Did the email continue on to say:
-Make sure to brush your teeth 44 times daily kiddoes!
??? Would not be surprised to be honest with you guys…
The students had a right to express their opinions about the Dean’s email. But EC speaking in their name seems to be counterproductive if her message is kids should think for themselves. And it doesn’t get her off the hook wrt job performance. Consider an alternative scenario in which, instead of send a rambling, self-indulgent house-wide email at midnight-thirty on the morning of Halloween, she’d said to the kids who approached her, hey, I agree with you that the Dean could have handled this better, but let’s wait until after Halloween and set up a house discussion in which students on both sides of the issue can share their concerns with each other.
What EC did was create a situation in which students went from feeling somewhat protected to especially vulnerable that Halloween night. And she took a side – the offensive have more of a right to be protected than the offended. Her actions escalated conflict in a situation where the original costume memo might otherwise have been a complete non-issue. Or provided a useful occasion for a post-mortem discussion that could have helped students understand each others’ points of view.
FWIW, I can see the merits of the workplace safety framework as a way of dealing with the concerns of both students and faculty.
I don’t agree that “the offended… have the most privilege of all.” Seriously, you think that undergrads who have to deal with racial and sexual harassment on campus have more privilege than a tenured prof or Dean who rarely if ever experiences either?
And, again, we’re not talking about a situation where the College punished, regulated, or disallowed any kind of Halloween costumes. EC objected to/chose to rebut an email whose message was, basically, be considerate of other people’s feelings/perceptions.
This is what Christakis should have emailed to everyone as a response:
“The protests are not really about Halloween costumes or a frat party,” Yale senior Aaron Lewis writes. “They’re about a mismatch between the Yale we find in admissions brochures and the Yale we experience every day. They’re about real experiences with racism on this campus that have gone unacknowledged for far too long. The university sells itself as a welcoming and inclusive place for people of all backgrounds. Unfortunately, it often isn’t.”
Soooo, what can people wear that won’t offend someone anymore???
I second this!
I really wonder what these young people will do if they are ever confronted with a real problem.
Brantly - The answer to your question about what is offensive is answered in the original Yale email as posted by another CC’er in this thread, which lists some very good guidelines, phrased as questions, as to what costumes are offensive. A cultural costume that mocks the “otherness” of a minority group, particularly ones that have been historically oppressed or persecuted, would be considered ill-advised by most people who profess to be enlightened individuals pursuing a higher education on one of the most elite campuses in the world. There are many, many ways to entertain ourselves without having to resort to THAT kind of humor. At the strictly superficial level, I see no loss of entertainment value, by the school limiting what costumes kids can wear. I think most people would agree with that.
But even if you don’t – and there are many people who don’t agree that such costumes are offensive and instead are hiding behind the principle of free speech – even if you don’t agree that the costumes are offensive, you might agree that speech is not free nor unlimited and there are many laws already in place to restrict free speech via fashion choices. There are rules/laws of decency that civil engagement necessitates - on campus and in the real world. There are public decency laws that prohibit people from running around naked in public, for instance. Many work places have dress codes or uniforms that exclude options for workers. If you want to be racist or a fool, I agree that you have a right to do so — but off campus, away from the work place, away from the public square.
Students are paying customers at Yale. That Yale education is a paid service that should rendered to them in a civil environment. I see nothing outrageous about paying customers (students) demanding it. It is Yale’s obligation to ensure a measure of decency in the campus environment and they were wise to be proactive.
Trollicus-- all very sensible guidelines, in my view. It’s sad that they even have to be stated at all…
Hmmmn, if history serves correct, when confronted with a real problem, like, as in signing an Presidential executive order (EO), making a historical ruling from the Supreme Court, deciding world diplomacy, or taking a profound financial position for the Worldʻs largest hedge fund, I surmise they will do just fine. Youth is to explore these issues…
Completely agree.
There is no reason to believe that this generation of precious pumpkins microaggression sufferers could do any of those things. I would and do tell my kids to worry about themselves and take care of their own business. If someone offends them, then simply exclude that person from their lives. It is inexcusable to scream and carry on at another person that way. Exploring issues involves thought, consideration and engagement, not unhinged behavior.
I think these young people are either mentally ill or bored, and I don’t for one minute believe that the screamer and her ilk have the personal characteristics to be productive members of society. But I am glad that her parents are able to see how she is behaving in college.
Actually, mentally ill and bored aren’t the only options - attention seeking and virtue signaling are other options.
But there is still a lot of room for interpretation. The questions from the original Yale email are just that—questions. They do not define correct or incorrect costumes. The original email was Socratic in nature, to get students thinking about it. I agree with that approach. I do not agree with an approach that would ban any particular costume.
I think it’s important to note that the Dean made no mention of punishment or discipline for students who choose to dress up without concern for whether their costumes may be perceived as offensive. Yale isn’t limiting what costumes can be worn. The Dean simply made a suggestion to think about what your costume communicates to students of different backgrounds. I repeat: a suggestion. I find the behavior of some of the protesters embarrassing, but what’s really distressing is the fact that so many of you don’t seem to understand the difference between “destroying free speech” (which is not a right but a privilege at a private university, I might add, however essential I consider it to be for higher education) and politely asking students to consider how their actions impact others.
I interpreted the young woman’s outburst as profound distress. I just wanted to hug and comfort her.
I’m a member of the most privileged ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation and likely age demographic. Often I hear my cohort say “Why is everyone taking offence?” “What is the big deal?” “Political Correctness has been taken to the extreme!”
I’m waiting for the day when a group of ethnic minorities say… “Bring back the good ol’ days when we were labeled with disgusting labels, and people made jokes at our expense, and dressed like us to be funny!”
It’s hard to notice for folks like me, but we’re the only ones saying this.
Interesting. I suppose she WAS having a tantrum. I would feel compelled to comfort her if she were 2 years old. For a 19-20-21-year old I just interpreted it as rude. Even when distressed, you have to moderate your reactions. That video all over the Internet is not going to be helpful to her future.
The problem with the bullet about historical costumes in the Yale e-mail is that no one is going to acquire one that is historically accurate at the party store or be able to assemble one hodge podge on a student budget. Furthermore, I would think a Halloween costume that looks like a cheap costume would be less likely to incur a charge of cultural appropriation, racism or insensitivity than a professionally crafted, more historically accurate one. In the former case it’s clear the person is not trying to actually pretend to BE a Japanese warrior, English princess, Scottish highlander or whatever, but rather, the person is masquerading for the sake of party fun.
It is amusing that people are warning about cultural appropriation when the hottest musical on Broadway is Hamilton which culturally appropriates the founding fathers as Hispanics and African Americans. A clip of the Thomas Jefferson character is as follows:
According to most history books, the founding fathers were American (though some still argue that they were British subjects, I think I would give the original signers of the Declaration of Independence the benefit of the doubt.) Where’s evidence of any cultural appropriation?
@circuitrider - If you are OK with Thomas Jefferson being portrayed by a black guy, you should have no problems with musical about the civil rights era with Martin Luther King being portrayed by a white guy, or an all-white version of Porgy and Bess. After all, we are (mostly) all Americans.