I donʻt want to distract from the core of the discussion, but the attempt to convey what it is to be black in America is folly in itself. Even as an adult, living what many consider to be living the dream (educated, homes, children who you could not ask for more, etc…) there are still indignities that occur all the time. That said, I still think that the value of a Y education is decisively worth the time, effort and resource.
I tell all my Ds, that a top notch university prepares the mind in a challenging and vigorous way–however, you donʻt live behind those gates forever, we live our lives in our streets and communities—huge difference. We live in a complex and sometimes unsettling society, and to an extent, college should reflect that…
To me, that’s the most logical interpretation of her email.
EC offers NC’s advice that people who are offended should either just “look away” or confront and explain. And she does so after suggesting that the message the IAC sent out asking students to be considerate and avoid offense was oppressive. So EC quite explicitly lays the burden of “dealing with it” on students who may be offended. And she places that burden exclusively on them – abdicating her own responsibility as Associate Master, arguing that other university officials should butt out, and urging other students to stand up for their right to be obnoxious, offensive, and transgressive.
Re “overreaction” (as a concept more than in the specific context of the post quoted) – the whole they’re being too sensitive thing rubs me the wrong way. Isn’t it equally possible that other actors aren’t being sensitive enough? Especially where nothing much is at stake (e.g. what Halloween costume to wear) shouldn’t we be encouraging people to be more sensitive? And, realistically, isn’t “sensitivity” (more than free speech) what’s driving a lot of the pushback? It’s about not wanting to be seen as or made to feel like a racist or an oppressor or a person who got where s/he is based on privilege – or to be reduced to a caricature based on your race or gender.
“Urging” students to be obnoxious and offensive? She said no such thing. That is not at all how I read that email.
So instead the students should have the administration direct what they can/cannot wear for Halloween, and they will have to “deal with it”. I see.
There is clearly a line between harassment and free speech. Yet some student protesters appear to be arguing that any speech that upsets anyone in their self-described oppressed group should not be allowed. In some cases, this has been taken into the classroom. If some of the brightest students in the country do not understand the implications of curtailing free speech, how can our educational system show them otherwise? NC, at some point in either the video or in writings, tries to explain that you can simultaneously abhor the content of the speech, but support the right to say it. While Yale is a private institution that can set more limits on speech than the government, a valued underpinning of higher education has been to have open dialogue and to expose students to ideas they may otherwise never hear, while encouraging them to speak out against oppression.
Is there a way to reduce hateful speech, but not curtail free speech? It is not easy to find that balance as has been discussed in several CC threads.
re #915The students are adults. How could you argue otherwise? The majority of 188 to 22yos in this country are in the work force; some are parents. Do college students lose their status as adults because they are in school, not the work force? The Masters are not really equivalent to housemasters at a prep school as I doubt they conduct bed checks or enforce rules on behavior. The email was poorly written and thought out, but did not create unsafe space.
How is a protest any less attention seeking than a petition? Petitions get attention all the time. And really, the only reason these incidents have gotten the attention they have is because some people can’t stand the idea that different people have different standards for offensiveness.
Alh: do you believe the EC’s email was doing all that and was bullying? Not sure your point in 924? I think that is reading a lot into an email in which the primary point was about the University policing what kids wear. I don’t see where she said Hey kids go out and wear offensive costumes. I don’t think she should have sent it, but certainly does not suggest she would be supportive of bullying. (Of course if bullying is redefined to include bringing up uncomfortable topics for discussion in a classroom, she might).
I don’t believe it was her intent. When I first read the email, my immediate reaction was that she was opening the door to harassment and bullying. That was before I read any commentary.
As soon as I read it, I thought about the Deke incident.
exacademic-
You changed your post after I quoted you. But I still disagree. Whether you claim EC “urges students to be obnoxious and offensive” (which I believe is what you first said) or “urges students to stand up for their right to be obnoxious and offensive”, it seems you are reading way more into the email than is there. You seem to imply that her email has some militant tone, and really, it just isn’t there. But if we say so, we are being insensitive bullies. I see.
Re #923 – I didn’t say EC urged students to be obnoxious/offensive/transgressive. I said she urged them to stand up for their right to be obnoxious, etc. Big difference and if you don’t see it, then substitute “have abortions” for “be obnoxious.”
And, as has been pointed out many times before, the IAC email didn’t “direct” students to wear or not wear particular costumes. It asked students to make thoughtful choices. In other words, it asked students who might otherwise unintentionally offend to “deal with it” (and maybe we need to name “it” – e.g. racism) by recognizing it’s out there, prepackaged in fun forms, and by making a conscious decision about whether they want to help perpetuate it.
And, if it matters, actually the change I made later was to add the paragraph about overreaction – decided not to do it as a second post.
And as an aside, the photo with that linked article, alh, is the wrong residential college. That’s Trumbull, not Silliman. That would be like Mr. Guyton writing about Monroe (a freshman dorm at Tulane) but putting up a photo of Sharp (another frosh dorm).
There have been some college protests here in NYC in the last couple of days. Without any specific incident to complain about, the protestors have decided to go after Zionists and support for Israel.
“And, it taints the accomplishments of all those who are the same race as those admitted as a result of racial discrimination. In this case, for example, most blacks and Hispanics attending the University were admitted without discrimination under the Top Ten Percent plan, but no one can distinguish those students from the ones whose race played a role in their admission. “When blacks [and His-panics] take positions in the highest places of government, industry, or academia, it is an open question . . . whether their skin color played a part in their advancement.” See Grutter, 539 U. S., at 373 (opinion of Thomas, J.). “The question itself is the stigma — because either racial discrimination did play a role, in which case the person may be deemed `otherwise unqualified,’ or it did not, in which case asking the question itself unfairly marks those . . . who would succeed without discrimination.” Ibid. Although cloaked in good intentions, the University’s racial tinkering harms the very people it claims to be helping.”
I think the question of her intent is an interesting one. I want to adjust what I said in #928. I can’t judge her intent. I can only say how it read to me. It read to me like saying subversive behavior is okay. At the time the Dekes were described as subversive satirists. I didn’t think the Dekes behavior was okay or should be allowed on campus. I felt very strongly about that.
I am not as close a reader as exacademic.
Also, I’m off topic, but just wanted to answer mom2and since she asked. I have to leave this thread for a while for real life obligations.
I’m curious about what the rest of you think about this? I admit I was part of the “blissfully ignorant dominant majority” on the dynamics at Tulane, but a quick internet search (Tulane racism) suggests that marginalized students there are openly sharing their concerns all over the place.
Also, it was not my experience at UVA back in the 80’s that minority students were afraid to share their concerns–the BSA there was active and vocal, in the press and sponsoring many campus events. Even the GSA (Gay Student Alliance) had a strong voice–which, if you remember the hysteria around homosexuality at the time, was far more remarkable.
But that was then, this is now. I’m willing to believe that students at Mizzou or other public universities in the Deep South might feel intimidated, but at Yale? And do recent events bear this out in any case? It doesn’t seem so to me.
However, never having been a marginalized student, I’m curious to know what others think.
Good point, classicalmama. I also had a question about that author’s comment about “5 suicides”. There were 5 deaths, but I don’t believe they were all suicides, unless you consider an overly intoxicated student falling over a railing (almost a year ago to the date, and it was considered an accident) a suicide. Guess it is about intent, as alh mentioned in post 938.