It scares me how chalk full this thread is of people complaining about “PC culture” and “social justice warriors” and “moral bullies”. Really? For trying to be sensitive to others feelings and sending out an email about it that required students to do nothing?
This should not be as big of an issue as it is:
The school's original email was fine and a good positive step. It should have gone completely unnoticed, people would have read it and gone on with their lives. To be honest, it probably wouldn't have had an effect on the costumes most chose, but it was a statement in support of those who may be hurt or made fun of by the costumes. The administration made a point that they stand with them with the email. That is all.
Note: To those complaining about offensive costumes being everything, you’re being pretty uncreative then. I would say there’s maybe 5-10 main offenders each year. It’s not hard to avoid them. Other cultures (usually native American and Asian), bastardizations or religions, and a few other small categories. No, not all things are offensive: it’s about context, like many things. It’s not about “finding someone who could be offended by it hypothetically”, it’s about when you choose to impersonate a large group of people in a comical, inaccurate, and stereotypical way.
The response email is what really created this fire. Any student "offended" by the first email needs education, not validation. And to write the email back is to undermine the entire point of the original email: to stand with those who become the butt of a joke as a result of insensitive costumes. By responding, Christakis stood in opposition to the protection and support the school way trying to offer. It had nothing to do with "telling people what they already know". If people already knew this and didn't need to be reminded, what's the big deal? If I send out an email saying water is wet, does it need a response telling me and all those who got the original email that my email isn't needed? Of course not. So, the effect and stance of responding was clear. That is why students became upset, along with apparent previous problems of racial insensitivity.
The students certainly reacted harshly. No, the professor probably shouldn't be fired. But no reaction makes the original response any better. The central issue here is that a Yale leader blatantly chose to stand in opposition of sensitivity to anyone affected by this. I'm guessing the larger reactions are probably part of a straw that broke the camels back case.
This whole thing should have gone like this: emails get sent, students respond, professor apologizes for original email, people move on. If it’s not going like this, we’re getting hung up somewhere else. And it’s with the people claiming that “PC culture” and “social justice warriors” and “moral bullies” are ruining Halloween. And that is why this has blown up: because, at the core, we see that Christakis’s view is not alone and is actually part of a bigger cultural problem of insensitivity, usually argued by inaccurate reductions and complaining about free speech rights. But, as this thread has already mentioned. This is not about free speech: everyone here is speaking freely. The problem is that what is being said is simply offensive and insensitive. And people need to reconcile that.
IMHO I believe the first email to the student body was wrong and that Erika Christakis response was brilliant! I myself am a hispanic biracial that migrated to this beautiful country 26 years ago and had to deal with racism. I lived with a white afluent family and cleaned their home, drove their priviledge only daughter to school, to dance sschool and served at their parties. They treated me like family and I loved them but that doesn’t mean I never felt discrimination because I did. Even to this day making a 6 figure income I have to deal with certain customers that choose not to do business with me and that’s ok. I learned to build a thick skin and deal with it. When someone tries to discriminate me I just laughed inside of their ignorance.
What is going on in this country as a whole not just universities that everything has to be PC? Everybody gets offended by everything nowadays and it’s destroying the beauty I found when I first came to America 26 years ago.
My own son attends Yale and he feels extremely priviledge for that!
So long as we’re all welcomed to put on our Freudian hat, here’s my attempt at an “interpretation”. First of all, I give the protesters credit for meaning what they say. If by “safe” they meant a trusting environment where the two most visible adults charged with keeping them safe won’t go out of their way to publicly mock their fears, then I think they were using the word in its rightful context.
@brantly, what do the young woman’s socio-economic circumstances have to do with her grievance here? I truly don’t understand the point you are making.
And what specific “fears” are you talking about here? Let’s be as precise as possible. Remember, this specific dispute was (ostensibly) about Halloween costumes.
By the way, my daughter’s Halloween costume was HAL 9000. I guess we have a few years before there is an artificial intelligence group to be offended by that.
@Pizzagirl, but don’t you see? A climate in which it is deemed OK for, say, a white student to dress up in blackface might well be a climate in which worse could happen.
Yes, Hunt, that’s what’s at issue and the students have been explicit about it. Not only in the Open Letter, but also in what appear to have been lengthy and thoughtful conversations with the President and Dean Holloway, both of whom have acknowledged that this is a real problem and something Yale can/should/must/will address. But angry black girl yelling at calm middle-aged white guy defending free speech is the better sound bite, so the media ran with that.
Even that video is just the culmination of a much longer discussion in which a number of different students try to explain to Professor Christakis in much more civil terms what’s at issue and he keeps going back to free speech when, in fact, no one is asking for anyone to be silenced – they’re just asking for an acknowledgement that, as Master, he cares about what effect his words and actions have upon them and that he understands why they saw his wife’s email as so problematic.
“I care about protecting free speech especially when it hurts you” is, not surprisingly, an answer they find unsatisfying. By the time the student in the video starts yelling and swearing, other kids have already started leaving because they’re seeing that this is an unproductive conversation – nothing they say is making him re-think and they’ve already heard what he he has to say many, many times.
There’s something very hollow about freedom of expression in a community where what you say just doesn’t matter, no matter how you say it. That’s why people end up shouting – they’re frustrated they aren’t being heard.
Being disagreed with is not the same as not being heard. This can be a hard lesson to learn, and I’m not sure Yale is going to be teaching it any time soon.
I’m not sure if this is a serious or sarcastic comment, which I guess is some kind of commentary on this issue. But let me just point out anyway that there is not anybody, not on this thread, and not at Yale, including the Christakises, who have said that it is “OK” for a white student to dress up in blackface. Everybody thinks this is wrong and offensive. The Christakis letter takes the position that this should be addressed by peer reactions, not by admonitions from the grown-ups for the kids to play nice. Many of us think it’s OK for the institution to tell the students to play nice, but we’d more concerned about sanctions for speech.
Let me point out that white students dressing in blackface hasn’t happened, as far as I know. If it had happened this year, we would have heard about it. Did it happen in previous years? I don’t think that’s been mentioned in this particular controversy, but maybe it did.
Note: a Google search finds a claim that it happened, in 2007.
It was a poorly conceived letter that unfortunately has a touch of donnish sarcasm to it. I can forgive black kids in their tweens for failing to see the difference between an attack on the administration for standing up for them and an attack on themselves and their fears. In fact, I’m not sure I see the difference either.
Irrelevant. The posts you’re responding to talk about a climate in which it is deemed OK for a student to dress in blackface, not a climate where students have dressed in blackface.
But there is no climate in which it is deemed OK for a student to dress in blackface. Such a climate does not exist at Yale. So what are we talking about, exactly?
"I view the initial email sent by Dean Howard as the opening of discussion or “deliberation.” And as an african american at Yale he was well positioned to open that discussion. "
As someone who had occasion to deal with Dean Howard in his previous position at Northwestern, I found him a thoughtful, deliberate, caring person and I have no doubt the email was written in that spirit. And I agree that there is nothing wrong with the university providing “food for thought” that - hey, gang, as you have your Halloween fun, be mindful that some costumes can be perceived as offensive, so consider that as you make your selection.
I am, however, bothered by the notion that “as an African-American” he is well positioned to open that discussion. Someone’s views are worth considering because in general, different points of view are worth considering (and then discussing, debating as appropriate to reach resolution). They are not more (or less) worthy of being considered because the speaker in this case happened to be African-American.
This is what bothers me, as someone who is generally quite liberal socially, with the whole PC-everywhere-SJW movement. You’re black? Gay? Hispanic? Native American? Your point of view needs to rule the day. You’re white? Male? Upper-middle class? What you have to say isn’t worth considering.
It is not necessary to “tilt the scales” back the other way. Just have them meet in the middle, where everyone gets to put forth his or her point of view, and using the tools of civilized society – words – we can debate them and come to appropriate consensus.
Hunt didn’t know that some students apparently dressed in blackface at Yale as late as 2007. I didn’t know this either. I bet African-American students knew it, though.
“The highest courts of our land take great care to publish dissenting opinions. They do so for many reasons, but one is that dissents illustrate that the majority opinion, that often defines what constitutes the “common good”, was arrived at through thoughtful deliberation, not by the mandate of a “few.” Presumably all views are considered and a reasoned discussion of the issue is undertaken. At the end of the day the majority opinion prevails and that becomes the law of the land - for now.”
Maybe the Yalies should take a page from the kids at Mizzou - if you don’t like what someone has to say, block their car from moving. That’s productive. /sarcasm