Support NeoGAF

[Cybit]

Exactly.

Me having any sort of PDA with a partner was and is "offensive" to a number of people. It is subjective, and that makes rule-making based on subjective whims very dangerous for minorities, because the majority can easily turn it on them at the drop of a hat.

The problem is that the people with a "live and let live" mentality (aka "sure you can dress like a racist asshat, just don't be surprised when we treat you like one.") aren't the ones with the drive to codify changes. Thus the tug of war from the extremes trying to dictate what other people can/cannot do.

It makes me unbelievably sad that minorities do not understand the complete undermining they will receive in terms of cultural destruction if they try to codify the belief that "society determines what speech is acceptable or not" into law. Exactly how do you think that's gonna shape out anywhere that's NOT a liberal bastion? Sucks to be gay and going to a Catholic school. Sucks to be black and going to a private school in the south. You really want the same people who run the NCAA, which basically uses students (primarily, poor black students) to make themselves billions of dollars but not pay any of them under the guise of "amateurism" and what's "best for the kids", to be in charge of speech on campus.

Everyone accuses of Christakis of living in a bubble - but if you think for one second that this will work out in a purely liberal and progressive way; I am 100% sure that they are living in a more insulated, completely divorced from reality bubble.

Unbridled free speech is awful. I don't want to live in a world that's basically 4chan. Society is better for almost everyone when there's at least some basic etiquette to follow and I think asking people not to dress in blackface is a pretty reasonable request.

We don't have to see shit flowing in the streets in order to discuss how gross it is.

https://popehat.com/2015/10/06/this-royal-throne-of-feels-this-sheltered-isle-this-england/

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

Women aren't being pushed out of the games industry, they just leave. Try again.

I'm not even on her side, but Dat Logic.

That's sort of why all of this disgusts me. They're basically using Gamergate-ish logic to push their agenda, and then call themselves on the side of the angels. It's "the ends justify any and all means" to the extreme.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

Context that requires you to move pretty far back, or via editorializing articles.

There was an email sent out with pintrest boards that had what would be okay or not okay to wear for Halloween. I think one of the many many costumes discussed was blackface. Her reply doesn't mention it, but because it was on the original "don't" list, some are extrapolating that she is defending or even endorsing blackface.

I don't think those people are being very honest with themselves though.

So she has her own list of costumes that are offensive that shouldn't be worn? Dress like a Native American, ok. Dress in blackface, nope. Isn't the hypocritical of what she wrote anyway?

 

[gohepcat]

Thanks for contributing.

I gotta say....It's amazingly appropriate that you responded to this with a GIF. That sums up this entire argument completely.

One side wants to have a nuanced conversation, and the other is a paragraph of emojis and tumbler Gifs.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

What the fuck. That's it?

She was pushing back against an email asking people to avoid offensive costumes, blackface being one of the possibilities. Do you really think a Yale professor is going to big up blackface in a public email

 

[anaron]

I gotta say....It's amazingly appropriate that you responded to this with a GIF. That sums up this entire argument completely.

One side wants to have a nuanced conversation, and the other is a paragraph of emojis and tumbler Gifs.

pretty much.

 

[Kinitari]

What do you think she would have to say about blackface costumes?

Who knows? She didn't mention it. She mentions that there are many costumes that she finds offensive and that she wouldn't want to wear, or see worn. I imagine blackface would fit the bill. But that isn't really the point of her email - if you saw the original board of costumes to wear or not wear, it was a pretty wide spectrum of things in the 'dont wear' category - enough so that she felt it needed criticism.

So she has her own list of costumes that are offensive that shouldn't be worn? Dress like a Native American, ok. Dress in blackface, nope. Isn't the hypocritical of what she wrote anyway?

No - her point is that she doesn't have a list because eventually, it can get very personal what may or may not be offensive to people. She has no list, the list is from the email she is replying to.

 

[potam]

Thanks for contributing.

How am I supposed to address someone who is willfully twisting an advocacy for free speech as some sort of hate mongering? You're living in your own world where you think everything is out to get you.

It's easier to just call you out and move along rather than set up a 50 page power point to try to change your delusions.

 

[gohepcat]

This is the reality of what her email was doing. It was just handwaving a simple "no don't be a fucking dick, dont dress like this" into some deep commentary as though there really should have to be more to the conversation. Unfortunately the Yale students acted like shitty brats. But its misguided to think there was any academic nuiance in what she said. It sounded like someone so wrapped up in an ideal world she forgot that planet earth is not one.

...I somewhat agree with this. I think her email was a slight transgression...almost minuscule, but I do believe it was the wrong response to a simple suggestion to not dress like a dick.

The response is far more troubling to me.

 

[potam]

Thought crimes are gonna be a legitimate thing once this generation begins to take office.

 

[Kinitari]

...I somewhat agree with this. I think her email was a slight transgression...almost minuscule, but I do believe it was the wrong response to a simple suggestion to not dress like a dick.

The response is far more troubling to me.

Well the email had a 'what not to wear pintrest' - I think this is it:
https://www.pinterest.com/yalecces/costumes-to-avoid/

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Who knows? She didn't mention it. She mentions that there are many costumes that she finds offensive and that she wouldn't want to wear, or see worn. I imagine blackface would fit the bill. But that isn't really the point of her email - if you saw the original board of costumes to wear or not wear, it was a pretty wide spectrum of things in the 'dont wear' category - enough so that she felt it needed criticism.

Then isn't the position she's taking hypocritical? It should be an "all ok or nothing is" if she's entreating students to work things out amongst themselves and ignore the university's decree. Why would her approved list be any more valid than theirs, without context for intent?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Thought crimes are gonna be a legitimate thing once this generation begins to take office.

What are you basing this paranoia on?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Thought crimes are gonna be a legitimate thing once this generation begins to take office.

They'll grow up once they leave college.

 

[potam]

What are you basing this paranoia on?

People saying her lack of explicit condemnation of a particular costume (blackface) is equal to her support of people wearing it...and thinking it's perfectly fine that a bunch of delusional teens have bullied her out of her job.

 

[Kinitari]

Then isn't the position she's taking hypocritical? It should be an "all ok or nothing is" if she's entreating students to work things out amongst themselves and ignore the university's decree. Why would get approved list be any more valid than theirs, without context for intent?

She has an internal list of things she probably wouldn't wear - but she says she wouldn't dictate this on anyone.

her quote:

Which is my point. I don’t, actually, trust myself to foist my Halloweenish standards and motives on others. I can’t defend them anymore than you could defend yours.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Context that requires you to move pretty far back, or via editorializing articles.

There was an email sent out with pintrest boards that had what would be okay or not okay to wear for Halloween. I think one of the many many costumes discussed was blackface. Her reply doesn't mention it, but because it was on the original "don't" list, some are extrapolating that she is defending or even endorsing blackface.

I don't think those people are being very honest with themselves though.

On my facebook the day after Halloween. Someone dressed as a native American with a bullet in their forehead, a person dressed in blackface. You tgink this shit isn't w/e common place? You think her letter isn't just giving credence to these people's none sense? You think they are gonna read her letter and go "yo these costumes, we should not wear them" or they are gonna go "see!! A Yale prof is even saying let us choose for ourselves!!"?

The issue with her letter requires a little thinking outside the box. I hardly think she is racist though or a bad person. I do find her clueless about this issue though.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

She was pushing back against an email asking people to avoid offensive costumes, blackface being one of the possibilities. Do you really think a Yale professor is going to big up blackface in a public email

That's true. But I consider it unfair that blackface is being brought up when she doesn't explicitly mention it in her second email. (Apparently)

There are costumes that I, as a minority, would debate others on, with regards to what is okay or not to wear on Halloween. I would definitely argue with Yale students about the Mulan costume. But blackface is on another level. This might be inline with what she was arguing herself, in her pushback email.

I mean, it feels like you might be analyizing something that hasn't been clarified so far by her. She might have went one way or another but nobody but her can tell you what they truly meant.

Does she have some sort of prior history that makes you feel as if she does approve blackface? I mean I do feel like racist morons who were Ivy league professors still outed themselves as racist and were very out about it.

If I got something wrong please correct me. Readin about this right now.

 

[esms]

Thought crimes are gonna be a legitimate thing once this generation begins to take office.

I used to be a no-nuance vitriolic asshole during my early-mid college years. It was just a phase. All of my friends have grown out of this mindset as well.

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

 

[EatinOlives]

Who knows? She didn't mention it. She mentions that there are many costumes that she finds offensive and that she wouldn't want to wear, or see worn. I imagine blackface would fit the bill. But that isn't really the point of her email - if you saw the original board of costumes to wear or not wear, it was a pretty wide spectrum of things in the 'dont wear' category - enough so that she felt it needed criticism.


No - her point is that she doesn't have a list because eventually, it can get very personal what may or may not be offensive to people. She has no list, the list is from the email she is replying to.

But that doesn't cover everything she says in the letter.

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? 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.

She's not only talking about the questionable value of policing costumes in the gray area. She also outright says that there SHOULD be "room" for costumes that are "a little bit" offensive. She uses this to claim this is some deep cultural dilemma worth exploring that, in reality, really doesn't exist.

 

[kirblar]

She's not only talking about the questionable value of policing costumes in the gray area. She also outright says that there SHOULD be "room" for costumes that are "a little bit" offensive. She uses this to claim this is some deep cultural dilemma worth exploring that, in reality, really doesn't exist.

This debate would indicate that dilemma very much does.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

I used to be a no-nuance vitriolic asshole during my early-mid college years. It was just a phase. All of my friends have grown out of this mindset as well.

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Hopefully weed's getting legalized in GA soon, lol.

 

[User 73706]

What are you basing this paranoia on?

This thread is taking a sharp turn into "these millennials won't know how to run this damn country" territory.

 

[Kinitari]

On my facebook the day after Halloween. Someone dressed as a native American with a bullet in their forehead, a person dressed in blackface. You tgink this shit isn't w/e common place? You think her letter isn't just giving credence to these people's none sense? You think they are gonna read her letter and go "yo these costumes, we should not wear them" or they are gonna go "see!! A Yale prof is even saying let us choose for ourselves!!"?

The issue with her letter requires a little thinking outside the box. I hardly think she is racist though or a bad person. I do find her clueless about this issue though.

Her suggestion would be that you try and talk to them about it and tell them why you think those things are offensive. Just saying "don't wear it" isn't going to convince a lot of people of the root issues with the costumes, and in fact, there is a lot to be said about a nuanced and respectful dialogue with people who are exhibiting ideas that you find toxic.

If someone says that the government should not dictate what you can or cannot say about some topic, and some asshat reads/hears that and thinks "Yeah, I SHOULD send hateful, racist, misogynistic and overall offensive messages to minorities, screw the government." I don't think the person extolling the virtues of free speech is suddenly to blame for the asshat's behaviour.

 

[EatinOlives]

This debate would indicate that dilemma very much does.

Not really. The debate is also muddied by the incredibly misguided outcry against her letter. Her views are flawed and not particularly convincing, but unlike what many people were shouting at her for, she ISN'T "defending blackface" or any other hysterical accusation.

In regards to what she specifically is referring to, no there isn't really a dilemma here. Don't dress is offensive costumes, even if they're as she calls them "a little bit offensive".

 

[kirblar]

Not really. The debate is also muddied by the incredibly misguided outcry against her letter. Her views are flawed and not particularly convincing, but unlike what many people were shouting at her for, she ISN'T "defending blackface" or any other hysterical accusation.

In regards to what she specifically is referring to, no there isn't really a dilemma here. Don't dress is offensive costumes, even if they're as she calls them "a little bit offensive".

So, a costume of Mohammed. Is there a problem?

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

Look, this wouldn't be such a huge issue if these costumes didn't end up perpetuating beliefs, that in the end, have and still are hurting certain groups of people.

Not wearing these costumes hurts absolutely no one except for maybe the shitty 'fun' of incredibly immature individuals.

Having sidewalks filled with people wearing KKK outfits, Nazi paraphernalia, Native Americans portrayed in offensive ways literally degrades the people who have actually suffered discrimination and the people on campus this stuff portrays who are basically reduced to a shitty joke at their expense. These are people's lives and she's treating them like some sort of academic experiment or as a 'learning experience'. Of what? How terrible some people really are?

On top of that, college kids are young and stupid. They do stupid shit that they don't even realize is harmful in the first place or they're too drunk to care about all the time. Whether you like it or not, having suggested guidelines helps people and to handwave away the existence of such a thing is nonsense.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

That's true. But I consider it unfair that blackface is being brought up when she doesn't explicitly mention it in her second email. (Apparently)

There are costumes that I, as a minority, would debate others on, with regards to what is okay or not to wear on Halloween. I would definitely argue with Yale students about the Mulan costume. But blackface is on another level. This might be inline with what she was arguing herself, in her pushback email.

I mean, it feels like you might be analyizing something that hasn't been clarified so far by her. She might have went one way or another but nobody but her can tell you what they truly meant.

Does she have some sort of prior history that makes you feel as if she does approve blackface? I mean I do feel like racist morons who were Ivy league professors still outed themselves as racist and were very out about it.

If I got something wrong please correct me. Readin about this right now.

I don't think she's a fan of blackface; I know nothing about her beyond what's in that email. It just seems like her recoiling to that email from the university was unnecessary. Some of the things in that Pinterest aren't even about offensive costumes. One of them is to avoid costumes that make it hard to breathe. It might seem like overprotective but these are college students who will be drinking heavily so there's a hefty dose of CYA in there too.

However, the culturally insensitive costumes are what stick out the most for everyone so that's what the conversation becomes about. Some people REALLY love dressing up as a member of a different race and hate to be told they can't or have it suggested that they shouldn't. Others are extremely sensitive to seeing their race used as a costume. I agree with her general idea that adults should be able to work these things out for themselves, but it seems unrealistic idealistic given our yearly spate of poorly done racial costumes. I also feel like she chose a bad platform for it, in replying to a pretty bland email from the school.

 

[EatinOlives]

So, a costume of Mohammed. Is there a problem?

A religious figure famous for not being "allowed" to be depicted in a physical form. Specifically picking Mohammed makes it clear the wearer at least is aware of this caveat, and is aware that there is a nonzero chance that someone will be offended. So why wouldn't there be a problem, exactly?

 

[potam]

I love how so many people here are completely missing the point of her email.

"ok I get that she's saying there should not be any one authority to dictate what people can or cannot do, since offense is all subjective and relative.


But, X should clearly be banned!"

 

[kirblar]

A religious figure famous for not being "allowed" to be depicted in a physical form. Specifically picking Mohammed makes it clear the wearer at least is aware of this caveat, and is aware that there is a nonzero chance that someone will be offended. So why wouldn't there be a problem, exactly?

So should people be prohibited from wearing them?

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

Her suggestion would be that you try and talk to them about it and tell them why you think those things are offensive. Just saying "don't wear it" isn't going to convince a lot of people of the root issues with the costumes, and in fact, there is a lot to be said about a nuanced and respectful dialogue with people who are exhibiting ideas that you find toxic.

This is kind of like asking someone to stop punching you in the face nicely and requesting to have an open conversation because they just don't understand that they're hurting you. These things aren't always accidents and people will use shit like offensive costumes as a way to say "Screw you, you're lesser". That's not even to mention those who basically pressure others into following along (something that we see in fraternities and sororities all the time) even if deep down they don't want to.

 

[EatinOlives]

So should people be prohibited from wearing them?

Not interested in playing 20 questions. Come out with your point instead of trying to bait something from me.

 

[potam]

Not interested in playing 20 questions. Come out with your point instead of trying to bait something from me.

Ok here's a point. Your posting offends me. Stop.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

This is kind of like asking someone to stop punching you in the face nicely and requesting to have an open conversation because they just don't understand that they're hurting you. These things aren't always accidents and people will use shit like offensive costumes as a way to say "Screw you, you're lesser". That's not even to mention those who basically pressure others into following along (something that we see in fraternities and sororities all the time) even if deep down they don't want to.

There are people who feel like it's always the job of those being shit on to offer wipes and baby powder to those doing the shitting. There's no impetus for those on the wrong to change.

 

[EatinOlives]

Ok here's a point. Your posting offends me. Stop.

Weren't you the one whining about other people using reductive arguments bereft of intellectual discussions just moments ago? You don't seem to be too interested in engaging in a legitimate conversation yourself.

 

[aeolist]

I love how so many people here are completely missing the point of her email.

"ok I get that she's saying there should not be any one authority to dictate what people can or cannot do, since offense is all subjective and relative.


But, X should clearly be banned!"

sometimes things should be banned. generally we've decided as a society that this should happen when something brings harm and no good.

she's saying that good can come of the discussion, and in a lot of cases i'm sure she's right. in the case of clearly racist costumes like blackface, i don't think there's anything at all to be gained from allowing it. people know it's racist, they know it's hurtful to black people, and they wear it anyway because they don't care. they won't benefit from a nuanced racial discussion on the subject, and i don't think many people would have a problem with a private entity like yale banning it.

also note that they didn't actually ban it, they just issued a list of suggestions. why that was too much for the professor i don't really understand.

 

[0.1.1.2.3.5.8.13.21.34.55]

Ok here's a point. Your posting offends me. Stop.

im offended too,
do we have a quorum

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Her suggestion would be that you try and talk to them about it and tell them why you think those things are offensive. Just saying "don't wear it" isn't going to convince a lot of people of the root issues with the costumes, and in fact, there is a lot to be said about a nuanced and respectful dialogue with people who are exhibiting ideas that you find toxic.

I know what her argument is. My point is its naive. You think that shit is gonna happen on Halloween night? You think if you do that at a party or a bar that shit is going to go over even slightly well? You think Nov 1st people are gonna be down to sit and talk about this? I have zero issue if that is what she personally thinks even if the entire email is so stupidly naive. But she sent it out as an active counter to the universities stance. So why are people so herp derp about why it has annoyed people? I ask her to do the opposite, don't think about this academically, go apply her stance in a real setting as a minority and see how that shit goes over. I can promise you its not gonna end in you having a bitching October 31.

If someone says that the government should not dictate what you can or cannot say about some topic, and some asshat reads/hears that and thinks "Yeah, I SHOULD send hateful, racist, misogynistic and overall offensive messages to minorities, screw the government." I don't think the person extolling the virtues of free speech is suddenly to blame for the asshat's behaviour.

This isn't really about free speech. They are an institution and they took a clear stance on something simple. And she went against it. And by going against it she took a side (come on people don't be on this "she said let people decide" bullshit) and now she os catching criticism. The students were fucking shitty brats and went way the fuck too far. But she is not innocent of guilt in the name of being an intellectual. And free speech does not mean freedom of consequence to say whatever the fuck you want.

Nothing about this situation really is about freedom of speech. Trying to get someone you don't like fired is douchey, its not suppression of her rights.

As I have said I am not really on anyone's side in this situation. I disagree with her stance as I have explained earlier in the thread. I feel the students really suck. But the people coming here and acting like "oh she was making a really valid point that had no holes" are being just as dishonest as the people painting her as an ignant racist.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

sometimes things should be banned. generally we've decided as a society that this should happen when something brings harm and no good.

It's sort of like the shit happening at the University of Missouri. From the way she talks, universities shouldn't ban stuff like drawing swastikas on walls or be fine with students walking around in gangs saying derogatory things to other students because schools should be counter-culture and we're all missing out on some sort of valuable learning experience.

 

[ElTorro]

It's sort of like the shit happening at the University of Missouri. From the way she talks, universities shouldn't ban stuff like drawing swastikas on walls or be fine with students walking around in gangs saying derogatory things to other students because schools should be counter-culture and we're all missing out on some sort of valuable learning experience.

There is another aspect to this topic other than intellectual education: character building. You should be able to deal with offensive situations and bigoted people—as long as there is no physical violence or violation of privacy involved—without having to invoke the force of authorities. If you cannot deal with such situations, you are not being prepared for life. You are not being prepared to work in any real-world environment where you will have to deal with these things all the time. There is no authority in real life that shields you from everything in every situation. Thankfully. It's the job of any educational facility to prepare students for life.

 

[kirblar]

It's sort of like the shit happening at the University of Missouri. From the way she talks, universities shouldn't ban stuff like drawing swastikas on walls or be fine with students walking around in gangs saying derogatory things to other students because schools should be counter-culture and we're all missing out on some sort of valuable learning experience.

This isn't U of M. They are two very different situations, with the situation at U of M involving threats of physical violence/vandalism and a toxic atmosphere with University leadership seeking to simply sweep it under the rug. This has very little in common with a philosophical discussion primarily revolving around the concept of cultural appropriation. Using U of M to justify Yale is just the inverse of what conservatives do when they invoke Yale to dismiss U of M.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

There is another aspect to this topic other than intellectual education: character building. You should be able to deal with offensive situations and bigoted people—as long as there is no physical violence or violation of privacy involved—without having to invoke the force of authorities. If you cannot deal with such situations, you are not being prepared for life. You are not being prepared to work in any real-world environment where you will have to deal with these things all the time. There is no authority in real life that shields you from everything in every situation. Thankfully. It's the job of any educational facility to prepare students for life.

Getting called on your bullshit and having to deal with the consequences of your actions builds character too.

 

[metalslimer]

There is another aspect to this topic other than intellectual education: character building. You should be able to deal with offensive situations and bigoted people—as long as there is no physical violence or violation of privacy involved—without having to invoke the force of authorities. If you cannot deal with such situations, you are not being prepared for life. You are not being prepared to work in any real-world environment where you will have to deal with these things all the time. There is no authority in real life that shields you from everything in every situation. Thankfully. It's the job of any educational facility to prepare students for life.

What? I sure am glad all the homophobic nonsense i grew up with up with built character in me. This is just a long way of saying deal with it.

Also if someone came to work in blackface I hope to dear lord you could go to someone in authority at your workplace.

Am I missing some sort of joke here?

 

[Henkka]

It's sort of like the shit happening at the University of Missouri. From the way she talks, universities shouldn't ban stuff like drawing swastikas on walls or be fine with students walking around in gangs saying derogatory things to other students because schools should be counter-culture and we're all missing out on some sort of valuable learning experience.

I don't really know, but I would be very surprised if these colleges didn't already have rules banning explicitly racist or hateful speech. Like, I don't think you could set up a Nazi club and hold events discussing how pureblood whites are the übermensch. Or draw swastikas on the walls, for that matter. And rightfully so. But from what I understand, the students wanted something much more broad than simply banning blackface.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

There is another aspect to this topic other than intellectual education: character building. You should be able to deal with offensive situations and bigoted people—as long as there is no physical violence or violation of privacy involved—without having to invoke the force of authorities. If you cannot deal with such situations, you are not being prepared for life. You are not being prepared to work in any real-world environment where you will have to deal with these things all the time. There is no authority in real life that shields you from everything in every situation. Thankfully. It's the job of any educational facility to prepare students for life.

Except that there are a LOT of situations where force of authority is absolutely required and should be turned to as an option. If someone in your office is walking around saying racist shit and degrading people all the time, you should probably tell HR about it. If you've got someone up in your face harassing you and making your life miserable, you should consider trying to reach out to other people. What other things that universities usually ban should they unban so we can learn valuable life lessons? Fighting? Theft? Underage drinking?

This isn't U of M. They are two very different situations, with the situation at U of M involving threats of physical violence/vandalism and a toxic atmosphere with University leadership seeking to simply sweep it under the rug. This has very little in common with a philosophical discussion primarily revolving around the concept of cultural appropriation. Using U of M to justify Yale is just the inverse of what conservatives do when they invoke Yale to dismiss U of M.

And the students at Yale too are basically up in arms because requests have fallen on deaf ears for decades. Not to mention that U of M sets the stage for how bad things can get when left completely unbridled. There's nothing disingenuous about using it as an example, especially considering a lot of people keep arguing the slippery slope around here.

Even then, how many times can someone ask nicely when the response basically comes down to, "deal with it".

 

[Gotdatmoney]

There is another aspect to this topic other than intellectual education: character building. You should be able to deal with offensive situations and bigoted people—as long as there is no physical violence or violation of privacy involved—without having to invoke the force of authorities. If you cannot deal with such situations, you are not being prepared for life. You are not being prepared to work in any real-world environment where you will have to deal with these things all the time. There is no authority in real life that shields you from everything in every situation. Thankfully. It's the job of any educational facility to prepare students for life.

None of this builds character. Being degraded repeatedly and insulted doesn't build character. You shouldn't have to be exposed to a toxic environment just so you can build character. That' s beyond none sense.

You think if you go to work and they have costume day they are going to allow you to wear a bunch of that shit on that pinterest list?

 

[kirblar]

And the students at Yale too are basically up in arms because requests have fallen on deaf ears for decades. Not to mention that U of M sets the stage for how bad things can get when left completely unbridled. There's nothing disingenuous about using it as an example, especially considering a lot of people keep arguing the slippery slope around here.

Even then, how many times can someone ask nicely when the response basically comes down to, "deal with it".

Requests involving the naming of buildings and costumes prohibitions are infinitesimally less important than being able to go to school without the imminent threat of violence hovering everywhere on campus. It's absolutely disingenous to bring it up regarding the Yale situation because it involves issues that are far more severe and have a far greater impact on the health, safety and well-being of the students attending the school.

 

[aeolist]

There is another aspect to this topic other than intellectual education: character building. You should be able to deal with offensive situations and bigoted people—as long as there is no physical violence or violation of privacy involved—without having to invoke the force of authorities. If you cannot deal with such situations, you are not being prepared for life. You are not being prepared to work in any real-world environment where you will have to deal with these things all the time. There is no authority in real life that shields you from everything in every situation. Thankfully. It's the job of any educational facility to prepare students for life.

beyond the responses you've already gotten, i'd say it's a little weird to think that it's even possible for an american minority to grow up so sheltered that they never experience racism until college. a 19 year old black kid at harvard seeing a white guy in blackface at a halloween party isn't having his narrow world-view exploded by something he's never seen before.

Requests involving the naming of buildings and costumes prohibitions are infinitesimally less important than being able to go to school without the imminent threat of violence hovering everywhere on campus. It's absolutely disingenous to bring it up regarding the Yale situation because it involves issues that are far more severe and have a far greater impact on the health, safety and well-being of the students attending the school.

i'd say that going to school in a building named after a man whose primary historical importance comes from the intellectual backing he gave to the slavery of african americans is pretty important to a lot of black kids.

 

[ElTorro]

Except that there are a LOT of situations where force of authority is absolutely required and should be turned to as an option. If someone in your office is walking around saying racist shit and degrading people all the time, you should probably tell HR about it. If you've got someone up in your face harassing you and making your life miserable, you should consider trying to reach out to other people. What other things that universities usually ban should they unban so we can learn valuable life lessons? Fighting? Theft? Underage drinking?

What? I sure am glad all the homophobic nonsense i grew up with up with built character in me. This is just a long way of saying deal with it.

Also if someone came to work in blackface I hope to dear lord you could go to someone in authority at your workplace.

Am I missing some sort of joke here?

You are missing the spectrum of possible offenses. Which is what the mail written by Christakis was alluding to. Yes, there are offenses worth reporting. But not every offense is worth the force of authority. Wearing a costume that might hurt somebodies cultural sensibilities is not the same as bullying a gay individual directly for the sake of bullying him. Wearing a T-Shirt with a hyper-sexualized comic motive is not the same as degrading sexual harassment at the workplace. These are issues worth debating critically. They are not things that everybody just has to accept and shut up about. But the do not warrant the use of the authorities. Not every nut needs a sledgehammer to be cracked, especially not when the over-application of said sledgehammer on an institutional and societal level can come with negative consequences. So yes, there is a wide spectrum of offenses that people have to deal with in other ways than relying on authorities to create safe spaces for them. And a university should reflect that reality.

The mail by Christakis made this nuanced point very clearly, in my opinion. And it is quite disconcerting—and, frankly, embarrassing—that this mail led to her recent resignation nonetheless.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

You are missing the spectrum of possible offenses. Which is what the mail written by Christakis was alluding to. Yes, there are offenses worth reporting. But not every offense is worth the force of authority. Wearing a costume that might hurt somebodies cultural sensibilities is not the same as bullying a gay individual directly for the sake of bullying him. Wearing a T-Shirt with a hyper-sexualized comic motive is not the same as degrading sexual harassment at the workplace. These are issues worth debating critically. They are not things that everybody just has to accept and shut up about. But the do not warrant the use of the authorities. Not every nut needs a sledgehammer to be cracked, especially not when the over-application of said sledgehammer on an institutional and societal level can come with negative consequences.

The mail by Christakis made this nuanced point very clearly, in my opinion. And it is quite disconcerting—and, frankly, embarrassing—that this mail led to her recent resignation nonetheless.

And context still matters. This isn't about wiping out everyone's ability to do this sort of stuff everywhere. Honestly, if someone wants to sit around in their house alone or with friends wearing blackface, I'd think they were weird and maybe terrible, but I don't give a shit. Someone comes into work or school that way, yeah, I'm going to have a problem with that and others should too.

Those people shouldn't be free of criticism and a ban is literally an expression of that criticism. As some have said, certain things have literally no societal value, and walking around in offensive costumes is one of them. We're not talking about people being thrown in jail or being executed for doing so, but it's a fair response to say you don't want to be associated with people who express harmful ideologies and are ok with demeaning you, especially in a setting that you can't easily find solace from, such as being stuck at a school for 4 years or at a job.