I also note that plenty of museums of modern art exist, where artists (get paid big bucks to) create works of art that deliberately shock, offend, bother, disrupt the status quo. P*** Christ is the obvious example but there are plenty of others. How do those SJW’s deal with the existence of art museums that contain offensive materials? I don’t see them protesting Fluxus or Yoko Ono or Marina Abramovic or Robert Mapplethorpe or Andres Serrano. Why is that?
As far as I can tell, nobody who is currently at Yale knows it, either, because it hasn’t been mentioned in any of the numerous articles and editorials about this issue. This year’s seniors were in middle school in 2007.
Pizzagirl, has asked, I’m not sure whether, it is with ripe sarcasm or in earnest, what is the responsibility of those in positions of privilege. Well, here is a fine example: a Yale 2005 graduate (also Harvard JFK), and native, who also is the Assistant Director of Intergovernmental Affairs at the White House, who has worked primarily in Indiam Country for their advocacy after her graduation, see:http://www.indianz.com/News/2015/019489.asp. I hope this provides a clear example of the responsibility of privilege.
“a Yale leader blatantly chose to stand in opposition of sensitivity to anyone affected by this.”
No, she didn’t. She differed about the right WAY to promote sensitivity and to cope with insensitivity. She didn’t say anything that opposed sensitivity.
If we compare a college master to a parent, it’s pretty common for teens to characterize a parent who doesn’t agree with them with as a parent not listening or not caring. I hope we can all agree that a parent making a teen feel angry and distressed is not, by itself, evidence that the parent is cold or loveless. Enraging a teenager is consistent with unconditionally loving a teenager. In fact, it’s pretty hard to do the second without sometimes doing the first.
@post # 356 - I have no idea what you just said.
Interesting.
From that description, the role of the Master is similar to that of an ombudsman, mediator, or even a judge where it is critical for those holding such positions to at the very minimum, maintain an outward appearance of neutrality.
In that context, openly taking the side of one faction of students over another in the house she’s responsible for does mean she’s not only not doing her job, but has shown she can’t be trusted to represent and hear out concerns from all students in the college she’s entrusted with like an ombudsman, mediator, or judge who publicly states views which favor the views of one faction in a dispute he/she is hearing.
After all if anyone in those three occupations do publicly or even give the appearance of favoring the views of one faction or another in a dispute during or even prior to the dispute being brought before them, one would think they’d recuse themselves or failing that, the disfavored party would have reasonable grounds to file a complaint with the relevant authorities questioning their fitness to judge/mediate their dispute in a fair and impartial manner…and in extreme cases…call for them to be subjected to sanctions by higher courts or professional bodies responsible for licensing and overseeing the professional/ethical conduct of their members including being terminated and having their professional licenses taken away.
Wonder if like those three above occupations, the calls for her to resign/be fired is coming from the same place…that by openly taking a side she has effectively undermined the very job she’s entrusted to uphold.
I’ve come around to thinking that the Christakis letter was ill-conceived, but perhaps more in how its views were presented than in what the views actually were. What would you think if her e-mail had said:
“Some students have asked me if the e-mail from the dean means that costumes deemed to be offensive will subject the wearer to some kind of punishment from the Yale authorities. I don’t think that’s what the message means–Yale recognizes each student’s right to free speech and self-expression. I think the dean was simply urging people to give some thought to whether their costumes might be offensive. Personally, I think Yale students are adults and should be able to make these kinds of determination without a checklist from the administration, and that the likelihood of opprobrium from peers should be enough to prevent people from wearing costumes intended to offend. But if somebody does wear a costume that offends you, tell them so, and tell them why. But don’t expect Yale–or the master’s office–to punish somebody for wearing a costume that you disagree with, because that’s not what we do.”
Talking about costumes “intended to offend” misses the point, though. The original email is talking about considering whether a costume which wasn’t intended to offend is going to nevertheless offend. The person who dresses as Beyonce, in blackface, is probably not intending to offend, but blackface is so culturally charged that she will offend, and she should rethink the blackface plan.
More commentary from an alum:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/194869/growing-up-at-yale
Unfortunately, Yale appears to be letting the inmates take over the asylum. Instead of explaining to these students how their behavior is inconsistent with the minimum requirements of responsible adulthood, various administrators, including the University’s president, have pandered to the heckler’s veto, lauding their “thoughtful and constructive suggestions.” If the administration is truly committed to equipping young people for the real world and not a chimerical fantasyland where they never have to hear something disagreeable, the best thing it could do, both for their sake and Yale’s sacred mission, is tell them to grow up.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/194874/person-up-yale-students
Some will read this essay as an exercise in self-exculpation, shirking the duties that Yale teachers and administrators have to run our school well. (To be clear, I am an untenured adjunct, who could be fired at any time; but I know that, to the students, I may as well be The Man.) I don’t mean to pass the buck; I don’t have much authority, and I serve on no committees, but to the extent that I have any power, in my classroom, to create a safe, respectful space, one that honors all students, I aim to do that.
^ ^
Hunt,
In light of Jonri’s post and the already heightened tensions on the Yale campus from prior incidents, a far better approach would be to forgo sending that email and instead, organize a dialog session in which she’s present but holds back on expressing her own views to maintain an appearance of neutrality and also so the dialog session could be centered on the student’s concerns without interjecting herself into the debate and thus, undermining one seeming critical part of her position, maintaining a position of outward neutrality so all students feel she could be trusted to hear them out in disputes…not someone a faction may view as a dishonest broker as seems to be the case here.
@Hunt post #366 - They should make you master of Silliman. 
So, @cobrat, you think Yale students need a seminar, with a neutral facilitator, on what Halloween costumes to wear?
I don’t know what happened, but I’m imagining that some student went to Christakis and said, "Does the administration think that we’re such babies that they have to give us a checklist of considerations for our Halloween costumes?’
I think it is really dangerous to adopt a definition of “safe” that deviates too far from the literal.
One of the dangers of speech is that plenty of moderate, reasonable, and even positive beliefs can, in certain cases, be used to justify hate and violence.The patriotism that inspires public service and 4th of July fireworks can become the nativism that leads someone to go out and beat up an immigrant. The religion that provides meaning and comfort to billions also inspires wars and persecution.
In the cases of specific political positions we oppose, it is even easier to make a case that voicing a certain opinion is itself “unsafe,” both in terms of mental harm and the potential for real physical violence.
Having to face pro-life activists calling abortion"murder" must be very painful for a woman who has terminated a pregnancy. In more concrete terms, if there were no pro-life rhetoric, there probably wouldn’t be people who thought it was OK to go out and murder abortion providers. Does “safety,” justify banning pro-life speech?
Criticizing Israel can spill over into anti-Semitism. This can be violent. Is that verbotten, too?
Any of the following positions could be perceived as creating a “hostile” environment for minorities:
- opposing affirmative action and other diversity initiatives
- supporting voter ID laws
- opposing immigration reform
- supporting continuation of the war on drugs
- defending police practices like "stop and frisk"
- criticizing President Obama
More than a hostile environment, spending time criticizing such causes might well stir up racial resentment among angry white men who adopt a stark “us/them” mentality and begin to see themselves as the aggrieved party. That leads to Dylan Roof and the Charleston tragedy.
Erika Christiakis was voicing an opinion about Halloween costumes, and some people feel that she should lose her job over it. Does that mean that no one who holds any of the above positions – and has the temerity to voice them at a relevant moment – is qualified to serve as a residence dean? Or, perhaps, as a professor at Yale?
I also want to note that I personally disagree with every single one of the opinions I’ve listed above (although I have criticized the President from time to time). But I don’t think any of them should be banished from mainstream discourse on the grounds that voicing them might be “unsafe.”
One of the issues involved is that in light of recent incidents such as the DKE party or undergraduate students at Yale and other campuses including elite ones* exhibiting poor judgment when choosing costumes or holding racially stereotyping “theme parties”, there are some who do feel those incidents show a critical minority of undergrads on such campuses cannot be trusted to exercise good judgment by themselves.
- I.e. Conquistabros and Navajos theme party at Harvard in 2010.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/10/26/columbus-day-themed-bros-and-hos-party-at-harvard/
Talking of safe, I don’t think any Yale student feels really safe on going onto the streets of New Haven.
“Well positioned” meaning he is better able to articulate the feelings of his particular community relative to how they perceive certain costumes.
Let’s say that one idiot white student at Yale thinks it’s funny to dress up on blackface as Serena Williams on Halloween. What is the meaning of his act? What does it say about white people at Yale if he does this? What if everybody around him, including other white people, tell him that it’s offensive and that he should go wash it off? In what way, exactly, does his act make black people feel unsafe if they see him walking down the street?
Bonus question: what would make black students at Yale feel more unsafe: a person in blackface, or an editorial in the Yale Daily News arguing that affirmative action should be abolished because it results in the admission of students with lower qualifications?
Guys…can we be serious for one moment please? Put away the intellectual posturing and read an excerpt from the original email:
"There is growing national concern on campuses everywhere about these issues, and we encourage Yale students to take the time to consider their costumes and the impact it may have. So, if you are planning to dress-up for Halloween, or will be attending any social gatherings planned for the weekend, please ask yourself these questions before deciding upon your costume choice:
• 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?"
Does NO ONE else see how ridiculous it was to send out this email?
The whole list is kind of silly. The last thing on the list should have been enough.
I’m most scandalized by the use of “dress-up” when it should have been “dress up.”
Most of the people who are offended about cultural appropriation at Yale don’t even understand what culture means…
And you have to question the motives/sanity of someone who turns Halloween into a serious debate about ‘cultural appropriation’ and ‘historical inaccuracies’, causing a ton of uproar in the process.