Yale is Imploding over a Halloween Email

People citing the first amendment right to free speech often forget a few things:

  1. The amendment mainly applies to the government and is meant to prevent it from arresting or prosecuting you for exercising it. It doesn't apply to private institutions and they have more leeway to set rules...including speech codes.

For instance, Christian Fundamentalist universities like Liberty do have rules which penalize students for what we’d consider exercising “free speech”…whether it’s enforcing dress codes banning certain clothing items like durags, participating or initiating campus protests without prior approval from admins, or penalizing students for listening to/possessing in one’s dorm/off-campus residence* “objectionable music” the admins don’t approve of.

Also, some public institutions can restrict certain expressions of “free speech” if they could undermine their main mission. For instance, military installations and FSAs can and do require their members to wear specific types of uniforms depending on the task being performed or even the whim of the commanding officer and senior admins.

  1. Even having the right to free speech doesn't necessarily mean one is free from the natural consequences of exercising it outside the governmental context...and even then there are exceptions**. Try to see what happens if you call your supervisor/boss an idiot to his/her face or openly disparage your private sector company like a coke-cola employee publicly saying "Pepsi is far better than coke". Doubt free speech can be used as a defense when one tries to challenge one's firing in employment court....especially if one happens to be an "at will" employee.
  2. Following up on natural consequences, it seems some sounding off on "free speech" are forgetting others have the same right of "free speech" to criticize and express disapproval....even harshly of the content and/or the way you exercised your "free speech". People in this camp seem to believe "free speech" means speech with no criticisms allowed from others because criticism == censorship.
  • Liberty U officials seem to reserve the right to inspect dorms and nearby off-campus residences of students to ensure school rules including those pertaining to proscribed items are being complied with.

** Try joking about having a bomb at a TSA station or killing one’s boss at a government/public sector job. Doubt one can use the first amendment as a defense when one receives a visit from LE and/or ends up getting arrested and prosecuted.

What requirements, these were mindful reminders…

Regardless of what one thinks of the original emails, what is disturbing is the “apologize or resign” mob mentality of the students. That’s what’s so disturbing to me and it is happening far too often. When students are offended by someone else’s words, instead of countering with more (and better and more persuasive) speech, they seek to punish and persecute the offender and anyone who lets the offender be heard. For example, when the Wesleyan Argus student newspaper published an op-ed that many found offensive (about BLM), the response of students was not more speech but a petition to de-fund the newspaper.

I did my undergrad at Oberlin. While the campus was mostly fine, the town and surrounding area still had serious issues with racist attitudes during the mid-late '90s.

The mostly White locals in the town and surrounding area still seemed to have serious issues with interracial dating as they had a tendency to stare at interracial dating couples from the college student community as if they were doing something strange or wrong. This was not only something frequently complained about from college classmates who were involved, but also something I observed frequently during my undergrad years.

Also, some of the White locals weren’t hesitant about openly voicing their racist sentiments. I’ve had racist epithets yelled at me by local White drivers as they drove by on several occasions.

On one occasion, one even came close to starting a fight with me after I responded to his racist epithet by giving him a common '80s/early '90s era New Yorker response: a one fingered salute*. Only the fortuitous appearance of a police car a few blocks behind him prompted the racist driver to get back in his car and drive off.

  • Still a form of free speech/expression whereas coming out to start fighting with fists out wouldn't be considered as such.

Sad statement that this women’s letter was extracted in such a way as to purposely misrepresent her intent and the actual information she conveyed. Sad! She was in no way saying it is ok to offend people. Read her entire letter. Those wanting to portray her as suggesting it is ok to be offensive had to carefully select a few sentences and juxtapose them in a way that would suggest something that she did not say or imply.

I’m a Midwesterner. I did my first year of undergrad at a college and in a mid-sized city in New England that most on CC generally cite as extremely liberal. The prejudice there–both on campus and off–was no better than anywhere else, but prejudiced people had internalized this belief that people from the coasts weren’t “that way,” so they ceased to look at their actions critically.

People really are the same all over.

This snippet, from the article @boolaHi linked, explains better than I did why I object to the Master’s email:

Why is it up to this one student to let her fellow students know they’re being jerks? What’s wrong with the college reminding students that Yale expects its student body not to be jerks?

I’m not saying that there is no racism deeply rooted in Michigan. Ann Arbor is worlds away in terms of racial diversity from Detroit. And throughout my life I have been in awkward situations where someone has done something or said something inappropriate that had to be addressed. I wholly support your one-fingered salute, as I have given my fair share over the years. But the distinction I feel here is that while I can appreciate (thanks to the editorial referenced above) that some minorities suffer in silence, I still think the administration stuck its nose into student body business that should have been handled in another way.

One of the benefits (?) of going to college is that you are exposed to many other view points and opinions. And though you may disagree with them, and though they may be horrific and though they may drive you crazy, you have a right to your opinion. Now, I certainly do not have to agree with you. I do not have to be your friend, or acknowledge you when we cross paths. I don’t have to speak to you or associate with you in any way. That is my choice. I have exercised that choice in the past by not associating with people that I find disrespectful or shameful.

Instead of sending out an email that says “don’t do this” (which we all know drives kids to do it even more) why not have a campus-wide event talking about cultural sensitivity, where people can be educated and enlightened? If you wanted to (and I don’t advocate this, but to make my point) the minority students could have done their take on horrible white people throughout history, as a form of protest. But for the administration to just decide “hey, let’s remind everyone to be sensitive this year” is just inappropriate. I think also it’s inappropriate for administration to decide they are the unwanted guardians of the students’ right to free speech. If Erika had students come up to her and say they felt discriminated against, she should have listened carefully to their concerns and if they were still aggrieved (by not being able to wear black face?) then they could have taken it up with the people who wrote the email themselves. I think she, as a rational person, might have been able to convince them that black face is not appropriate and that would have been the end of it.

It’s time the “adults” just got out of the way. I wouldn’t want any of my students to feel like they were being discriminated against, of course, but if I say something that offends them, they’re going to have to learn better techniques to make their point than screaming in the center of campus or burning someone in effigy.

So did I. And so did my parents, who would readily put on blackface. Also, Ann Arbor is an oasis of liberalism compared to out-state and up-state in Michigan. You can’t say you have lived in the rural midwest if that was your primary exposure.

Why is it up to this one student to let her fellow students know they’re being jerks? What’s wrong with the college reminding students that Yale expects its student body not to be jerks?

Exactly, Cardinal!

I grew up in a predominantly African-American neighborhood. And I agree that A2 is an oasis of liberalism, but if we can’t make progress there, what hope is there to make it anywhere else?

@boolaHI Where do you draw the line between what is the school’s responsibility and that of the students? I agree that it should definitely not be left up to one person to tell everyone they’re being jerks - but should we also then have campus wide announcements to remind students not to say “Merry Christmas” because it might offend non-Christians? I hope that these students are a bit more thick-skinned and open-minded than they are being given credit for. These are young adults (at a prestigious university) in the eyes of society and knowing how to conduct oneself should not be a college 101 course. I am going to gracefully bow out of this discussion as I think we are going to have to agree to disagree and I don’t want to end up saying something that makes me sound like a pompous ass. (Or more so.)

What one may consider “better” may not actually be effective when one examines past histories of protests of various kinds. Incidentally, burning someone in effigy and screaming are both characteristics of many successful political movements and even revolutions…including the American Revolution. Sons of Liberty, anyone?

@jeremyj, my parents attended Michigan in the early 1950s. when it was probably fine to dress as any racial or ethnic group. But they don’t live in Ann Arbor now, and very little social progress has made it to the town they do live in, at least in their social circle (which is the upper crust of the town – and they have friends whose kids have gone to Brown, Harvard, etc. – so students from those families ARE getting to top notch colleges, carrying their parents’ and grandparents’ baggage along). They only listen to the echo chamber news channels where “political correctness” is decried, so they feel free to continue on their way. I think some people my age who still live there are getting the message, but clearly not all from what I see on Facebook. :frowning:

Here is what is represented to be Erika Chistakis email that caused such furor. Maybe I am blind, but could someone point out what is so offensive to these students to call for her and her husbands resignation?

From: Erika Christakis
Date: Friday, October 30, 2015
Subject: Dressing Yourselves
To: “All Silliman Students and Admin.”

Dear Sillimanders:

Nicholas and I have heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the mass email sent to the student body about appropriate Halloween-wear. I’ve always found Halloween an interesting embodiment of more general adult worries about young people. As some of you may be aware, I teach a class on “The Concept of the Problem Child,” and I was speaking with some of my students yesterday about the ways in which Halloween – traditionally a day of subversion for children and young people – is also an occasion for adults to exert their control.

When I was young, adults were freaked out by the specter of Halloween candy poisoned by lunatics, or spiked with razor blades (despite the absence of a single recorded case of such an event). Now, we’ve grown to fear the sugary candy itself. And this year, we seem afraid that college students are unable to decide how to dress themselves on Halloween.

I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.

It seems to me that we can have this discussion of costumes on many levels: we can talk about complex issues of identify, free speech, cultural appropriation, and virtue “signalling.” But I wanted to share my thoughts with you from a totally different angle, as an educator concerned with the developmental stages of childhood and young adulthood.

As a former preschool teacher, for example, it is hard for me to give credence to a claim that there is something objectionably “appropriative” about a blonde-haired child’s wanting to be Mulan for a day. Pretend play is the foundation of most cognitive tasks, and it seems to me that we want to be in the business of encouraging the exercise of imagination, not constraining it. I suppose we could agree that there is a difference between fantasizing about an individual character vs. appropriating a culture, wholesale, the latter of which could be seen as (tacky)(offensive)(jejeune)(hurtful), take your pick. But, then, I wonder what is the statute of limitations on dreaming of dressing as Tiana the Frog Princess if you aren’t a black girl from New Orleans? Is it okay if you are eight, but not 18? I don’t know the answer to these questions; they seem unanswerable. Or at the least, they put us on slippery terrain that I, for one, prefer not to cross.

Which is my point. I don’t, actually, trust myself to foist my Halloweenish standards and motives on others. I can’t defend them anymore than you could defend yours. Why do we dress up on Halloween, anyway? Should we start explaining that too? I’ve always been a good mimic and I enjoy accents. I love to travel, too, and have been to every continent but Antarctica. When I lived in Bangladesh, I bought a sari because it was beautiful, even though I looked stupid in it and never wore it once. Am I fetishizing and appropriating others’ cultural experiences? Probably. But I really, really like them too.

Even if we could agree on how to avoid offense – and I’ll note that no one around campus seems overly concerned about the offense taken by religiously conservative folks to skin-revealing costumes – I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition. And the censure and prohibition come from above, not from yourselves! Are we all okay with this transfer of power? Have we lost faith in young people’s capacity – in your capacity - to exercise self-censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you? We tend to view this shift from individual to institutional agency as a tradeoff between libertarian vs. liberal values (“liberal” in the American, not European sense of the word).

Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society.

But – again, speaking as a child development specialist – I think there might be something missing in our discourse about the exercise of free speech (including how we dress ourselves) on campus, and it is this: What does this debate about Halloween costumes say about our view of young adults, of their strength and judgment?

In other words: Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It’s not mine, I know that.

Happy Halloween.

Yours sincerely,

Erika

@jeremyj I don’t know where the line should be drawn, except to say, that there should be a line. Here is the thing that is beyond irksome: one is a totally frivolous event that is entirely optional (dressing up for Hallowen), while what Emily makes reservation about is her very DNA and culture, in which a very violent and documented history in which upwards of 10 million native people died at the hands of Western colonizers. If one cannot distinguish between the two, I weep for them, and the institutional apathy.

For transparency sake, both my daughter (also a Y student) and I, know Emily.

I agree that shouting and burning in effigy have been used in political movements in the past, but is that what we want to teach our children to do? I concede to your point, that sometimes you have to do a little more than play nice to make real substantive change. I was merely suggesting alternatives before it got to the point it did.

@intparent - You also have a point where political correctness is tossed around as some sort of golden ticket to do whatever you want and act foolish. And for the sake of humanity, I hope our futures are not solely in the hands of the buffoons on Facebook. I would only suggest that if your parents are truly offended by that sort of behavior or mindset that they no longer associate with those people. Being socially shunned or outcast can be as effective as a pitchfork.

@boolaHI You’re right, there should be a line. The school has a responsibility for the safety of its students. If there is a safety issue, they are obligated to inform the public. Now, I don’t mean to imply that racism is a safety issue, but I’m trying to better understand where this line should be. Where one is a real actual physical concern for personal safety, the other is (I think we can agree) less drastic. One requires immediate attention by mass email, the other could be handled by student organizations or campaigns. I was profoundly moved by Emily’s article, and I did see another side that I hadn’t previously considered. There is still a problem with race in America and it has to be worked on and addressed. I absolutely 100% agree.

I’m just not sure I would hinge such an important social issue on insensitive costumes. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe this is the catalyst to the change we desperately need. I just prefer dialogue over dogma.

Considering Yale has had recent incidents of one particular fraternity behaving badly towards marginalized groups like shouting chants encouraging rape as shown here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/yale-suspend-bush-fraternity-sexist-chants_n_863232.html

and now being accused of hosting a party where the hosting fraternity denied entry to non-White women not too long ago…reactions to this email aren’t coming from a vacuum.

There’s also the background of the same groups feeling their concerns were brusquely dismissed in light of penalties against said fraternity for past actions going back several years which were found to have occurred being considered too light considering the gravity of the offense committed.

The fact this same fraternity has powerful connections to members of the socio-political elite like the Bush family only reinforces perceptions, rightly or wrongly, that the Yale administration is treating this and campus groups like it with kid gloves to maintain proper obeisance with that elite.

Ugh, I don’t even want to go down that path and discuss the nightmare that is the Greek system. I think it should be abolished entirely, personally, but again that is my opinion. Many of our Presidents were in fraternities, so I don’t really know if I’m the right person to judge. I leave it up to the adult students to make that decision for themselves.

But from your article:

“Yale said after a full hearing its executive committee found that the Delta Kappa Epsilon chapter and several fraternity members had threatened and intimidated others, in violation of its regulations.”

“But I am glad to see that Yale recognized the gravity of the situation and responded with appropriate disciplinary action,” Brodsky said in a statement. “Such disciplinary action and public discussion mark a departure from Yale’s previous approach to sexual misconduct, and I am heartened to see the university headed in this new direction.”

While I don’t think it should hide behind privacy regulations but do exactly what I have advocated (socially shun these people who cannot behave in society), this is proof that there is a process in place where students can have these grievances addressed. Before you rush the Master’s doors with pitchforks, why not use this as an opportunity to have honest, frank, campus-wide discussion about social/racial/gender equality?

I stand behind my opinion that if it had been handled a different way with a bit more tact this would never have come up on our radar at all.