I’m bothered by the idea that people are thinking “Shrieking Girl” was deliberately and intentionally shrieking because she believes that’s the way people ought to interact. Can she just have lost her temper and started to yell? People do this, even though they know they shouldn’t, just like people eat five pieces of cake even though they shouldn’t.
I’m bothered by the fact she has been exploited in this way by Lukianoff, a guest of her college, who filmed her against university regulations and posted it on the internet without any concern for the consequences to her. He created a narrative that supports a movie he has coming out soon He’s dominated a news cycle. However, I’m not going to post all that in detail again. We are in a loop here.
I think we should be talking about Lukianoff and his motives and ethics.
She was “exploited”?
seems like you’re shooting the messenger.
It’s like saying when frat boys misbehave, the bad guys are the ones who take the videos.
Hmm. I wonder if you felt that way when someone ( a guest of the frat) filmed, without his permission, the frat boy signing on the bus at University of Oklahoma and placed the video on the Internet without regard to how it affected him. I do not recall you being worried about that. And that was a private party on a private bus, not in a public place like at Yale. I do not remember anyone complaining about the messenger - in fact, I recall many praised the video taker. But this Yale student needs to be protected?
This really sounds like a double standard. OK, to expose the white guy, but need to protect the black girl because she cannot handle the real world. Well, in the real world, what is good for the goose is good or the gander. She just got her welcome to what the rest of the world is like, and it ain’t Yale. And nothing stopping people from videotaping you in the real world, so she better get a handle on her behavior.
Anyway, the rulebook is irrelevant in my view, as kids reflexively videotape their friends all the time. It seems a bit of a stretch to think that this guest knew it was against Yale policy to videotape his friend. Who the heck would know that except a student who actually attends Yale and reads the handbook. And I bet most Yale students do not observe this rule either.
Either way, good to know - saves many a company from having to deal with someone who cannot control their tone and anger.
awc: I posted a link from FIRE, the organization of which Lukianoff is president, that talks about private colleges having rules against filming on campus and how the organization deals with that. It talks about the differences between public and private colleges with regard to filming. He knew.
Yes, they do know that, but their issue is larger.
There is this overarching guilt-by-association meme in all these protests and if you are white, then really what you say does not matter, as you are part of the problem of cultural appropriation and all the other nonsense they cite.
And this is where they are losing a whole lot of people - they are literally taking no distinctions between people who they see as their targets and painting with a one brush. At least, their wackiness is out in the open now.
What is really interesting is how people like to say how great white liberal and progressives in the northeast are in terms of tolerance and race relations, as compared to the South, yet these protesters at Yale and other schools in the North and ripping into the supposedly tolerant and wonderful liberal and progressive administrators on their campuses. The irony is fascinating.
I am bothered that the Yale incident and others like it are being used to suggest that left-leaning college ideologues have lowered the bar of appropriate behavior in political speech/protest, so bent on keeping everyone PC on America’s campuses. In pointing out the methods of these students as exceptionally egregious, they completely ignore evidence showing that kind of behavior is way worse in the real world, at both ends of the ideological spectrum. These students are not creating a new low here. We’ve been at rock-bottom for a very long time.
I’d like to suggest that it’s really the message that is causing the excitement on this thread. Those who don’t agree with the students are, predictably, making this string of incidents out to be a new wave of ideology-driven behavior heretofore unseen on the American political landscape. But when the critics are themselves motivated by a competing ideology, it’s like the kettle calling the pot black. This is polarization. It’s not new and it’s accelerating.
More reasons to distrust FIRE and that sneaky Lukianoff.
Various cases they’ve supported.
-
Steven Salaita whose tweets supporting the palestine cause resulted in a college job offer to be rescinded
https://www.thefire.org/u-illinois-withdraw-job-offer-prof-controversial-tweets/ -
NORMAL ISU - student group had their marijuana legalization campaign thwarted by campus
https://www.thefire.org/isus-attempt-to-stifle-marijuana-legalization-student-group-scrutinized-in-federal-court/ -
Lawsuit against WMU after school raised fees, creating unfair barrier inhibiting the african american rapper and social activist Boots Riley from appearing on campus
https://www.thefire.org/lawsuit-student-group-sues-western-michigan-u-taxes-controversial-speech/ -
Student who was trying to circulate a petition protesting NSA surveillance on US citizens
https://www.thefire.org/cases/citrus-college-stand-up-for-speech/
OOPS, how embarrassing !
These are all causes that might be considered consistent with liberal or dare I say progressive interests !
Those FIRE people are definitely evil… :)>-
They must be compelled to eat overcooked Okra.
.http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2015/11/20/amid-campus-turmoil-alumni-fundraiser-cancelled/
Interesting that Yale canceled an annual fundraiser with alumni due to campus tension. The comments by older alumni are illuminating.
It wasn’t a private bus.
While they hired out the bus for its service…the bus company retained ownership of the bus and as with most hired bus/taxi companies reserve the right to film/photograph passengers and their guests at any time while passengers and their guests are on the bus for accountability purposes.
For that reason, passengers and their guests do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
On the flipside, several Y alums have posted that the college’s courtyard isn’t open to the public as it requires a passcard for access, area in which the filming took place far from easy viewing access from a public street, and the Y regulations specifically ban outside parties from filming in those areas.
I find this a little curious, but I have no personal experience of the matter. Do you have links to any examples of hire contracts that include such open-ended rights to film the passengers?
Regardless of the justice of the cause, Yale is not Berkeley and the older alumni more likely than not don’t want it to start looking like Berkeley.
I would not be surprised at all if, as predicted by awcntdb, minorities at these schools will be negatively affected in the job market. As it is now, companies must go to extreme lengths before they can fire an under-performing African-American employee since the charge of racism can, and will, get levied against them otherwise. My sister is an executive in a well-known multi-national corporation and says her business group currently has an employee who has not shown up for work in 6 months for no reason. Prior to those six months she was completely ineffective–a fact that the company has well documented. Yet the company lawyers won’t let them fire the woman yet. DH worked with an AA man who didn’t show up more than 50% of the time and was late whenever he did, and the company had to wait more than a year before they could safely fire him. The reason given to the other employees behind closed doors? “He’s black, so we have to very careful.” So why on earth would a company want to hire any kids who have already shown themselves prone to accuse people of racism, eg. the Dartmouth library protesters who screamed at fellow students and called them racists for preferring to study rather than protest?
Why do you need to have contract to understand that?
A private bus is a private vehicle; if a company can film you in its private store or office when you walk in, then a private bus can film you in its private place of business as well, on its property. As stated above, there is no expectation of privacy in any of these places.
Well, if I rent out my house, I don’t think I have a right to film the residents.
“Retaining ownership” is not sufficient to determine your expectation or not of privacy. “Reserve the right” normally implies a prominent assertion to that effect.
So I would like more information on the issue, from somebody who actually knows about the law.
No disagreement there.
However, expectation of privacy is not the issue here. The issues are the term “exploited” and the intent to “exploit.” That is, was the Yale female video likeness purposely and negatively used against her? The answer there is definitely no. It was the spontaneous capturing of an outburst. This is something which people do all the time and many even sell that stuff to newspapers, and no one calls that exploiting. The same for the frat bus incident - that member was not exploited.
What is ironic is I bet the Yale video-taker’s intent was the total reverse. He thought he was helping the protesting students’ cause by videoing the event, not realizing that many outside of Yale would not agree with the proceedings and how the students were behaving.
Thanks, you just proved my point.
Just like the private bus, the Yale courtyard is not open to the public. When the frat rented the private bus, the bus was not open to the public either; it was only open to approved frat members and their guests, just like the Yale courtyard is only open to passcard holders and their guests. Thus, there is no expectation of privacy in the Yale courtyard either in that Yale can film you if it wants.
The Yale regs are totally useless if unknown by a guest, as there is no expectation of privacy issue that the guest was violating. More importantly, Yale regs are not legally binding in that they are not state or federal regs, and the guest cannot be charged with violating anyone’s rights.
In the real world, the fault may even lie with the female who was videotaped, as she was the Yale student and she is the one who the Yale regs initially apply to and it would have been her responsibility to inform her guest of the no videotaping policy. Did she properly inform the guest of the no filming policy? If she did not inform the guest as much, then all the huffing and puffing of Yale alums is just hot air. This a Catch-22 anyway in that even if she did inform, there still is no expectation of privacy in the Yale courtyard that was violated, and the guest is not a Yale student so cannot be disciplined by Yale.
Still waiting for an informed answer about the bus.
The issue applies to top candidates as well.
The female in this video may in fact be in the top 2% of all students in the country. However, the big things in the business environment is knowing how 1) to keep your poise in that face of something you do not like with a client, and 2) knowing how to respectfully ignore a client who may not share your views on something. The client may be a great person, just totally different than you.
The issue here is the Yale student presented no ability to deal with an idea or something she does not like and flew off the handle. What if a client said something in a meeting she did not like? Would she be a liability in that situation? Would she know how to deftly get out of the room or situation if she did not like it? Or, would she stupidly jeopardize the entire meeting and potential client thinking that she has some inane right to be offended?
And that is the problem with this grievance culture and forever offended culture - it is difficult to trust how people react and behave even at something normal. Think about it - she acted this way over the possible potential of seeing a halloween costume she might find offensive. If hypotheticals get people to behave like that, what if a client says something that the employee does not really like. Just not worth trouble to hire people who get offended all the time; there are enough people with poise to choose from.
You aren’t going to get one from the poster in question.