-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Racial tensions at Yale lead to angry confrontations
- Thread starter philz
- Start date
- Status
We know he'll never lose because in today's America no child ever loses.
There are no losers anymore. Everyone's a winner, no matter what the game or sport or competition, everybody wins. Everybody wins. Everybody gets a trophy. No one is a loser. No child these days ever gets to those all-important character building words, "You lost, Bobby. You lost. You're a loser, Bobby." They miss out on that. You know what they tell a kid who lost these days? "You were the last winner." A lot of these kids never get to hear the truth about themselves until they're in their 20's when the boss calls them in and says, "Bobby, clean the shit out of your desk and get the fuck out of here. You're a loser. Get the fuck out of here." Of course, Bobby's parents can't understand why he can't hold a job. In school he was always on the honor roll. Well, what they don't understand, of course, is that in today's schools everyone is on the honor roll. Everyone is on the honor roll because in order to be in the honor roll, all you really need to do is to maintain a body temperature somewhere roughly in the 90's. - George Carlin 2008
There are no losers anymore. Everyone's a winner, no matter what the game or sport or competition, everybody wins. Everybody wins. Everybody gets a trophy. No one is a loser. No child these days ever gets to those all-important character building words, "You lost, Bobby. You lost. You're a loser, Bobby." They miss out on that. You know what they tell a kid who lost these days? "You were the last winner." A lot of these kids never get to hear the truth about themselves until they're in their 20's when the boss calls them in and says, "Bobby, clean the shit out of your desk and get the fuck out of here. You're a loser. Get the fuck out of here." Of course, Bobby's parents can't understand why he can't hold a job. In school he was always on the honor roll. Well, what they don't understand, of course, is that in today's schools everyone is on the honor roll. Everyone is on the honor roll because in order to be in the honor roll, all you really need to do is to maintain a body temperature somewhere roughly in the 90's. - George Carlin 2008
Hmm. At the same time if I saw people in black face costumes thinking it was cute it would really make me uncomfortable. We often for that actions like that are apart of systemic racism when dissecting it aside from it being a smaller magnitude. Idk
My god, their behavior is so disgusting... what the hell? They're aggressively pushing that photographer, yelling in his face and giving passive aggressive lies about how they're the ones being infringed upon. These people are just gross and disconnected with reality.
Could you elaborate on this a little more? I'm reading this as one of those snarky reddit "why are black people upset by the mockery of the race, empathy-less post". Because obviously you could understand how someone could see it offensively and degradingly?
i'm sarcastically saying that there's nothing "intellectually challenging" about open bigotry
should we defend the missouri incidents where drunken assholes were calling black students niggers? they're just exercising their first amendment rights! you can't turn college into a hugbox! etc etc
it's a stupid argument. the students protesting things like this are asking to be treated with basic respect and human dignity, and they shouldn't have to debate a bunch of racists who think they're inherently lesser.
edit: and besides, i haven't heard that there's any college rules or legal prohibition against racist costumes. you are totally free to dress up as a caricature of a native american chief or whatever but people will call you out on it, and that's also free speech.
Attempted to say this earlier but didn't find the words.
Also why are we now attacking the idea of safe spaces here?
ClosingADoor
Member
You are pushing it to the extreme. As far as I know nobody did this. Nobody is saying dressing in blackface for Halloween is acceptable. But it is not the role of the university to police outfits worn by students in advance and set up all kinds of guidelines.
The students should be adult enough to talk with each other and deal with being offended from time to time, instead of having an authority figure sort everything out for them.
That is the whole point isn't it? That the university doesn't need those policies, because students should be able to deal with those issues themselves, see why it is wrong in some cases and explain people why.
Gotdatmoney
Member
Personally while the administrators email was really well constructed and argued which I respect, it basically boiled down to let people choose their racist costumes if they want. No offense but her argument will not lead to a more engaged and intellectual campus. It has just given a majority white campus extra ammunition by adminstrators of all people to feel comfortable wearing shitty costumes and telling minorities to get over. And as an educated person she should know that is all this would come across as. Halloween is one day, people who wear these costumes do not give a fuck thought provoking conversation on halloween.
People who wouldnt wear it but feel others should will feel validated. The only people who get nothing out of this are minority students. The universoty should not be commenting on costumes good or bad at all unless its for their own event.
Flabbergasted, indeed. I kept reading for the alleged 'inappropriate part' and then.. the email ended.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
So in other words, the concept of consequences for bigoted, stupid and hurtful actions should be ignored... Because halloween?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Okay off the bat we can all agree that this conversation is a bit flawed with regards to this specific instance because there were not actual reported instances of blackface on campus, which is part of why this whole thing is ridiculous.
But if we set that aside in order to discuss the idea of blackface and other denigrating costumes in the abstract, is requesting that the University take an official stance on such costumes really that different from the grievances of the Missouri situation, in which their specific demand is that the University take other forms of overt and intimidating racism seriously?
Muppet of a Man
Member
I don't know why the school administration won't just do what's right here:
-Make dressing in blackface an offense that expels a student (there's no good justification for blackface)
-Make racial and LGBT bigotry (i.e., demonstrated hostility, verbal abuse, systemic exclusion, and violence) an expelable offense (in addition to many times being a hate crime).
-Make a good faith effort to diversify the teaching staff with periodic scorecarding to report back progress on doing so.
Essentially, if a person is born with traits that are out of their control (i.e., skin color, sexual preference, sex, gender, etc.) which are predisposed to being targeted with hate and bigotry in society at large, there should be rules put in place to ensure their safety and that they get their money's worth in terms of an education.
As far as I remember, schools do not have to protect free speech, especially if they are private institutions, the students are minors, or if the exercised speech gets in the way of other students learning. That being said, they should also make a good faith effort not to censor and to protect free speech in as many instances as possible for the benefit of intellectual growth. I do not understand why the 2 things are considered mutually exclusive to many. Make clear cut rules and follow them in terms of protecting the rights and safety of minority groups and other systematically disadvantaged groups.
-Make dressing in blackface an offense that expels a student (there's no good justification for blackface)
-Make racial and LGBT bigotry (i.e., demonstrated hostility, verbal abuse, systemic exclusion, and violence) an expelable offense (in addition to many times being a hate crime).
-Make a good faith effort to diversify the teaching staff with periodic scorecarding to report back progress on doing so.
Essentially, if a person is born with traits that are out of their control (i.e., skin color, sexual preference, sex, gender, etc.) which are predisposed to being targeted with hate and bigotry in society at large, there should be rules put in place to ensure their safety and that they get their money's worth in terms of an education.
As far as I remember, schools do not have to protect free speech, especially if they are private institutions, the students are minors, or if the exercised speech gets in the way of other students learning. That being said, they should also make a good faith effort not to censor and to protect free speech in as many instances as possible for the benefit of intellectual growth. I do not understand why the 2 things are considered mutually exclusive to many. Make clear cut rules and follow them in terms of protecting the rights and safety of minority groups and other systematically disadvantaged groups.
Wow. Thank you. I didn't expect a response that I 100% agreed with. I had trouble putting it into words but that pretty much encapsulates it.
I do believe that some people can hold objectively wrong views. One of them being racist views. It sorta the way I feel about how long it took reddit to decide that coontown wasn't a debate worth having. The benefits of college is understanding different people from different backgrounds not generally reinforcing previously held views. It can't be that hard to understand and empathize with other group of people.
Thaedolus
Gold Member
It's the means, not the ends which are attacked. The idea that hate speech should be condemned and obliterated, I think most people would agree with that. But what's the means about going about it? Violating someone's fundamental right to freedom of speech, or allowing the marketplace of ideas to ridicule that speech into irrelevance?
I think what's being advocated is that these students gain the intellectual fortitude to listen to something, even if it's vile and offensive, and dismiss it using their own logic and reason instead of using censorship.
Further, being offended by something has nothing to do with its validity or truthfulness. If something you find offensive is wrong, explain that logically instead of making an appeal to emotion.
Yes, because intimidating speech is different from offensive speech.
ClosingADoor
Member
If there are clear racist issues going on at the university, of course that should be addressed.
The issue I see is that students should not expect the university to deal with every issue they have or whenever they feel offended by something. Students should be able to deal with those issues themselves, either by approaching the other party and explaining what they are doing is wrong in their eyes, or by letting it go since you can't have it your way all the time.
Not everything needs a policy or authority figure handling issues for you, sometimes you have to do that yourself or pick your battles.
They are doing this by investing 50 million in a diversity program over the next few years, so it isn't like the university is just ignoring the complaints.
Gotdatmoney
Member
Well that is not what she is saying. Her argument reads genuine imo. I dont think she is excusing bad behaviour more so.than saying it isnt the university's right to police it. But she made an appeal to intellectual discussion and nothing about that email will bring intellectual discussion. It literally juat provided the opposite and from administration who can communicate with thousands of studemts with a single click. Bad idea.
What you said has nothing to do with safe spaces.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Any university that implements such rules would likely be sued by the ACLU, and lose, because judicial precedent is against university speech codes as actual rules, rather than ideals. Not to mention the whole argument in the administrator's email about how surrendering interpersonal issues to the control of prevailing authorities can be a net loss in the long-term moral sense, even if it seems like a victory in the present political sense.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Three questions.
One, what's so logical about bigotry? About racism?
Two, why is the onus on the victim to make things right? To "toughen up" and gain the intellectual fortitude to stop the bigotry?
Three, what if they don't have the capacity to do that? Should they just be forced to take it. Or run away?
EDIT: Bonus, What does this have to do with safe spaces?
AstroNut325
Member
This is my stance. If there are grievances, express them in a civil manner.
I believe that the students have every right to protest racism and racist ideas. But I don't support controls on speech or telling people what they can and cannot wear.
Dealing with issues on your own is quickly becoming a lost art. For example, the University of Missouri PD has sent an e-mail to Missouri students, asking them to call and report "hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions."
From: https://twitter.com/Thomas_Bradbury/status/664115347021139968
Agreed- I wouldn't be comfortable in that situation either, and I wouldn't be comfortable trying to have an academic discussion with someone so oblivious. In the Yale situation, the core issue appears to be an administrator (or administrators) living in an ivory tower about a mile high, oblivious to how the real world operates and how their response is completely ridiculous. Fundamentally, it appears to be a personnel issue, while UofM appears to be a student health/safety issue.
I think this is getting taken out of context given some of the incidents that have brought about the protests. (aka actual hate speech.)
Gotdatmoney
Member
I dont really get your point. How can you have a discussion about how headresses and black face is racist shit wear and not imply people should not wear it? What are thry even protesting then if they dont have a goal?
You do realize that discussions about those things in the past are precisely what made them taboo now a days, right?
1) EDIT: Reading responses below, I see that I'm confusing "logical" with "logical that humans would end up doing it". I guess my answer is more accurately "based on human nature and how humans have evolved, it is unsurprising that we are racist to each other". My apologies.
2) Because you are the one being affected by it. Going back to the Mizzou case - note that the photographer was the one who had to try to reasonably talk to the mob. Even though that group of "victims" was swarming and trying to remove him by force.
3) Man, if only they were in some place that taught them that capacity to handle and deal with the inequalities of life with logic and reason and compassion....
Bonus question: Ask the Yale students, they are the ones who said that the adminstrators' comments needed to be censored in order to create a "safe space" in their remarks.
They were perfectly capable of limiting their email to "hate speech" and not including "hurtful speech" as something students are to report.
Serious question, like what? What costumes dehumanize white skin tone to be mocked and shunned? I have to admit I'm ignorant in this regard.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
well the topic of diversifying faculty is interesting, im sure they have plenty of adjunct profs there but actual tenured staff is may have a network of people giving hook ups to a network. Worth INVESTIGATING but paying tens of millions of dollars just to get a diverse falculty? By what method? What will you do when potential professors don't want to come there? Take a shit one that meets the diversity requirement but isn't up to par merit wise? What if minority professors prefer Harvard, or Darthmouth , or Columbia? The professor who left is probably a good source to interview or read up on, because she was falculty , however in the article it's just a quick note about her deciding to leave over the issue.
The real problem is no one , on any side of this situation, majority, or minority give a shit about content of character , and bow down and worship at the idol of "feelings and desire" as if that is a path to knowledge. Unfortunatley feelings cannot be a way to know the truth , and what you want cannot tell you what is right, because then they wont be your desires or feelings. The very nature of feelings and desires is they belong to a subjective indivdual. Progressing by feelings and cirumstances lead to utter ruin every time, as you continually compromise. I don't have a huge issue with the students expressing grievances but have sound basis for the arguments. "I want more black teachers" is a shit argument compared to presenting properly gathered data demonstrating that the school doesn't grant tenure to a large number of black professors that qualify and show interest or have adjunct status. Thats something to work with. I'm utterly shocked by the Ivy League student body that is living and dying by logical fallacies and self refuting statements.
Respond to your student body administrators. The frat house has to deal with the administration that allows fraternaties to be associated with the school. However what can be proven without enough witnesses or video? So that will probably go no where unlike the SAE video from Okla which was no big surprise how they roll. Either way thats the frat not the school IF the school and prove something im sure that frat will catch a penalty of sorts. I don't think anyting will happen with that though theres a bunch of ways to deny that ever happening.
the rest of those concerns are little more than blatherskite away with thee.
The real problem is no one , on any side of this situation, majority, or minority give a shit about content of character , and bow down and worship at the idol of "feelings and desire" as if that is a path to knowledge. Unfortunatley feelings cannot be a way to know the truth , and what you want cannot tell you what is right, because then they wont be your desires or feelings. The very nature of feelings and desires is they belong to a subjective indivdual. Progressing by feelings and cirumstances lead to utter ruin every time, as you continually compromise. I don't have a huge issue with the students expressing grievances but have sound basis for the arguments. "I want more black teachers" is a shit argument compared to presenting properly gathered data demonstrating that the school doesn't grant tenure to a large number of black professors that qualify and show interest or have adjunct status. Thats something to work with. I'm utterly shocked by the Ivy League student body that is living and dying by logical fallacies and self refuting statements.
Respond to your student body administrators. The frat house has to deal with the administration that allows fraternaties to be associated with the school. However what can be proven without enough witnesses or video? So that will probably go no where unlike the SAE video from Okla which was no big surprise how they roll. Either way thats the frat not the school IF the school and prove something im sure that frat will catch a penalty of sorts. I don't think anyting will happen with that though theres a bunch of ways to deny that ever happening.
the rest of those concerns are little more than blatherskite away with thee.
The one I saw in South Africa was a pale skinned fat suit tied to colonization (think old school stereotypical white southerner garb); the ones in Asia tend to be tied to either weight (fat suits) or stupidity (think white hick hats + shirts with America written sloppily / incorrectly).
Basically, you make fun of 'em for being some combination of fat / lazy / stupid / arrogant.
If you can't see how that isn't the same I don't know what to tell you. White is default in this world. The south african one specifically sounds like punching up, the Asian one sounds like a stereotype. Neither was billed as a marquee event for years as entertainment. Neither misrepresented a culture of people in such a systematic way as to reach Europe and other countries as "folk" figures. To construe the minstrel show as little more than something that makes you feel introspection is a gross misrepresentation on your part.
Shai-Tan
Banned
Been reading some of the articles about this. Some rambling thoughts:
-keep in mind that the "shrieking protestor" in the original video is in the 18-20 year range. When I was her age I was wrapped up in punk ideology where the great evil is in conformity to corporate control, that most people are zombies who need to wake up, Noam Chomsky is the best, Adorno and Horkheimer were on to something, etc. The depth of my intellectual political engagement was grappling with what is wrong with other unbalanced ideologies that appeal to young people like Ayn Rand, radical libertarianism, the works of Nietzsche. Kids should be free to develop even if they act like an idiot at a protest. Those previous views I held became more nuanced when I read books and attended classes that made me question my previous beliefs e.g. books like Robert Wright's Nonzero, history and political science classes that have more convincing theories about interest and influence than narrowly constructed Marxist theories of exploitation and false consciousness.
-ever since the Bright movement I've thought the "New Atheists" were a little bit tone deaf. While the Halloween mail is measured, follow up discussion led the author to post Jonathan Haidt's The Coddling of the American Mind which I think betrays some of the motivation. It wasn't about Halloween costumes for her either, it was a attempt to draw out discussion about that issue but it became muddled because it's not exactly the best exemplar for that discussion to occur
- think it's important to defend the right to be provocative (both the Christakis have a history of this e.g. They were previously in the media for writing a letter objecting to Oprah receiving an honorary doctorate at Harvard because of all the pseudoscience she has promoted), and it's also important to consider why we should support free speech for those we disagree with but the New Athiests (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc) often go about it in a way that damages persuasion and civil dialogue. It's important to have those types of figures to get under the skin but it's not always the best approach.
-there has recently been a rallying cry to rectify some of this nonsense which I think is making a little bit of a moral panic of its own:
https://youtu.be/Dj5QmZPzvlQ
https://vimeo.com/140533641
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/28/i_w...nt_realize_just_how_impossible_this_would_be/
https://youtu.be/14nLz1Ku9tc (ok not recent but Hitchens is a fabulous speaker)
I think those videos make an important point, however it's been said that there is a decade or two of time lag where academic fads work their way through the public consciousness. This idea that it's taking over modern academia seems overblown to me considering the postmodernism and marxism that drives those oddly narrow views have been thoroughly eviscerated in the late 1990s and barely exist on the academic side today outside of women's studies, cultural, ethnic, media studies. There may be some point that between helicopter parented students and capitulating administrators that there should be a restatement of some basic principles as fundamental to the mission of a university but is it really that much worse than previous student activism? I think I was probably also an insufferable twit when I considered myself punk. Safe space didn't exist ten years ago but it didn't stop students from trying to block talks from speakers they disagreed with, trying to get people they disagree with fired, etc
-keep in mind that the "shrieking protestor" in the original video is in the 18-20 year range. When I was her age I was wrapped up in punk ideology where the great evil is in conformity to corporate control, that most people are zombies who need to wake up, Noam Chomsky is the best, Adorno and Horkheimer were on to something, etc. The depth of my intellectual political engagement was grappling with what is wrong with other unbalanced ideologies that appeal to young people like Ayn Rand, radical libertarianism, the works of Nietzsche. Kids should be free to develop even if they act like an idiot at a protest. Those previous views I held became more nuanced when I read books and attended classes that made me question my previous beliefs e.g. books like Robert Wright's Nonzero, history and political science classes that have more convincing theories about interest and influence than narrowly constructed Marxist theories of exploitation and false consciousness.
-ever since the Bright movement I've thought the "New Atheists" were a little bit tone deaf. While the Halloween mail is measured, follow up discussion led the author to post Jonathan Haidt's The Coddling of the American Mind which I think betrays some of the motivation. It wasn't about Halloween costumes for her either, it was a attempt to draw out discussion about that issue but it became muddled because it's not exactly the best exemplar for that discussion to occur
- think it's important to defend the right to be provocative (both the Christakis have a history of this e.g. They were previously in the media for writing a letter objecting to Oprah receiving an honorary doctorate at Harvard because of all the pseudoscience she has promoted), and it's also important to consider why we should support free speech for those we disagree with but the New Athiests (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc) often go about it in a way that damages persuasion and civil dialogue. It's important to have those types of figures to get under the skin but it's not always the best approach.
-there has recently been a rallying cry to rectify some of this nonsense which I think is making a little bit of a moral panic of its own:
https://youtu.be/Dj5QmZPzvlQ
https://vimeo.com/140533641
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/28/i_w...nt_realize_just_how_impossible_this_would_be/
https://youtu.be/14nLz1Ku9tc (ok not recent but Hitchens is a fabulous speaker)
I think those videos make an important point, however it's been said that there is a decade or two of time lag where academic fads work their way through the public consciousness. This idea that it's taking over modern academia seems overblown to me considering the postmodernism and marxism that drives those oddly narrow views have been thoroughly eviscerated in the late 1990s and barely exist on the academic side today outside of women's studies, cultural, ethnic, media studies. There may be some point that between helicopter parented students and capitulating administrators that there should be a restatement of some basic principles as fundamental to the mission of a university but is it really that much worse than previous student activism? I think I was probably also an insufferable twit when I considered myself punk. Safe space didn't exist ten years ago but it didn't stop students from trying to block talks from speakers they disagreed with, trying to get people they disagree with fired, etc
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTeSgFcUkAAq5-7.jpg:large
They're the campus police. They're essentially doing the school a favor here by recording and forwarding them incidents that aren't enough to warrant police intervention. Given that anecdotes we've been hearing (including in this thread) about campus conditions this doesn't seem unreasonable.
It's also the year in which you revealed you aren't reading. Again: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...tolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
Thaedolus
Gold Member
1) I didn't say there was anything logical about them, they're illogical and can be dismissed through logic. Surely you understand how an illogical proposition is dismissed with logic?
2) Because that's how the real world works, and it's not just on the victims in any case. I'm an LGBT advocate and speak up for that community, even though I'm straight and have never been a victim of gay bashing. But I also don't think LGBT people are inherently weak and need to be coddled. Telling people to stick up for themselves shows them the respect they deserve, they are smart enough and strong enough to do it.
3) That's where allies come in. I use my same freedom of speech to defend people who need defending. That's not to say I want to put a gag order on the opposition, I want their ideas to be defeated in the marketplace of ideas.
This has to do with safe spaces because, while offering up protection to those who are downtrodden and minorities is important, it should be a secondary effort to empowering these groups to speak up for themselves and defend themselves. That's the whole point behind the e-mail: yo, you kids are smart enough to figure this out on your own, you don't need to be coddled and told what to do.
I think it's condescending to pretend these groups of minorities can't ever rationalize a response on their own.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Eh, at 18-20 I was starting to have a good sense of how to handle myself in the world. I give 14-15 year olds a pass for most things, but by that age there's a certain level of maturity you should exhibit if you want to be taken seriously
User 73706
Banned
Cybit
"racism" is just a tangential web of coincidences and misunderstandings and not unabashed hatred as some people would have you believe, myth busted, you can all go home now
(Today, 01:04 PM)
You're still a child at 18 and you're definitely still learning how the world works. Not to excuse her behavior but she still is a kid.
Zoe
Member
He's not. He's the master of the college house and the husband of the woman who wrote the email.
This is where I point out that I'm asian, so personally, I don't care about the costumes.
To the USA primarily, there is a significant contextual difference for blackface - the minstrel shows and so forth. No doubt about that - the intensity is significantly different. In India it's the caste system that would fall under a similar place in Indian culture currently. If I came across as saying there are costumes that are as offensive in intensity rather than intent - my bad, that's not true as far as I'm aware. But the idea that there are not costumes that are intended to mock all white people isn't true.
Also, I don't agree that "white is default in this world." any more.
It used to be the default in this world. But to a kid growing up in India or China now a days? oh hell no. It has become a fading remnant of a world where Europe and/or the US were imperialistic powers. My nieces and nephews do not think of white being "default" in any meaningful way. White people are rare.
The intent of the costumes is to mock white people for being white. That being white inherently gives you undesirable traits. Those exist. That's the point I wanted to make, and I apologize for not separating intensity from intent more clearly.
While I don't think the person wearing the costume had any intent on "punching up" - I'd mostly agree with you on that one. Notice I'm not pooh-poohing the person for wearing it.
Ok, that's a load of bullshit.
I am well aware of how racism is rooted in fear, and in hatred. Logic is probably the wrong word, but it is a very human thing. Not whether it's right or wrong. We "other" people all the time. It's in our DNA. We have to strive to be better - it is a fight humanity (and subsets of humanity all around) have. Europe spent how many centuries killing each other over being "different?" The reason people get into sports so passionately, why we have patriotism, all sorts of other self-selected and ideological and geographic lines and groups we identify with.
EDIT: Hrm. Logic is probably the wrong word. My bad on that. I guess I'm thinking of "is it human?". If it's a question about straight up logic - then it probably isn't logical. Changed my response a bit on reflection.
Definitely true. It's why I think the costumes are not a big deal currently. In 200 years? Probably would be an issue.
Blackface mocks those who were disenfranchised. Colonization mocks those who did the disenfranchisement. That distinction entirely flips the nature of the attack - being reminded of pain you endured vs pain you caused others to endure.
"Who the fuck hired you?"
"Salovey and Holloway expressed their thanks to the members of the Silliman search committee chair Dan Harrison, Kevin Boehm 15, Jessica Brantley, Christine Hayes, Jerelyn Luther 16, David Skelly, Samone Wheeler 15, and Maxwell Wilkinson 16 for their work."
http://news.yale.edu/2015/02/26/nicholas-christakis-be-next-master-silliman-college
"Salovey and Holloway expressed their thanks to the members of the Silliman search committee chair Dan Harrison, Kevin Boehm 15, Jessica Brantley, Christine Hayes, Jerelyn Luther 16, David Skelly, Samone Wheeler 15, and Maxwell Wilkinson 16 for their work."
http://news.yale.edu/2015/02/26/nicholas-christakis-be-next-master-silliman-college
BreezyLimbo
Banned
But you're excusing her behavior by saying she is a kid.
Even when I was in High School nobody shrieked at a teacher for disagreeing with them. It's just childish, it's what a 4 year old does at Wal-Mart when they don't get a toy they want.
It's disconcerting the way she screamed at him and was 'supported' by the stupid finger snapping or whatever they do. And that's the bigger issue, it creates this echo chamber where you surround yourself with people who don't challenge nor disagree with you, thus it gives a persons ego a larger boost which results in situations where you're screaming like a damn baby because you're not getting what you want.
User 73706
Banned
no no, see, white people get offended too, the PC police of all people should be able to understand that
Your personal opinion doesn't override the way the world works sorry. You shrugging off historical fact is sad, and almost as bad as that other poster who asked if blacks would ever get over it.
Lol at caping for colonizers. And as far as I know, the only undesirable white trait is being poor. Also redheaded children and men.
i read it, i just don't agree with it. he gives no citations for most of it, especially this part:
i've read tons of articles like this before and often find that they're referring to relatively innocuous things when writing this kind of line.
in any case, it always seems like people are trying to argue that college students are still kids in the process of learning how to deal with the real world, unless they're protesting something they think of as a social ill, in which case they're dangerous and censorious fascists. maybe the university is overreacting but that's on them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked