I saw Lukianoff on Charlie Rose about a month ago and didn’t recognize the name until near the end of the interview, Mr. Rose played back a portion of the Yale tape. I was amused by how closely the events in Silliman courtyard should come on the heels of a book tour. 
@ahl, some on this thread (or the other one) have made the case that the filming of the boys without their knowledge on the bus was good because it exposed a wrong doing, while the Princeton video was bad because it was filmed without the subject’s knowledge, and exposed her in a bad light. And in both cases resulted in the individuals in question now being viewed in only that one context, which is good in one situation and bad in another. I’m pretty sure you were not the espousing that POV, but I also don’t have an infallible memory.
In regard to the assertion that students of certain ideological leaning expect or forcefully demand to be “coddled” at college, may I suggest we look at the situation from a different lens.
What if the college were a small business, say a restaurant. You are the owner. You will accept and encourage customers from all colors and ideological backgrounds, maybe even do special advertising to reach out to certain under-represented demographics to diversify and broaden the client base. You’re in it for the money, after all.
Suppose, one of your customers has a tendency, from time to time, to make racially charged proclamations so loudly, the tables nearby can’t avoid hearing it. Some customers aren’t bothered by it; some may even join in. Some people ask to be re-seated elsewhere. Some people tell the man to knock it off, with mixed results. One of the tables nearby takes it up with you, the owner. She tells you that she is paying customer, too, and she feels powerless to make the loud person stop. She insists forcefully, getting more shrill by the minute, that you intervene.
What do you do? Do you address the offender, tell him such hate speech is not welcome? Or do you address the lady, tell her this is the “real world” and “deal with it?”
This situation will escalate to a confrontation, one way or the other. What do you choose?
Sorry, that part of my post was more general to the conversation and not in response to you. Sorry if it seemed that way.
I can see your point, but I think this video would have surfaced somewhere even if Lukianoff hadn’t done it. I don’t in any way think she (or the other protesters) deserved the level of hateful messages and threats spewed at them.
In response to Lukianoff’s provocative remarks at the conference lots of Yale students took to the streets in protest. I would have had no problem with him filming any of them.
The argument the courtyard video might have surfaced somewhere even if Lukianoff hadn’t done it isn’t persuasive to me. He did do it. He is responsible. Someone else might have been responsible. They weren’t.
Generally I believe we are all teaching our kids to behave even in the midst of misbehaving peers. We teach them to know and behave better. I would expect someone in Lukianoff’s position to know and behave better.
I find the promotion of the video disingenuous tone policing. Some people on this board have objected to the content of the young woman’s speech, which is fine, but this discussion here and elsewhere too often devolves to complaints about “shrieking girl” and her indecorous yelling, as if the main problem was her demeanor. She is held up to ridicule for her demeanor, and that’s a vast overreaction to a minor transgression.
It’s nothing like the SAE bus incident. Nobody says or believes that the singers were objectionable because of their delivery; nobody says the racist song would have been acceptable if only it had been sung in four part harmony by Oklahoma’s finest fingersnapping a capella group,and jeez those bus singers were out of tune. Nobody is policing the tone. We think racist songs are inappropriate in all circumstances, because of the racism, not the singing.
We aren’t holding the SAE boys up to derision for poor singing, and we shouldn’t hold up the Yale student to derision for losing her temper. Getting mad and yelling is not a national scandal.
Most likely because once you stated your argument/position to them, they strongly suspect that like those past experiences and accounts you’re most likely arguing in bad faith and are metaphorically pulling the same football stunt Lucy pulls with Charlie Brown in the Snoopy/Peanuts comic strip based on their own prior experiences and accounts from friends, older relatives, and others from the same marginalized group or others with similar experiences who heard similar arguments from those in the dominant majority or their sympathizers
And most would be correct based on prior encounters and life experiences with those from the dominant majority and sympathizers making the same/similar arguments. And even if that’s not the case, by virtue of being historically marginalized in our society for centuries and prior experiences/encounters with those making such arguments, they are far less able to afford to give folks with greater situational privilege like yourself the benefit of the doubt.
It’s no different from how some natural scientist friends/Profs and relatives refuse to engage creationists in “debating evolution” as based on past experiences and encounters with those inclined to engaging in such “debates”:
- They're really interested in trying to bait/set them up like Lucy does to Charlie Brown with the football in the Snoopy/Peanuts cartoons.
- Engaging them in a debate/discussion on what is essentially a settled topic within the mainstream biological scientific community gives the creationists and their positions much more legitimacy then they/their positions merit.
- Due to #1, the entire exercise is a waste of time the natural scientists/Profs could better spend on further researching more promising areas of better understanding their fields....not waste time chasing notions which have long since been completely debunked and mainly advanced by folks whose understanding of the natural scientific world hasn't moved past the mid-late 19th century.
@Hunt : As a fellow Yale parent, just curious–when and where did you get that home-like atmosphere in the residential colleges portayal? Granted, my kid did his college tour at Yale without me, so it may have come up then. I do remember going to the the opening day reception and being impressed that the master of my son’s college already knew his name, but my overall impression walking around in the reception area of the master’s residence was, “Wow, what a cool way to bring the life of the mind right into the residential college.” It never occurred to me that the master would stand in as a pseudo-parent.
I said this earlier in the thread, but when I look at the description on line, the dean of the college (who I don’t remember meeting) seems to serve (sort of) in that parental role, and the masters more as intellectual leaders and as responsible for the physical safety of students–as in keep your doors locked, not make sure no one does something that might hurt you emotionally. I’ve shared this link before, defining those roles, but I’ll add it here again.
http://yalecollege.yale.edu/campus-life/residential-colleges
In short, the home thing doesn’t resonate with me or my son, though Yale’s residential college system is a big reason why he chose to attend. He just liked the idea of a small college within a larger college.
Well, I’m a Yale alum myself, and the idea of the residential college as home is pretty ingrained. Here’s the description from Yale’s website: http://yalecollege.yale.edu/campus-life/residential-colleges
It talks more about an intimate community than home, specifically. I think Masters and Deans do often function as pseudo-parents–they are often the first line in terms of dealing with student problems.
We’re linking to the same page and reading it in very different ways.
I think, coming from the background of boarding school, I don’t take it for granted that faculty living and eating with students equates with creating a home away from home. A close-knit community is one thing; the emotional safety and comfort of home is another. At boarding school, the adviser filled that role to some extent, but the other adults were there primarily to offer advice and to make sure students were following the rules. I suppose that’s parental in its way, but not in the cuddly sense.
Anyway, and I suspect Hunt would agree with me, the Christakises behaved in a way that is entirely consistent with the language of that link: “The master is the chief administrative officer and the presiding faculty presence in each residential college. He or she is responsible for the physical well being and safety of students in the residential college, as well as for fostering and shaping the social, cultural, and educational life and character of the college. During the year, he or she hosts lectures, study breaks (especially during finals), and Master’s Teas—intimate gatherings during which students have the opportunity to engage with renowned guests from the academy, government, or popular culture.”
Well, I think the Christakises behaved in a somewhat thoughtless way, and one that was not helpful to the community spirit of the residential college. I think, though, that this should simply have been pointed out to them in a less inflammatory manner, and that their pal should have refrained from inflaming the situation even more.
I agree, particularly with your point about Lukianoff. However, I think it was appropriate as associate master–if not politic–for EC to add her voice to the discussion, even if she knew there were people in the college who would be put off by her opinion. That’s modeling the life of the mind, where intelligent people discuss and counter one another’s opinions in a search for truth.
My main issue is with the way people focused entirely on individual phrases rather than the overall intent of the letter. As an English teacher, that just rubs me wrong–a close reading of a text is important, but if an interpretation of a particular passage does not fit with or at least consider the text as a whole, it’s often a misreading. Also, as one who was immersed in grad. school in the reader response theory developed by Yale professor Stanley Fish, I’ve come to see the damage that “everyone’s response is valuable and correct” theorizing can do to one’s critical thinking skills. (That’s a gross oversimplification of Fish, by the way, but a fairly accurate description of how his theory trickled down to the elementary and secondary school classrooms of this generation).
I think Stanley Fish holds a Yale PhD, but was not a Yale professor (or maybe just a visiting professor at some point).
I’ve read several opinions, including those by current Yale students, suggesting EC’s letter was inappropriate for an Associate Master to the Silliman list serve, but completely appropriate as an op ed piece in any other context. That makes sense to me.
It is impossible for me to believe she didn’t anticipate those phrases being pulled out for debate. What I have read is that she referred anyone objecting to her letter, to Lukianoff’s “Coddling” Article. Just a series of unfortunate coincidences? I honestly don’t know what to think.
classicalmama: If the majority of students in Silliman were offended, does that change your mind at all? about it being sent to the list serve? I am not suggesting she shouldn’t be able to voice her opinion in the wider university.
^^^ Here’s Stanley Fish’s take on the protests:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanley-fish/its-not-about-free-speech_b_8634022.html
@alh Good question. Yes, that might change my mind, particularly given your question about whether it should have been sent specifically to Silliman students. Certainly, I think she could have been more mindful of that group in her letter.
I am also sympathetic to NC’s explanation that EC’s mindset is deeply framed by the 60s/70s firm rejection of the pronouncements of authority . My own viewpoint is perhaps overly sympathetic to hers because people trying to direct my thinking and actions has always (probably unreasonably) grated on me. My Yalie also has that deeply ingrained into his genetic code, so he really liked what she said–not because he doesn’t believe in systemic racism or because he wanted to wear a racist costume, but because he has a strong inner ethical and moral sense and has always–since he was a toddler–reacted strongly against people telling him what to do (even when–as was nearly always the case–he was more than willing to do the right thing). I think some of us are just more primed to react against the “voice from above”–whether what they are saying is something we agree with has little to do with it. That doesn’t mean we can’t learn from others, but it needs to be in the context of civil discussion and debate, which was really at the heart of ECs letter. Anyway, it’s an ingrained standpoint that makes the current “Just be quiet and listen to us” rhetoric on campus particular tough to digest, no matter how much I agree with the speaker’s basic point.
And yes, @sorghum is correct–Fish did his graduate work at Yale but was teaching at Duke, not Yale, during those years that I was studying his ideas. I should have backed up my faulty memory with a minute of research! I was referencing his work on reader response theory (and how it trickled down to the classroom), which is summarized here: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/learning/glossary-term/reader-response%20theory The article @zapfino links is a different take entirely, I think, though an interesting one.
I think it was reported that some number of students in Silliman took issue with the initial email sent out by the Intercultural Affairs Council. Why should their views and those of EC not be expressed along with the others? I don’t have any evidence of what opinion constituted the “Silliman majoirty” but why is that even relevant? Opposing views are important and should be expressed.
Is one worth more than than the other?
Erika Christakis resigns. I think this is a very sad day for Yale. I know some will view it as a victory.
Sent from my iPod
Although she did not resign from her position at Silliman.
She still has plenty of support from the faculty:
Just to clarify, from inside the academic bubble…she’s not resigning exactly; she’s choosing, as a lecturer who is paid per course, to not teach next semester. She says she won’t teach at Yale in the future, but she easily could, should she change her mind, as she’s not leaving a full-time, tenured or tenure track position, but is hired from one semester to the next to teach classes.
She has a book to promote in the spring. Why teach at a school with students digging through your words looking for racism when you’ve got other time-consuming, meaningful projects to pursue? Life is too short to fight nitpicky, tempest in a teapot battles like this.
The main value of the protests of the past few weeks is that (I’m betting) they’ve made everyone more conscious of the hidden biases in their words and actions. But Yale now needs more voices at the table. So I hope she’ll change her mind and return once things have chilled out and others, such as this guy in today’s Washington Post, offer their points of view.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/12/04/racist-thats-not-the-yale-i-know/