It’s still to start anywhere but there - can we all agree on that? How do you discuss something if you can’t even define it?
is a safe space free from micro-aggressions, or just macro-aggressions?
Example: the dorm has a Valentine’s Day party. Decorations for the party show an outline of a boy and girl holding hands, as well as the typical Cupid, flowers, etc. A gay person in the dorm feels marginalized. Is this dorm no longer a safe space? Of course, at the actual party, he brings his male crush and no one thinks twice about it because this is 2016 and if we are talking elite colleges, no one GAS. Is it now back to a safe space?
First, why is the party a “safe space” in the first place? This doesn’t sound like it was planned to be by your description. If this is a private dorm room, it’s up to the host to decide. If it’s hosted by the LGBT association on campus, then I think calling it a safe space would be fair.
The designation doesn’t really matter here beyond an ever so slight change in expectations. Regardless of safe space or not, I would say that an accidental “micro-aggression” deserves an appropriate response. Maybe simply mentioning it to the organizer/host later in the evening in casual conversation in a helpful manner such as “Hey I know you probably didn’t think about this at all, but your decorations affirm heteronormativity which doesn’t make everyone feel perfectly comfortable - mind changing that next year? It’s not a huge deal but every little bit helps! :)”. It shouldn’t be something to be blown out of proportion.
Another interesting point there is if a safe space is defined by mentality or action - can one action change a safe space? I would say that the purpose/mentality is what defines it. An action that goes against said mentality in a space that one defines as a safe space would be out of the spirit of the group/setting, but it would not change the space from a safe space - it would be more bad execution by the member who did said action.
Again, going full circle, I don’t think a Valintine’s Day party is a safe space unless hosted by a particular organization such as the LGBT group on campus or a student wants to declare his party/room as such. I think this underlines the fact that actual safe spaces are pretty rare - they are not the whole campus.
PS: Excuse my silly grammar errors on #1009 - a bit early in the morning.
I find it amusing that there are marginalized people in all these elite universities which charge over 60k/year to educate, house, and feed them.
I do know many innercity marginalized kids who probably don’t cost 60k over a 15 - 20 year period while growing up. The word marginalized is very abused.
I find it amusing that anyone thinks that expensive private colleges are magic unicorn farms where the problems of the wider society are completely absent.
(And, poof, I’m back into lurk mode. Sorry for the drive-by!)
You completely gloss over the concept of financial aid. Harvard boasts that parents making less than $65,000 are expected to contribute nothing - so any family under $60K a year would have an EFC of zero.
Harvard alone has 200+ students with parents making under $20K a year.
Very similar stats apply to other elite colleges with large endowments.
I hate the argument that “well, both sides are doing it”. One side of this debate has refused to move an inch. We have seen arguments that the KKK is being invited to UChicago, that shrieking girl was actually seeking a sober exchange of ideas, what kids are doing on campus is the same as tactics used by MLK and Rosa Parks, and my personal favorite, shrieking girl is really just a vulgar Ben Franklin. For those of you who espouse this view, @PengsPhils and @dfbdfb, what do you consider a position on the pre letter side that is not a self parody. And yes, I get that you think @alh’s analogy about the handbook is over the top. But I am not talking about rhetoric you disagree with, but actual positions espoused that are even half as nutty as those listed above.
@pengsphils - I said it costs 60k + but did not mention anything about aid. Someone is paying those bills whether it is schools or alums or endowment fund.
Based on numbers posted by Harvard, about 50% receive financial aid while the rest pay full.
Let us take the example of the 200 whose parents make less than 20k and support probably a family of 3 or more. Dont you think the kids are making out a lot better than their entire family when the school is deciding to spend that 60k on them? The family is barely making a living at 20k and I consider them very much marginalized compared to their kid who is attending a 60k per year college.
