One could say the exact same thing to the Yale students complaining about the fact they were “constrained” and “infantilized” by the first email asking them to give some thought to civility and consideration for others when deciding on one’s Halloween choice and offering some guidance.
One can also say “life is unfair” and “deal with it” to those very students as they’re likely to face many more instances of these types of reminders/guidelines/instructions which may, rightly or wrongly, be perceived as “infantilizing”, constraining, or even micromanaging in many areas of their post-college life such as the workplace.
And unlike what happened with those students and EC, if anyone in many workplaces…including some of the ones I’ve worked in complained about such instructions along those lines, supervisors/higher management aren’t likely to react very well.
If anything, that’s much more likely prompt supervisors/management to give them a dressing down by among other things…accusing them of “whining” or failing to be a “team player”. And if they persist, they’d be inclined to put that complainant on their s&&tlist and give them far less margin from layoffs/termination, especially if he/she commits a transgression which an employee who hasn’t complained in such a manner normally be given a second chance/benefit of the doubt.
Incidentally, while cursing someone out is rude and unwise for future professional prospects, it still is essentially an exercise of her free speech rights. Even if it was done in front of LEOs in arrest situations as the following court rulings have found:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/cursing-at-a-cop-is-legal.html#
In that context, I find it ironic that at least one poster defends the Christakis’ right to free speech without negative consequences when it is inapplicable as Yale is a private institution and not an arm of the government and her “speech” calls into question about her ability to do her job as house master…part of which is to serve as supportive academic and to some extent positive personal influence for all the residential college’s students…not just those she seems to favor and yet, feel the other party should face the full wrath of negative consequences for acting similarly with far less institutional responsibilities, power, and consequential influence.
House Master who is a representative of the Yale administration and who is separately a tenured Professor/spouse of said Prof versus an undergraduate? IMO, only the extremely obtuse would view them as remotely equivalent or that the student has the greater onus in that context.