The kid being described here could be mine; though he hasn’t (so far) had anyone say anything to him, people have said some nasty, vindictive things to at least one of his friends (not a white friend FWIW), and he is reluctant to speak out.
However…I feel strongly that he should not shrink into a safe place right now. If someone does say something insulting to him because (for example) he chose to not attend the sit-in, I think it would absolutely be his responsibility to confront the students who offended him. It’s also his responsibility to consider their response to him (assuming it’s civil) carefully. If he doesn’t choose to do that because he doesn’t want to deal with the kickback or insults that might come his way, then that’s on him. At some point, we all need to get out there and say/do what we think is right, especially when it’s hardest to do it.
I watched a good portion of the Claremont McKenna hour long protest video. I came away thinking how horribly we have failed this generation. And just to be clear the protestors were black, white and asian students so I am not pointing a cannon at any one particular group. The vast majority of the group portrayed themselves as confused, entitled, demanding and disrespectful. The word “neurosis” kept coming to mind.
I am guessing that is in reference to academic freedom. Is EC’s role academic or practical? If practical, it would be best the effort focuses on getting through one night, Halloween night. If academic, she should have opened it for a discussion so both camps have a chance to air it out. Either way, there wouldn’t have been the uproar. Although she and NC and many others shriek “freedom of speech”, EC’s action actually diminished the chance for free speech by minority group.
@classicalmama - agree with your 982 post; we all need to engage in dialogue and not be afraid to do so - consider that the CMC students did exactly that in the article posted by zoosermom in 981.
One more thought before I head to class. If I really wanted to get the Christakis’s fired (not that I do), I’d quickly shift my focus from the email to the one thing that is a pretty clear, concrete offense. Assuming NC knew he was being filmed, he should have, as master of the college, enforced Yale’s rule against filming students without their consent in the residential colleges. You could argue about whether the courtyard is included in the definition of college or whether he knew he was being filmed, but the filming was clearly against Yale’s rules.
Free expression itself is academic. Can you imagine Yale campus officer freely expressing how minority kids are more problem if that’s the case or frat bros are drunken a-holes?
OK, here’s a ridiculous example of sensitivity gone awry.
A group at Pitzer wanted to form a club to be affiliated with DreamCatchers Foundation, which creates dreams for hospice patients. (I gather it’s similar to Make-A-Wish.)
But the name “dreamcatchers” was seen as a form of cultural appropriation towards Native Americans. Specifically, the person involved pointed out the fact that “the DreamCatchers Foundation does not explicitly indicate that it serves any Native nation or group in the Los Angeles area" and “a corporation with a logo containing explicit Native imagery that doesn’t serve Native communities or affiliated with a Native organization is cultural appropriation.”
Ironically, the founder and CEO of this foundation is Native American herself (Penobscot); her organization gives people dreamcatchers as part of their experience and she believes the foundation’s name is respectful of Native Americans.
The Pitzer student who wished to start this club was told she could do her own club with a similar concept and name it a different name.
So really, you can’t win. Complete, ridiculous nonsense.
So they make a ‘speech’ indicating that they are against free speech. It’s as ironic as the student who went on one of the TV talk shows and said she was tired of the First Amendment. These students are stupid beyond belief. As I said earlier they all need a strong lesson in the US Constitution.
@mom2and In ‘Eve of Destruction’ today’s protesters might believe that the line about marching for integration marginalizes their cause.
My point is, the protesters today do not seem to have the courage of their convictions. Every alternative idea, every possible option is threat if it doesn’t come from their own specific agenda. Discomfort immobilizes them, so they avoid and decry uncomfortable strategies, like embracing free speech.
That could very well be. The thing is we are their elders. We still have to hold their hands and lead them to the right direction. We can’t just criticize them and say you are so wrong I am done with you.