Support NeoGAF

[jakonovski]

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

I think that's the university of shit swastikas smeared on walls, so context is kinda important.

 

[Cybit]

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.

Whose world?

I'm trying to be specific when I say that I don't think it is true as a kid growing up in China or India now. My nieces and nephews do not see white as default. Period. I do on a personal level (having grown up the majority of my life in the US) - but I don't think folks realize how much the world has changed in the last 10-20 years in places like China and India.

From an Indian perspective - the undesirable white trait is being lazy. I don't know if poor really qualifies since poverty is such a big issue in asian countries.

 

[Dude Abides]

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.

I agree. I don't mind being mocked for my role colonizing India.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

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.

1) And surely you understand that said logic have, can, and will be ignored if hatred is ingrained enough right? Or distraction tactics? Or ad homiems Or other forms of messing up the discussion?

Winning the argument can do absolutely shit all at times. Hell, it can lead to your character getting trashed, death threats, etc. Hence the importance of safe spaces.

2) You probably didn't mean this, hence why I'm responding to you, but "real world" talk is incredibly condescending. I said nothing about inherent weakness as well. Minorities deal with a ton of stuff, especially in hostile environments. It affects their lives in ways that can't even be quantified. And at times they need help. I say this with experience, and as you have stated already, you know this and actively provide it.

There's a difference between coddling and defending their right to be able to go to school without dealing with the stress of a hostile environment all the time. Working to make institutions more accessible for minorities so they can do what they are there for. That's not coddling, that's making your school better.

3) Marketplace of ideas as a concept ignores structural racism and the imbalance it creates even in discussions.

4) Safe spaces are meant to both provide an area for people dealing with similar issues to talk things out and find some friends and allies in a situation that can be very isolating, as well as teach them out the speak out and empower them.

But without making sure the school itself does its part to make the school more inclusionary, it's a band-aid.

 

[Trident]

Whose world?

I'm trying to be specific when I say that I don't think it is true as a kid growing up in China or India now. My nieces and nephews do not see white as default. Period. I do on a personal level (having grown up the majority of my life in the US) - but I don't think folks realize how much the world has changed in the last 10-20 years in places like China and India.

From an Indian perspective - the undesirable white trait is being lazy. I don't know if poor really qualifies since poverty is such a big issue in asian countries.

How is any of this relevant to the topic of this thread, which involves intra-US social issues and politics?

 

[Infinite]

But you're excusing her behavior by saying she is a kid.

Even 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.

I'm actually not. I never said she was an infant who throws tantrums when they're hungry and doesn't give a fuck about how anyone else feels about it. Stating that she's a kid doesn't absolve her of responsibility from her actions. It simply means she still has some growing up left. Also I don't get villifying her. You can say what she did was wrong without making her into the worst person ever. It's petty.

 

[Shai-Tan]

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.

I remember one instance in grade 10 law class taught by a teacher who had a penchant for instigating political debates about what was in the news. One student became similarly hysterical when she felt her society was being unfairly attacked in a discussion about Saudi Arabia not allowing women to drive etc. Years later I heard the teacher was fired after it happened several more times with other students presumably about other topics (the article in the local paper was about students protesting to have her reinstated). I do actually think that she deserved to be fired because these incidents were caused by not actually teaching the courses at hand (law and business) but it in any case illustrates to me that young people can become quite offended and belligerent when they feel their identity is threatened which at that age is not quite as easily separated from criticism of thoughts, beliefs or cultural practices. That's one of the motivations for trigger warnings and religious exemptions but there is a point where it becomes absurd if you can't reasonably discuss the normal content in classes.

 

[kirblar]

I remember one instance in grade 10 law class taught by a teacher who had a penchant for instigating political debates about what was in the news. One student student became similarly hysterical when she felt her society was being unfairly attacked in a discussion about Saudi Arabia not allowing women to drive etc. Years later I heard the teacher was fired after it happened several more times with other students (the article in the local paper was about students protesting to have her reinstated). I do actually think that she deserved to be fired because these incidents were caused by not actually teaching the courses at hand (law and business) but it in any case illustrates to me that young people can become quite offended and belligerent when they feel their identity is threatened which at that age is not quite as easily separated from criticism of thoughts, beliefs or cultural practices.

That problem really doesn't seem to go away with age. People just get weeded out.

 

[Cybit]

How is any of this relevant to the topic of this thread, which involves intra-US social issues and politics?

Eh, it was just a tangential discussion atrocious and I were having - we can take it to PMs if we don't want it cluttering up this thread. .

 

[atr0cious]

Whose world?

I'm trying to be specific when I say that I don't think it is true as a kid growing up in China or India now. My nieces and nephews do not see white as default. Period. I do on a personal level (having grown up the majority of my life in the US) - but I don't think folks realize how much the world has changed in the last 10-20 years in places like China and India.

From an Indian perspective - the undesirable white trait is being lazy. I don't know if poor really qualifies since poverty is such a big issue in asian countries.

Besides the fact that laziness isn't a physical trait that can't be changed, it also can't be mocked, made caricature of while at the same time holding back other lazy people from getting ahead in life. Blackface made an entire shade of people look differently to the world. Trying to slide in this international oneness where some how whites got it just as bad isn't gonna fly, especially in a thread about the United States, let alone being grounded in reality.

And yes, your comparison has us comparing laziness to the color of someone's skin.

 

[LegendofLex]

Winning the argument can do absolutely shit all at times. Hell, it can lead to your character getting trashed, death threats, etc. Hence the importance of safe spaces.

Isn't the issue brought to light here that the way the concept of "safe spaces" is being wielded by some Yale students indicates they believe it to mean "a place where my viewpoints are immune to criticism and I get to trash the characters of those who disagree and make threats toward them"?

That's not to say that there aren't many, many more examples of students really gathering and creating safe forums for productive discussion and sharing, or that there aren't many, many examples of problematic racism on the Yale campus (up to and including the fact that a lecturer saw fit to suggest to students that they shouldn't be offended by blackface), but we're also seeing examples of public bad actors who are misusing the concept of "safe spaces" as a shield for their mistreatment of others.

 

[Trident]

Isn't the issue brought to light here that the way the concept of "safe spaces" is being wielded by some Yale students indicates they believe it to mean "a place where my viewpoints are immune to criticism and I get to trash the characters of those who disagree and make threats toward them"?

I think the issue here isn't that those sorts of places shouldn't exist - they should (except for the threat-making part) - places like private domiciles, for example. But people shouldn't be able to force public spaces, or spaces involving the greater student body, into becoming those sorts of places.

That's the problem with conflating multiple definitions of "safe space" together. Some versions are acceptable only as "opt-in" - others are acceptable as mandatory.

 

[Cybit]

Besides the fact that laziness isn't a physical trait that can't be changed, it also can't be mocked, made caricature of while at the same time holding back other lazy people from getting ahead in life. Blackface made an entire shade of people look differently to the world. Trying to slide in this international oneness where some how whites got it just as bad isn't gonna fly, especially in a thread about the United States, let alone being grounded in reality.

And yes, your comparison has us comparing laziness to the color of someone's skin.

I thought I was clear in saying that it's not as bad - I think I made a comment about intensity vs intent in an earlier post.

Let me re-state what I'm seeing the original question as and then my answer, and I think we are sort of saying the same thing.

Question / Comment: "There's no costume that exists that disparages all white people for being white, like blackface is in the US"

My response: "That's not true. In other countries, there are costumes that exist to serve as caricatures of all white people."

My assumption is that when you're saying "like blackface", I'm taking that as "general intent of mocking all whites" not "actually as bad as blackface in the US". Which is where I think the miscommunication is coming (and I'm not a good writer, so that's probably on me).

Now, if I come across as saying stereotypical white man costume in India has the same intensity and is as bad as blackface is in the US - that is not my intent nor do I believe that. All I'm saying is that there are definitely costumes that intend to mock all white people. Intent is similar - but intensity is significantly different. (IE, blackface in the US is way worse than those costumes in their area). I don't mean to conflate the intent with the intensity - and if that's the way it is coming across, that's my bad.

Though, that is a damn good point you make about how we are comparing traits vs physical characteristics. (red-head observation you made earlier aside, though isn't that something white people also make fun of other white people for?)

 

[Shai-Tan]

I think it is a misreading to suggest Christakis was telling students to not be offended. It was a disagreement about how to respond to offensive behavior and also gave examples that would potentially be in a gray area

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...tolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/

I do think it was tone deaf, but there weren't any code words as some students suggested, just an agenda as I discussed above

 

[Infinite]

Isn't the issue brought to light here that the way the concept of "safe spaces" is being wielded by some Yale students indicates they believe it to mean "a place where my viewpoints are immune to criticism and I get to trash the characters of those who disagree and make threats toward them"?

That's not to say that there aren't many, many more examples of students really gathering and creating safe forums for productive discussion and sharing, or that there aren't many, many examples of problematic racism on the Yale campus (up to and including the fact that a lecturer saw fit to suggest to students that they shouldn't be offended by blackface), but we're also seeing examples of public bad actors who are misusing the concept of "safe spaces" as a shield for their mistreatment of others.

That may be the case but that's inherent to people not to safe spaces. The original question that spurned this conversation asked what's wrong with having safe spaces, so far no one who answered seemed to have argue against having them entirely rather they seemed against the way this young lady and people like her potentially wields them.

 

[LegendofLex]

I think it is a misreading to suggest Christakis was telling students to not be offended. It was a disagreement about how to respond to offensive behavior and also gave examples that would potentially be in a gray area

I absolutely agree; I don't think it was her intent was at all to suggest that students shouldn't be offended. (To the contrary, she was saying that perhaps they ought to allow themselves to be offended more often.)

I think it's as you said, that she wanted to invite students to consider that safe spaces should allow others to express themselves, even in ways that some may consider offensive, as long as they don't violate anyone's rights.

But I am not surprised that people are responding to the email as though the intent was to say "you should just let them do it, you shouldn't be offended."

It's kind of like the anti-Trump-on-SNL protests. Okay, so Trump gets on stage and makes an ass of himself. So thousands of racist white people totally agree with him. So what? Those are attitudes that really are out there, and we can't criticize them if we try to stuff them in a closet.

What would really be tragic is if Trump were given a podium to speak and spouted all kinds of racist nonsense and the rational response to his nonsense were completely suppressed.

I think the issue here isn't that those sorts of places shouldn't exist - they should (except for the threat-making part) - places like private domiciles, for example. But people shouldn't be able to force public spaces, or spaces involving the greater student body, into becoming those sorts of places.

I guess the real question is "are Yale students actually forcing 'safe spaces' into public spaces?" I don't think anything about the behaviors these students are exhibiting is compatible with the idea of a safe space in the first place. And so I'm not sure we can look at this scenario and say "the problem is that the greater university space, as a public space, should not be a 'safe space.'"

On a deeper level, one could say the question is "what makes a safe space?"

- Some (certainly not all) of the students involved seem to believe that a "safe space" is one where they decide what is acceptable and reject behaviors and views that disagree with that standard.

- Others believe it's one where there are clear expectations that people be allowed to express themselves, either their identities or their viewpoints, and be free from violence, harassment, hate speech, and other forms of persecution.

I think most people understand the latter as what a safe space actually means, and what universities are actually responsible for ensuring for their students.

But I think we're also seeing a rising number of cases where the creation of 'safe spaces' is actually playing out more like the former in practice.

That may be the case but that's inherent to people not to safe spaces. The original question that spurned this conversation asked what's wrong with having safe spaces, so far no one who answered seemed to have argue against having them entirely rather they seemed against the way this young lady and people like her potentially wields them.

You're right, of course, but it's ultimately people who decide how "safe spaces" actually manifest in practice.

 

[Shai-Tan]

That may be the case but that's inherent to people not to safe spaces. The original question that spurned this conversation asked what's wrong with having safe spaces, so far no one who answered seemed to have argue against having them entirely rather they seemed against the way this young lady and people like her potentially wields them.

Check out some of the content I linked on the previous page. There really is a philosophical difference that motivates both sides of the discussion. It isn't only about imposing beliefs, it's about how to approach disagreement, how best to deal with trauma, etc Haidt in particular speaks against the idea of safe spaces through cognitive behavioral therapy. I just feel like he leans a bit too much on caricature and ridicule.

 

[Thaedolus]

1) And surely you understand that said logic have, can, and will be ignored if hatred is ingrained enough right? Or distraction tactics? Or ad homiems Or other forms of messing up the discussion?

Winning the argument can do absolutely shit all at times. Hell, it can lead to your character getting trashed, death threats, etc. Hence the importance of safe spaces.

Sure, but it can also change minds and bring down barriers. I'm living proof: I was raised a Mormon who went to college while believing homosexuality is a sin and that gay marriage was evil. I left school an atheist advocating for LGBT rights and lived with a couple gay guys. How did that happen? The debate and discussion was allowed to take place which changed my mind. This involved LGBT students and advocates talking with people who were saying their "lifestyle" was a sin and evil. Strong advocates and rational arguments won me over. I'm glad that discussion was allowed to take place and those people had the courage to stand up and combat the bigotry because it made me change my mind. If that debate wasn't allowed to take place, though, and the backwards doctrines of my former church weren't exposed to me by a counter argument, who knows what I'd believe now?

I think ideas need to be challenged, not censored, and the way to teach kids to do that is to have them do it, not run from it.

 

[LegendofLex]

I think ideas need to be challenged, not censored, and the way to teach kids to do that is to have them do it, not run from it.

Coming from roughly the same place as you - once a hardline pro-life, anti-LGBT rights, conservative, extremely dogmatic Roman Catholic, now a pro-choice, pro-LGBT, liberal, deeply skeptical Roman Catholic - yeah, conducting public discourse without letting people make asses of themselves and encounter just how wrong they are is really detrimental to the development of human beings who can think and challenge their own assumptions.

After all, the problem with hardline conservatism is that there's often an underlying assumption that traditions shouldn't be challenged. All that the militant concept of safe spaces does is assert that liberal views shouldn't be challenged, either. Neither route creates the opportunity for growth.

There's an extent to which wrong opinions are given undue exposure - for example, people tend to exaggerate the degree of legitimacy that anti-climate change science has - but the way to overcome that is by doubling down on openly sharing evidence, not shouting down controversial opinions.

 

[Cybit]

Sure, but it can also change minds and bring down barriers. I'm living proof: I was raised a Mormon who went to college while believing homosexuality is a sin and that gay marriage was evil. I left school an atheist advocating for LGBT rights and lived with a couple gay guys. How did that happen? The debate and discussion was allowed to take place which changed my mind. This involved LGBT students and advocates talking with people who were saying their "lifestyle" was a sin and evil. Strong advocates and rational arguments won me over. I'm glad that discussion was allowed to take place and those people had the courage to stand up and combat the bigotry because it made me change my mind. If that debate wasn't allowed to take place, though, and the backwards doctrines of my former church weren't exposed to me by a counter argument, who knows what I'd believe now?

I think ideas need to be challenged, not censored, and the way to teach kids to do that is to have them do it, not run from it.

I'll echo this.

I grew up pretty racist towards Arabs (my family is from India, I grew up in a small town in the Midwest, and you better believe it was all supercharged by 9/11). We had a Palestinian speaker come to the college I was at (talking about Israel occupation, etc), and getting involved in that discussion was when I realized how horribly racist I was towards Arabs and how it wasn't "justified" like I thought it was. Ditto for gays and lesbians - I thought they just had screwed up brain chemistry until I got to college and realized that they're people too, just like all the rest of us. It was talking with folks, arguing with folks, having to think about what they said, that made me change.

My parents (especially my dad) were racist towards blacks for their first 10-15 years in the US - and now my dad works to free innocent black men (well, everyone who is innocent, but it tends to be heavily skewed towards black men) from prison.

Even in this discussion I'm learning and having things pointed out and having to think about what I said and take some stuff back and realize I'm wrong - see where I realized I was coming across as saying the intensity of the mocking of the costumes were the same rather than just the general intent. Or when atrocious pointed out that the comparison is of physical trait (skin color) vs non-physical trait (laziness). That's a really good point I hadn't thought of, and is making me re-think some of my beliefs.

If you don't believe that communication and discussion and the marketplace of free ideas can lead to substantive change (and has led to a lot even to this point) - why would you want to post on a message board and talk about it?

 

[IrishNinja]

People really don't want to let go of blackface. Time honored tradition and all that.

2015 is the year i learned that a black person seeing a white person wear blackface as part of a humorous costume is intellectually challenging

pretty much
outrage of outrage culture has clearly been a thing, and it lets one look right past the many racial issues in the OP & just focus on that one screaming girl on about home space or whatever

 

[SoundofSilence]

I remember reading an article that people shouldnt be coddled in college or the result will be bad..well is this the beginning?

YALE TOTAL COST OF EDUCATION
For a single student living off campus in the 2015–2016 academic year, a reasonable, albeit modest, estimate of total cost may be estimated by the following costs to be $68,605 for first-year M.Arch. I students and $66,893 for all other students.
 First-Year  All other students
 Tuition  $46,500  $46,500
 Fees  $1,100  $1,100
 Yale Health Hospitalization/
Specialty Coverage  $2,176*  $2,176*
 Room and Board  $14,044  $12,767
 Books/Personal Expenses  $4,785  $4,350
 ______  ______
 $68,605  $66,893

 

[Dude Abides]

Did someone at Yale wear blackface? Is that why people keep mentioning it?

 

[Trident]

Did someone at Yale wear blackface? Is that why people keep mentioning it?

Good question. I think people interpreted the email in question as covering blackface, although I don't know why. I think the only costume it mentioned explicitly was Mulan - does anyone even have a problem with Mulan costumes?

Probably a lot of this conversation could be cleared up with more specifics about where the lines are being drawn, and how grey they are.

 

[Cybit]

Saw this posted as a reader comment on the Atlantic - I think this is what bugs me about the whole Yale / Missouri thing.

That desire for community strikes me as a product of those people’s inability to find comfort in the broader American community. And that inability, in return, seems like product of identity Balkanization in America, in which the notion of “being American” has broken into several different competing tribes of mutually exclusive “American” types, with different values, different notions of reality, and an increasingly existential intolerance for competing “American” identities.

This idea has been readily studied on the right, in conservative terms. The insulating effect of right-wing media, the literal separation of communities, suburbs, and gerrymandered districts into ideological camps, and a widespread literature implying cultural persecution at the hands of liberals—those phenomena have created an intolerant right, the sort that hero-worships Donald Trump or Ben Carson and has difficulty believing “facts” presented by any source they haven’t already legitimated.

I think some people—like myself, unfortunately—think of the “left” as being more progressive, tolerant, and open-minded. But all this news about colleges rightfully challenges those assumptions. What’s happening here is that left-wing ideologies are ossifying into community identities, in opposition to right-wing ones. And now that left-wing ideas such as “tolerance” are becoming less about actual ideas and more about symbols around which a community can gather, tolerance is becoming more sacred, easier to threaten, and more intolerant to perceived threats.

In other words, being liberal in the U.S. right now—like being conservative—is less about ideas and more about identity. The effects of that are showing.

Good question. I think people interpreted the email in question as covering blackface, although I don't know why. I think the only costume it mentioned explicitly was Mulan - does anyone even have a problem with Mulan costumes?

Probably a lot of this conversation could be cleared up with more specifics about where the lines are being drawn, and how grey they are.

As far as I know there were no overt racial acts that triggered this whole thing. There was an attempt to try to backtrack this onto a purported event where a frat party was not letting black women attend - but later investigation found out that the person who posted it on facebook was far more nebulous in details when interviewed (IE, probably made the whole thing up).

 

[LegendofLex]

Good question. I think people interpreted the email in question as covering blackface, although I don't know why. I think the only costume it mentioned explicitly was Mulan - does anyone even have a problem with Mulan costumes?

Probably a lot of this conversation could be cleared up with more specifics about where the lines are being drawn, and how grey they are.

It also mentioned Tiana, the black princess from Princess and the Frog.

But, then, I wonder what is the statute of limitations on dreaming of dressing as Tiana the Frog Princess if you aren’t a black girl from New Orleans? Is it okay if you are eight, but not 18? I don’t know the answer to these questions; they seem unanswerable. Or at the least, they put us on slippery terrain that I, for one, prefer not to cross.

http://pastebin.com/egSQGfgK

And it was a direct response to another email (from the Intercultural Affairs Committee) containing a set of guidelines about appropriate costumes that specifically called out blackface:

However, Halloween is also unfortunately a time when the normal thoughtfulness and sensitivity of most Yale students can sometimes be forgotten and some poor decisions can be made including wearing feathered headdresses, turbans, wearing ‘war paint’ or modifying skin tone or wearing blackface or redface. These same issues and examples of cultural appropriation and/or misrepresentation are increasingly surfacing with representations of Asians and Latinos.

http://pastebin.com/TLGSdaTg

Another poignant quote from the Silliman email:

American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition. And the censure and prohibition come from above, not from yourselves! Are we all okay with this transfer of power? Have we lost faith in young people's capacity – in your capacity - to exercise self-censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you?

All she seems to be saying is that prohibitions don't encourage people to take charge and confront troubling realities.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Good question. I think people interpreted the email in question as covering blackface, although I don't know why. I think the only costume it mentioned explicitly was Mulan - does anyone even have a problem with Mulan costumes?

Probably a lot of this conversation could be cleared up with more specifics about where the lines are being drawn, and how grey they are.

The article basically just boiled down to the university institution not dipping its fingers into what people choose to be for halloween. That instead of telling its students so thoroughly what is right and wrong, as an academic instituion they should encourage students to think fot themselves and choose based on that. Its implied that she is talking about any kind of costume.

One of the major points was about how if you dislike or disagree with someone's costume you should engage them and have a debate about it. There is really nothing to clear up. She wrote a very thorough and to the point article.

I don't really think there is any confusion. Blackface is just mentioned because its the most heinous example of shit costumes that would fall under her address

 

[Trident]

It also mentioned Tiana, the black princess from Princess and the Frog.



And it was a direct response to another email (from the Intercultural Affairs Committee) containing a set of guidelines about appropriate costumes that specifically called out blackface:



Another poignant quote from the Silliman email:



All she seems to be saying is that prohibitions don't encourage people to take charge and confront troubling realities.

I see, thanks, that's actually really helpful.

I think, after reading those passages more carefully, that the main dispute here exists because the email conflates blackface, which has inherent elements of threat and genuine hate due to its historical context, with disney princess of different races, which have no such connotations.

She seems to be arguing that distinguishing between different types of offense is "unanswerable" - and while creating a bright line rule may not be possible, many clear cases exist nowhere near the grey middle area.

Costumes such as blackface, or (since I'm Jewish, I'll mention) Nazi outfits, are clearly different from potentially socially unacceptable costumes such as Mulan or Tiana, because their history imbues them with an undercurrent of genuine hate and intimidation. And intimidation, if nothing else, separates acts from mere speech into something which seems appropriate to prevent administratively.

I doubt most free speech proponents in this thread are defending blackface, and I doubt most social justice activists are attacking disney costumes. Probably just people yelling past each other.

 

[Trident]

The article basically just boiled down to the university institution not dipping its fingers into what people choose to be for halloween. That instead of telling its students so thoroughly what is right and wrong, as an academic instituion they should encourage students to think fot themselves and choose based on that. Its implied that she is talking about any kind of costume.

One of the major points was about how if you dislike or disagree with someone's costume you should engage them and have a debate about it. There is really nothing to clear up. She wrote a very thorough and to the point article.

I don't really think there is any confusion. Blackface is just mentioned because its the most heinous example of shit costumes that would fall under her address

Lumping blackface and disney costumes together simply because the term used to attack both of them is the same word - "offensive" - while opining that distinguishing between them is nigh impossible seems pretty facile for a Yale professor.

 

[Stereogatari]

I'm with the Greek man on this.

 

[SoundofSilence]

I'm with the Greek man on this.

Any sane person would be.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Lumping blackface and disney costumes together simply because the term used to attack both of them is the same word - "offensive" - while opining that distinguishing between them is nigh impossible seems pretty facile for a Yale professor.

I don't doubt she feels there is a difference. What she wrote was not separating between levels of offense though. That was not the point. Her main argumnets werent that shit is not offensive so its not particilarly surprising. I fundamentally disagree with how she is approaching the topic though. Its rather naive. But reading the response I do not feel she meant harm more than she is just oblivious.

 

[Trident]

I don't doubt she feels there is a difference. What she wrote was not separating between levels of offense though. That was not the point. Her main argumnets werent that shit is not offensive so its not particilarly surprising. I fundamentally disagree with how she is approaching the topic though. Its rather naive. But reading the response I do not feel she meant harm more than she is just oblivious.

I think you're probably right.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Good news folks, the yelling student's name and information has been released by conservative trash blogs and her entire life history is being profiled and analyzed. So her life should be properly ruined soon.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Good news folks, the yelling student's name and information has been released by conservative trash blogs and her entire life history is being profiled and analyzed. So her life should be properly ruined soon.

Her name has been available for days. She deleted most of her social media presence to avoid the worst of it.

 

[Trident]

Good news folks, the yelling student's name and information has been released by conservative trash blogs and her entire life history is being profiled and analyzed. So her life should be properly ruined soon.

This is terrible and completely unacceptable. I hope no one here is happy about this occurring.

Of course, I also hoped that people weren't happy when an old white guy's life got blown due to social media backlash when he stupidly flirted with a woman on LinkedIn, but people seemed all too excited to defend ruining his life.

So I suspect people will continue to think this behavior is great and justified when it's towards someone they dislike, and a massive problem when it's against someone they relate to.

 

[Cybit]

This is terrible and completely unacceptable. I hope no one here is happy about this occurring.

Of course, I also hoped that people weren't happy when an old white guy's life got blown due to social media backlash when he stupidly flirted with a woman on LinkedIn, but people seemed all too excited to defend ruining his life.

So I suspect people will continue to think this behavior is great and justified when it's towards someone they dislike, and a massive problem when it's against someone they relate to.

Yep.

It's oppression if someone I don't like is doing it, it's empowering if someone I do like is doing it.

 

[Thaedolus]

Good news folks, the yelling student's name and information has been released by conservative trash blogs and her entire life history is being profiled and analyzed. So her life should be properly ruined soon.

One of the reasons I'm glad I grew up before social media was such a thing. Completely unacceptable and immature of people to try to make one outburst ruin someone's life.

 

[Cybit]

One of the reasons I'm glad I grew up before social media was such a thing. Completely unacceptable and immature of people to try to make one outburst ruin someone's life.

Oddly enough - that's one of the points I wish the Yale administrator had made in terms of letting kids at the college screw up and also communicate.

The scariest thing about the modern world is that no one can screw up and learn and become a better person - they have to screw up, get the mob sicced on them, be told they are the worst human being ever by a bunch of self-righteous anonymous jackasses, and then are supposed to "learn". They also will probably be fired from their job and blackballed from their industry as well.

But hey, as long as we're "doing the right thing", we can be as vile and evil human beings as we want. Who cares if we ruined some random person's life because they had the misfortune of screwing up publicly what we do all the time in private. We feel better about ourselves! Go us! Ends justify the means, right?

 

[Malyse]

A Yale University faculty member who sparked protests when she said students should be free to push boundaries with Halloween costumes, even to the point of offense, resigned from her teaching position, the school announced Monday.

Erika Christakis chose not to continue teaching in the spring semester, the university said on its website.

"Her teaching is highly valued and she is welcome to resume teaching anytime at Yale, where freedom of expression and academic inquiry are the paramount principle and practice," the school said.

Christakis came under attack in October for her response to a request from the Intercultural Affairs Committee that students avoid wearing racially insensitive costumes, such as Native American headgear, turbans or blackface. She wrote in an email to students living in the residence hall where she's an administrator that they should be able to wear any costume they want.

"Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious, a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive?" she wrote. "American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition."

The email was one of several incidents on campus that prompted hundreds of students and faculty members to march in protest on Nov. 9 of what they see as racial insensitivity at the Ivy League school.

The school also has been dealing with criticism over a residential hall named after John Calhoun, a prominent slave-owning politician, questions about how minorities are treated on campus and allegations that a woman was turned away from a fraternity party because she was not white.

After the march, dozens of faculty members contributed to an open letter showing support for Christakis, who taught courses on child development and psychology.

"I have great respect and affection for my students, but I worry that the current climate at Yale is not, in my view, conducive to the civil dialogue and open inquiry required to solve our urgent societal problems," Christakis said in an email to The Washington Post.

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/article/20151208/NEWS/151209627

 

[norm9]

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/article/20151208/NEWS/151209627

Don't blame her. It'd be really hard to teach a class if you're constantly wondering if students are even listening and just waiting to pounce on you.

 

[Guevara]

"Her teaching is highly valued and she is welcome to resume teaching anytime at Yale, where freedom of expression and academic inquiry are the paramount principle and practice,"​

I mean, clearly they aren't.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Don't blame her. It'd be really hard to teach a class if you're constantly wondering if students are even listening and just waiting to pounce on you.

She came under fire for her response to an email asking people to avoid culturally insensitive costumes, not anything she taught. I suppose if you're the kind of person who finds blackface and Mulan costumes on the same level you probably think people are out to get you anyway though

 

[norm9]

She came under fire for her response to an email asking people to avoid culturally insensitive costumes, not anything she taught. I suppose if you're the kind of person who finds blackface and Mulan costumes on the same level you probably think people are out to get you anyway though

She asked the students to act like independent adults. They wanted her head on a stick over just the potential of blackface costumes. I'd say that's a pretty hostile work environment.

 

[Henkka]

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/article/20151208/NEWS/151209627

"I have great respect and affection for my students, but I worry that the current climate at Yale is not, in my view, conducive to the civil dialogue and open inquiry required to solve our urgent societal problems," Christakis said in an email to The Washington Post.

That is so sad.

 

[Malyse]

Don't blame her. It'd be really hard to teach a class if you're constantly wondering if students are even listening and just waiting to pounce on you.

Fuck that noise. She brought this on herself.

 

[Henkka]

Fuck that noise. She brought this on herself.

A person being bullied out of her job because of a disagreement about halloween costumes? What's wrong with you?

 

[norm9]

Fuck that noise. She brought this on herself.

I don't think she did. Just because she wasn't for banning offensive costumes doesn't mean she was endorsing them. She believed in freedom of speech more.

Yale students were on an either you're with us or against us crusade.

 

[Dude Abides]

Her email was kinda douchey but the students way overreacted. Typical campus tempest in a teapot.

 

[stufte]

Fuck that noise. She brought this on herself.

She really did. She should have known that the current student body was completely incapable of resolving their differences and talking about issues like adults. It's really her fault for not paying attention.