“She expressed SYMPATHY to students within that particular residential college who essentially expressed the viewpoint that nobody should be telling them to be sensitive to the feelings of other students when they chose their costumes.”
Oh no! She had a point of view! We can’t have that. Only one point of view on any topic is allowed.
The elite schools also make major gaffes, sometimes, in their pursuit of these populations. By way of example, Dartmouth recently, mistakenly hired a non-native to be its Native American director.
“In the case of those middle school classes with the neglectful teachers, I and other bullied classmates ended up feeling we had to band together and “settle the issue” in a series of violent after-school fights involving fists and roundhouse kicks to the heads and other vulnerable parts of the bullies we were fighting”
You mention this bullying so often that I wonder if therapy might be helpful.
There is a difference between a physical threat, such as what you faced, and feeling “threatened” by a costume when it’s quite clear that the wearer of the costume isn’t about to go beat you up. There is a difference in the supervisory role of a school towards middle school CHILDREN and the supervisory role of a college towards young adults.
“Just wondering as this sounds like the"free speech” defined by some politically right-leaning folks as essentially freedom to say whether one wants without criticism or possible negative consequences* not involving prosecution by the government."
Some of us believe in free speech. There are consequences to free speech - you can be laughed at, jeered, made fun of, boycotted. As long as those “punishments” aren’t coming from the govt, them’s the breaks. If I saw someone in blackface, I’d think - and say - what a loser, and I wouldn’t want to hang out with him. Those are the negative consequences. He is, of course, free to care or not-care.
If you and your pals were giving roundhouse kicks to the heads of other people, those other people were not the bullies, and you were not being bullied.
@applicantcor. Seems you have a rather a rare ability that is at once clairvoyant and putative to know what whole races of people are thinking and what is an appropriate feeling for them to feel. Are you black, native, or even on campus at an elite university? Roll eyes and lol…charming.
Not sure what special qualifications this “Native American director” should have but people of many races should be able to fill this role. For example the black girl from the Yale video seems like a good fit.
“@applicantcor. Seems you have a rather a rare ability that is at once clairvoyant and putative to know what whole races of people are thinking and what is an appropriate feeling for them to feel. Are you black, native, or even on campus at an elite university?”
Do all black / white / polka dotted people have to feel the same about a given issue?
“Privilege is much like owning a big tank of a car. So, while it may have all the creature comforts you enjoy, and provide you with a leisurely ride, it assumes much more responsibility. You need to be more aware of how you drive it in tight spaces as it commands and needs more room.”
Just out of curiosity. I “possess privilege” in this society. Does my H have more responsibility than I do, being that he’s male? How about my Christian friends - are they more obligated than us as Jews? I’d like to know the scale, please. On a scale of 1-100, how do I know if I’m at 70 or 90? How else can I gauge my responsibility?
“One reason why progressive groups do protest such things is precisely because the status quo in most parts of mainstream US society…including the elite universities is to ignore concerns about marginalized groups and minimize their experiences and accounts. Some of that is happening on this very thread.”
The elite universities are in the vanguard of helping marginalized groups. And frankly I think your interpretation of mainstream US society is likely wildly off the mark, as you engage in incredible stereotyping, especially of people who have more money than you.
If non-marginalization and equal treatment is the goal of minorities, then an excessively negative reaction to an email suggesting Yale students probably have enough common sense to police their own Halloween costumes, is not the way to achieve it. No real discrimination took place, and nor did any Yale student actually don an offensive costume. Therefore this type of nasty protest sets apart minorities as different, since they apparently need to be handled with kid gloves or avoided altogether.
What “concerns” do these “groups” have? Why must there always be “concerns” and “groups”, and people “challenging different thoughts”? What does any of this even mean?
Let’s stop solving problems that don’t exist. Rosa Parks progressivism? Great! 2015 Anti-halloween costume progressivism? Give me a freaking break…
The concern expressed in some of these posts that no costume exists that offends no one is disingenuous. Are you seriously equating the mocking African Americans in blackface or Jewish Americans in an exaggerated costume of a jewish merchant or perhaps a holocaust survivor — to say, a superhero costume? You honestly see no difference? If you can’t see a difference, I don’t think civil dialogue is what you need.
Was anyone dressed in blackface or another offensive costume? Did that actually happen?
@Pizzagirl here you go - you can check out just how privileged you are: http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/how-privileged-are-you#.bnyRpWBYB
“The concern expressed in some of these posts that no costume exists that offends no one is disingenuous. Are you seriously equating the mocking African Americans in blackface or Jewish Americans in an exaggerated costume of a jewish merchant or perhaps a holocaust survivor — to say, a superhero costume?” No actually, I think there are a few costumes, such as those you mentioned, which are clearly offensive. I would add that a KKK costume could be interpreted as threatening.
Superhero costumes promote the idea that violence is the way to solve problems. The hyper-musclular men and women prancing around in hyper-sexualized armored outfits with bra sizing that had to result from cosmetic surgery are both very poor stereotypes of what “heroes” or “real men” look like being pushed upon our youth. Whether or not you feel this way, I think it’s a valid point of view and just as reasonable to take offense at as a non-Asian woman wearing a sari. More so, in fact.
I would add that some of the religious people I know find the entire idea of Halloween offensive. They do not allow their children to celebrate Halloween. They do not allow their children to read books such as Harry Potter, because that is witchcraft and it is evil. They certainly would take offense at any costumes of the witch/ghost/zombie genre. What can be done?
I scored 36, not privileged.
This is the best statement of the argument against Christakis’s sending of her email that I’ve seen. It definitely made me think even if I didn’t find it compelling enough to change my mind.
I think the primary questions raised by this argument are (1) exactly what did the Christakises say in the email (2) what is the exact role of the master’s office in the Yale residential college system (3) how much special deference should be given to the feelings of members of marginalized groups by a RC master in view of their historic alienation from the Yale community?
The vast majority of Christakis’s email seems to consist of raising questions and supplying food for thought for the reader. The closest thing to an official policy statement comes in the last 3 paragraphs, which appear to state the following: the SIlliman master (1) will not be policing Halloween costumes this year and will rely instead of the judgement of Yale students (2) encourages students who are offended by a costume to ignore it or to discuss their issue with the wearer.
The charge of the master is to set the “intellectual, social, and ethical tone of the College". In my opinion, respectfully disagreeing to suggest what is and is not appropriate Halloween wear in favor of free expression legitimately lies within all 3 spheres of this mandate. This isn’t like Larry Summers wondering if women are biologically less capable of becoming extremely accomplished scientists. An example that Christakis herself suggests is the following … suppose religiously conservative students asked the master to remind students to cover themselves up because seeing half-naked bodies offended them. I think most College masters would simply tell these students that they need look away and to be more tolerant of others’ rights to choose their own clothing.
However, one could argue that the fact that several dozen students were highly outraged by the email is ipso facto evidence that sending the email was wrong. Perhaps … but there has to be something more, since this is a recipe for allowing any student or group of students to control the College. How much special deference should the feelings of marginalized group members be given and what statements unfairly alienate them from the Yale community? This is a very hard judgement to make, but when in doubt - I side with free speech.
I thought Jonri’s email was really excellent. It articulated so clearly what some I know IRL have been saying.
I got a 64. I was just surprised the score wasn’t higher. My privilege is completely due to the luck of the circumstances of my birth. It has always been a challenge to me to see the world through the eyes of those who have less privilege than I.
I am going to go sit next to ELMimino for the rest of the thread and just listen quietly.
Emily Christakis is an officially appointed associate master of SIlliman with her university duties, not just “a master’s spouse”.
Now, where is the outrage about this!