This isn’t very persuative for me. Being in America is to exist in a space not created for you, not just Yale. They opened the door and now it’s your turn to create a space for you and everyone else and help the place evolve from where it had been to where it will be. Like it or not the civilization was dominated by eurocentrics(?) for the last 2-300 years. Their progress was unmatched. Can we pick up from there and create our own unmatched progress in the next hundred years? Or shall we stop using elctricity, planes, democracy, … since they are all created by and for eurocentrics?
Are you calling EC’s email reasoned e-mail? The original email basically said, “be nice” not much more. Bringing freedom of speech into this is so hollow. EC is saying they are adults they will behave. First, they don’t always act as adults as seen in recent incidents. Wouldn’t that warrant some caution from school administration? Is that so objectionable?
PG, Funny how these schools didn’t admit women til relatively recently, yet women as a whole don’t feel “marginalized” by attending institutions founded by men.
I find it rather odd when faced with facts and counterpoints this is unanswered. And how could you begin to speak for a school you did not attend or have affiliation? In fact, you do not know…and cannot make that broad assumption.
The irony is that women of color stay in the workforce at a higher rate than white women, and choose to opt less so…see:http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/11/18/harvard_business_school_study_it_s_not_kids_but_husbands_that_hold_women.html
Yale promises a “little paradise” as the residential college living experience.
http://admissions.yale.edu/residential-colleges-defined
There is an interesting piece on Vox that makes the argument that part of the recent “explosion” at Yale is in part a simple truth in advertising failure to deliver as promised issue.
I tried to find any indication that Ms. Luther, or any of the other Yale students on the Silliman Master selection committee that was part of the selection process, was not on board with that selection at the time. I could find nothing that indicated that any student committee member made an objection at the time.
I also followed up to see what other involvement Ms. Luther, as a Senior residing in Silliman, had with the Master’s delivery of the promised “little paradise.” For the other residential colleges at Yale, the Yale website contains the names, pictures and an involvement description of all student Master’s Aides in that college. The page for the Silliman Master’s Aides has been taken down. One online report is that until November 6, the Silliman page was up and listed Ms. Luther as one of the student Master’s Aides.
I see two lessons in all this. View all advertising skeptically, especially if part of the “sell” is very important to you. If your personal “little paradise” requires that there be no racially insensitive conduct, check it out in advance. From posts on CC and on the Internet generally, all potential students could have become aware that racially insensitive conduct abounds even at Yale. Some of the posts make me wonder if any “POC” could reasonably believe that Yale could or would deliver a racially sensitive little paradise.
Another lesson is “spin” does not always work. If a person is part of the selection committee for the “leader” and also has a position and role in the daily functions that the selected leader directs, being at the forefront of the attack on that leader at a later date may not work as a way to distance yourself from your involvement.
Oh, and I see a third lesson. If you do something today, act with the assumption that it will be recorded and appear online. Own your personal conduct. That includes with family. The cell phone has provided the ability to provide audio and visual proof in divorce, probate and guardianship family cases.
Yale administration that “failed students of color” promised to present a plan to address that by Thanksgiving.
Any suggestions what they should do?
Because we’re having a pretty nice conversation about this, I’ll take the chance of bringing up what I think is the elephant in the room that everybody is edging around: affirmative action. Yale practices affirmative action, and I fully support it. This creates a few problems, though. First, white people like me, who have supported affirmative action for a long time, may feel somewhat insulted when we are now instructed, as if it was news to us, that black lives matter. Of course they do–that’s why we support affirmative action, diversity measures, etc. Do we want some “credit” for taking this position? Well, yeah. We’d like young people to recognize the history, and the ways in which things have changed. Why are there women and URMs at Yale–and not just at Yale, but in Skull and Bones and all the other formerly restricted societies? At least in part it’s because white men thought those changes were the right thing to do. Does that mean that further changes aren’t needed? Not at all. But I needed to be persuaded when it comes to the specifics. Telling me that I’m part of an oppressive white patriarchy will probably not be effective.
Second, I think we have to be honest that affirmative action is likely the source of a substantial amount of offensive statements that black students at Yale hear–indeed, many such statements can be read here on College Confidential when affirmative action is discussed. The fact of affirmative action no doubt feeds into the “you don’t belong here” message that many black students receive. Perhaps those who know that affirmative action likely played a significant role in their admission are particularly sensitive to such comments–I wouldn’t be surprised. My kids are legacies, and I’m sensitive to comments about legacy admissions–I would think comments based on affirmative action would be even more likely to be hurtful.
What is to be done about this? I don’t know. I still support affirmative action.
Granted Yale has been around since the early 1700’s, but its been officially coed for 46 years (there were female grad students way before then). That feels like a long enough time for the undergrads to acclimate.
Yes, I am. Her e-mail calmly presented her point of view and was written in part because she was responding to the concerns of some house students who had complained to her. The letter’s tone is polite and reasonable and asks students to think about whether or not they want adults dictating to them in such detail, or are they capable of making good choices on their own. It is not aggressive, nasty or deliberately dismissive. In addition, the e-mail expresses a liberal philosophy about expression that is practically a re-wording of Yale’s own stated policy regarding expression on campus. Now, I can understand why some may believe it was misguided and dismissive in actuality, but it does not seem to have been intended that way. A deliberate offense should be handled differently from an inadvertent offense. The uproar over this would have been appropriate had someone actually dressed up in a very offensive costume, but that did not happen.
No the original email was not objectionable. But neither is voicing a nuanced or even opposite opinion.
Thanks for linking that article. It’s very interesting. U should start a dedicated thread about it: are women willing to “marry down”?
From the description of the “little paradises”: “Masters work with students to shape each residential college community, bringing their own distinct social, cultural, and intellectual influences to the colleges.” This makes it sound like part of the job description of the master is to help students decide what they want their community to look like. EC’s e-mail presented them with some questions to ponder about what role they wanted authority to play.
"Funny how these schools didn’t admit women til relatively recently, yet women as a whole don’t feel “marginalized.”
Boolahi - let’s call it like it is. The majority of schools in this country - including the state universities that have educated far, far more of the population - have been coed ever since inception or shortly thereafter. With the exception of Cornell, every single Ivy League was tremendously late to the party - going coed in the late 60s/early 70s. Tremendously late. Woefully late. However, if you look at the other similar elite schools - why, they’ve all been coed for a far longer time.
Is there evidence that women feel more marginalized at (non-Cornell) Ivies than at other similar-caliber elite schools?
@GMTplus7 Youʻre welcome. Its an interesting point. So while certainly anecdotal, I talked to some folks at Y SOM, and potential implications, is that women that go to elite B schools, who are already middle or upper middle class, see the degree not just as an educational/career boost, but also as a way to choose partners…which some think, is why women of color have the highest participation in the job market, and lowest opt out rate (one, because working is not an option, they have to work, and two, they don’t necessarily find partners in that setting)…
Why don’t they find partners? Are they assuming they have to marry other black people? Isn’t that racist? /sarcasm
.
Hasn’t the answer always been the same? Excel once you are there. You “got in” because you are a legacy, an URM, you’re family is super wealthy or a former political bigwig or you are a celebrity.
Fine, when you excel on the same playing field after admission, you know all that was BS.
Why leave out? They are good. We have to accept that. My D’s HS left most of them out. They were very liberal and advocating gay rights. The reading they chose for lit courses were gay related. No Ibsen, no Voltaire, … Is that really progress?
PG, here are some books that are at my desk as we speak, that provide varying treatise on these topics, enjoy: https://books.google.com/books/about/Sex_Bias_in_the_Schools.html?id=zALv32qXw3IC
http://www.macmillanhighered.com/catalog/static/worth/whiteprivilege/
http://www.agjohnson.us/books/privilege/
Also, peruse the following: http://madamenoire.com/419646/black-women-in-the-ivy-league-everythings-not-always-so-pretty-at-the-top/ or http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/09/ivy-league-stiffs-its-female-profs.html or http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/newsroom/newsn/2700/new-research-proves-gender-bias-extraordinarily-prevalent-in-stem-careers
Well, Hi, 07dad!! Where ya been??
You can’t keep lumping all the ills of society onto this specific incident to justify the student overreaction. It’s intellectually dishonest. Gender issues were not a part of what happened in the Halloween incident.
Thanks. I’m not sure of the point, though. I’m not advocating that white privilege doesn’t exist. Of course it does. We are all disagreeing as to what’s the best method of leveling that playing field. Institution-down? Individual-up? Prohibition of certain speech - and if so, where’s that line drawn? Social approbation, or specific institutional censure and consequences?
Physical abuse is an easy one. Of course, no one would suggest that a student be allowed to beat up another student with impunity. But, you can’t also cry wolf if someone bumps against you accidentally in the cafeteria line.
Emotional distress is a lot harder. There’s no one on this thread who would advocate that a student be allowed to call another student the n word, for example. That’s a pretty easy one and a pretty bright line. There are lines that are a lot less clear, though. It’s not evidence of either ill will or racism to suggest that there can be reasonable disagreement on where the line is drawn or who “owns” the right to draw it.