Depends on what “OK" means. There’s a profound difference between disapproving of something and prohibiting it.
Case 1: University attempts to educate students about the feelings of others in regards to their choice of Halloween costume, but is not prohibiting certain costumes or punishing students for their choice of costumes.
I have no issue with this; it’s probably a good thing since many students may not have thought about this issue or may have grown up with very limited experience. Universities should feel free to educate students all they want, just as Associate Masters and others should feel free to debate this too.
Case 2: University prohibits certain costumes or punishes students for their choice of costumes.
I have a pretty big problem with this since I lean to the free speech absolutist camp in university settings. I might endorse this in certain very extreme cases, but definitely not as a general matter. Let’s take two examples -
Case 2a: University prohibits use of blackface and puts students on probation for violating this restriction.
I think I could be OK with this for reasons I’ve outlined already.
Case 2b: University prohibits “Sexy Pocahontas” costumes and puts students on probation for violating this restriction.
I’m not OK with this. Even though I understand how Native Americans might be offended, I don’t think the motivation or the history behind these costumes is to demean Native Americans. I don’t view this as falling into one of the limited number of exceptions to free expression that I would make. Of course, as a man I have a large conflict of interest here since I’m almost always in favor of women dressing in sexy costumes of any sort
Although I might make exception in certain extreme cases, I guess my position can be summarized by the following -
"My disagreement is with people in this thread (if there are such) and elsewhere who think it’s perfectly OK to dress up in costumes demeaning other ethnicities. "
Depicting and demeaning are two different things and it would behoove all to remember the distinction.
Not a mischaracterization. And quotes are literal. I suspect that the difference between your interpretation and mine relates to whether you read the text in isolation or in context. Read in isolation, EC casts herself as a defender of free speech. Read as a response to an email urging students to be considerate in their exercise of their right to free expression, it reads more like an incitement to do whatever you please because college/Halloween is a time for transgression. Arguably, it gets even worse in that she seems to be casting those who object to offensive costumes as threats to “free and open society.”
“Arguably, it gets even worse in that she seems to be casting those who object to offensive costumes as threats to “free and open society.””
No, she’s objecting to the notion of the college being put in a position of having to “regulate” the costumes. She’s not saying that those who object to offensive costumes shouldn’t have the right to voice those opinions. But merely having the opinion that a costume is offensive does not obligate the wearer to take it off, nor the college to “punish” or disallow it. I think you missed her point entirely.
I think these days, it’s “the offended” who have the most privilege of all. Simply say the words “I’m offended” and magically everyone should bow to you.
White professors I know have framed this not as a free speech issue, but as a safe workplace issue. They don’t believe students should have responsibility for creating a safe workplace for themselves. They see that as the role of the university.
Don’t you think the reason the Dean sent out the message was to potentially avoid an unpleasant scenario with Yale in the news for some ill-though-out event? It’s called being pro-active. The whole kerfuffle, including the mail response, is much ado about nothing.
Here’s a piece of the original email. Notice there is no mention of punishment of any kind, and there’s no mention in the rest of the email either. The email urges students to be sensitive:
That’s the email Christakis was reacting to. My point is, the original email was on point, and Christakis was wrong to respond in the way she did. I don’t say that Yale should throw kids out for wearing a costume of, say, a greedy Jewish lender, but I do think they’re right to ask students to be considerate and think about how the group they’re portraying is going to experience their costume.
Does another point of view not have standing to be heard? While I do not necessarily agree with her, why was she wrong to present the views of another group of students?
In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with the original email and there’s nothing wrong with Christakis’s email either.
They are both expressing valid viewpoints in the debate over the balance between free expression versus the goal to be sensitive to others, what if anything constitutes cultural mis-appropriation, and the nature of implied institutional censorship.
Universities such as Yale are precisely the places where great debates like this should be occurring. But people should be able to engage in this debate without students losing their minds or attempting censorship through intimidation.
(On the positive side, I am glad to see that Yale did not institute any punishments for wearing the “wrong” costume. If no one in this thread is advocating such punishments, then I am doubly happy.)
A person has the right to say wrong things and be heard, but that doesn’t make wrong things less wrong, and I have the right to say that they’re wrong.
I have no interest in defending yelling students, though as a person who has a short temper I can understand losing one’s temper. It seems that the students believe they have grievances over and above the Halloween costume stuff. I have no idea whether those grievances are well-founded.
There are a million ways to dress up for Halloween. Eliminating the racist options still leaves you with a million costumes. I don’t see why this is a big deal. Requiring people to be decent is not a sin, y’all./quote
I have not read all 231 comments, so apologies if this was already addressed:
@PragmaticMom, Who gets to decide which costumes are racist or otherwise offensive? Do you suggest a committee on costume appropriateness? This is the problem with your idea. Seems simple. But it is not.
You cannot “require” people to be decent. Decency is voluntary. Otherwise it is obedience, not decency
In 1977, the Nazi party applied for a permit to hold a march in downtown Skokie, Illinois, a heavily Jewish town (at the time). Indeed, it was populated by a critical mass of Holocaust survivors. This became a national controversy. Are you old enough to remember this? Long story short, it went to court. Here is a paragraph from an article about the result of the court case:
The Nazis held their march. All 20 of them. for 10 minutes. Simultaneously, Jews and their supporters held loud protests around the country. You see, in the end, the Nazis’ speech was defeated by MORE SPEECH, not by shutting them down.
I agree that “a person has the right to say wrong things and be heard…” But then you really can’t say that she was wrong to respond in the way she did. She was simply expressing her views {and apparently those of other students} that you happen to think are wrong.
This has bothered people I know. We seem to be pretty much in agreement that all speech isn’t acceptable on college campuses. I believe we are all in agreement no one should be allowed to burn crosses. When speech has the potential to incite actions that make others physically unsafe, we accept the university should step in and prohibit it. We expect the university to keep students safe. When students are told to “look away” or “tell them you are offended” that puts the responsibility on them for their own safety.
I am not sure, but I doubt the university administration would allow a nazi or klan march on Yale campus. Maybe I’m wrong.
“Except when Hanna says, “This is a disagreement about the role of the university in policing the costumes.” That doesn’t seem to me to be the entire disagreement.”
I was talking specifically about the disagreement within Yale, rather than the disagreement on the thread. You’re right that we’ve widened the topic here.
" Wearing a funny costume? Is the humor based on “making fun” of real people, human traits or cultures?
• Wearing a historical costume? If this costume is meant to be historical, does it further misinformation or
historical and cultural inaccuracies?
• Wearing a ‘cultural’ costume? Does this costume reduce cultural differences to jokes or stereotypes?
• Wearing a ‘religious’ costume? Does this costume mock or belittle someone’s deeply held faith tradition?
• Could someone take offense with your costume and why?"
