Hacker News Reader

Comment by bendykstra | Hacker News Reader

I found one quote in an op-ed in the Yale Herald regarding the controversy especially surprising and revealing.

> They [Erika and Nicholas Christakis] have failed to acknowledge the hurt and pain that such a large part of our community feel. They have again and again shown that they are committed to an ideal of free speech, not to the Silliman community.

It is simply incredible to see anyone criticized for having a strong commitment to the freedom of speech. It's all the more amazing that it happened in a newspaper and on a college campus. The paragraph (as well as the rest of the piece) also seems to acknowledge that the demands of the protesters are at odds with the rest of the community's right to free expression. At a minimum, it acknowledges that the Christakises' position is one of principle, while failing to respect that fact.

The newspaper is offline now, but the op-ed was located at http://yaleherald.com/op-eds/hurt-at-home/. It's still available in Google's cache.

View on HN

For those who have read the letter and are wondering what the big deal is:

"There was so much coded language in that e-mail that is just disrespectful," said Ewurama Okai, a junior.

I, too, read the letter, which was my impetus for doing further research of my own. It seems pretty benign and progressive when read with no surrounding context (as the author presents it), so I found it hard to believe that some of the smartest students in the country would have such a poor reaction towards it. Clearly there is a larger theme that many here are failing to discuss, which is the wide perception of a pervasive and ingrained culture of racism at Yale.

It's unfortunate but understandable that some students got so worked up that they behaved poorly and acted on emotion, rather than rationally, which they later did with the petition and various letters/articles addressing the issue.

We should be focusing on the overall themes of the argument rather than the specific anecdotes of what one student said or did which may not be representative of the entire body.

See my (downvoted) comments below for a more thorough discussion between myself and tptacek.

> so I found it hard to believe that some of the smartest students in the country would have such a poor reaction towards it.

Intelligence is orthogonal to wisdom. They could theoretically be the smartest students in the country, but even if so that doesn't mean they're wise or emotionally stable. I would recommend that you obey your own judgement here.

Occam's Razor. All direct evidence points to students being utterly misguided to the point where you're tempted to call it a mental healthcare issue, and you have reasons to believe this is an endemic problem in US colleges.

If you see a house burning you call the fire department, you don't start speculating that maybe it's a movie set.

"It is simply incredible to see anyone criticized for having a strong commitment to the freedom of speech."

That's because you ignored the word "ideal". It's not saying he can't have a commitment to freedom of speech. It's saying that he can't excuse not taking the students concern seriously because of it. Just because I like to promote e.g. human rights doesn't mean it's appropriate to troll every military thread on HN about it. Anyone can hold stubborn views and it's fine to do so, unless it's actually your job to takes peoples concerns seriously.

> When students tried to tell him about their painful personal experiences as students of color on campus, he responded by making more arguments for free speech. It’s unacceptable when the Master of your college is dismissive of your experiences. [...] We are supposed to feel encouraged to go to our Master and Associate Master with our concerns and feel that our opinions will be respected and heard. [...] He seems to lack the ability, quite frankly, to put aside his opinions long enough to listen to the very real hurt that the community feels. He doesn’t get it. And I don’t want to debate.

Cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ayaleh...

It's almost never about opinions in these cases, but about trust. If you're unrelenting now, what says you want be that when I have some other concern?

  And I don’t want to debate.

The sickening part of political discourse is how often people will eagerly explain their beliefs without any willingness to listen, investigate, or understand other perspectives.

In the particular context given, it seems more like an attempt to say "I will not submit to sealioning under the flag of reasoned debate".

Mind you, that's not saying that the perception of sealioning is necessarily correct, but it certainly reads to me like the perception is there.

I was not familiar with the term "sealioning" until I looked it up[1]. Frankly it sounds like an name you call your opponent when your not-so-well-thought-out ideas can't withstand debate or criticism.

A: I think the moon is made of cheese.

B: Why do you think that? Do you know of any evidence?

A: Sea-lioning! I will not debate you!!

1: http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/

It may not apply in this case, but it's absolutely a real thing. It's a method used by a lot of "polite" internet harrassment and forum trolls, for example, by demanding that people re-justify themselves on things that have already been discussed to death.

An example in practice is the talk page for Gamergate on Wikipedia, where organized brigades of trolls spent so much time re-asking the same questions over and over that at least for a while (I haven't checked if it's still the case) the mods there started topic-banning anyone who posted something already answered in the FAQ on the page.

> It may not apply in this case, but it's absolutely a real thing.

No, it really isn't.

Here's the real backstory of "sealioning": Group A made some assertions. Group B refused to accept their assertions. Group A decided that what was called for was yet another in a long list of mechanisms for dismissing and invalidating criticism. And here we are.

You can't just wave a hand, or a rhetorical gimmick lifted from a webcomic, and make your critics go away. They will never go away. There are still people who think that the earth is flat or that vaccines cause autism or that GMOs are dangerous. If you hurl abuse at them and find tricks like the "sealioning" accusation to dismiss them, you're just sinking below their level and making them look like the rational ones. A better policy: let the fools ask their foolish questions. If you are right, you have nothing to fear, and all the fools will accomplish is inadvertently help you educate the onlookers.

That perception seems necessarily incorrect to me, since the Master is defending himself directly against accusations from the students. Sea Lioning, as I understand it, refers to a person derailing a discussion to which they are not a direct party. To dismiss the defense as Sea Lioning would be to demand he simply accept your censure and bow to your demands, entirely robbing him of his agency.

> Sea Lioning, as I understand it, refers to a person derailing a discussion to which they are not a direct party.

That's what that email (very politely) did, though, didn't it?

However well-intended it was meant, it was a reply to "please be considerate about your costumes" with (to paraphrase much more bluntly) "well, why should we care about college students being offensive or inoffensive?".

It's the kind of thing that is worth discussing in the abstract, but it would be hard to argue it's not tangential to the original topic.

I just have no idea how he though publishing this rant wouldn't undermine his position as Master, especially since his wife is the Associate Master. The answer is he probably didn't think, which doesn't exactly work in his favor. It's almost like he is being schooled in politics by the students. There's a reason why you usually have a number of co-signers on these things.

Did we read the same email? It's at https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing...

"I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students."

The original email coaching students on acceptable costumes had 13 signatures from Yale administrators and faculty. Erika's email was NOT asking why anyone should care, it was asking why the students should not be their own agents.

You're selectively quoting the sensible lead up in the e-mail. The question whether student should be their own agent isn't relevant, since the first e-mail doesn't prevent them from being that. Rather it asks people to reflect on their choices. If she really was concerned about the faculty's control over students she wouldn't herself have tried to influence the students, but rather raised her concerns with the faculty itself.

The whole thing seems premeditated rather then fueled by student concerns when you consider she has written an article on the subject: http://ideas.time.com/2012/10/23/have-adults-ruined-hallowee...

| If she really was concerned about the faculty's control over students she wouldn't herself have tried to influence the students

That doesn't follow. Furthermore, she was signing her single name to her response to a letter signed by 13 administrators and faculty. If anything, her dissent might have reduced the appearance of a cohesive insertion of Yale authority. What I have quoted was near the heart of her message and sensibly supported throughout.

Her Time article was on the same theme of the insertion of adult control over Halloween. Is this supposed to reveal a "premeditated" crime?

I don't really see you making any arguments here.

* Her letter tries to influence the students she had authority over as her position as associate master. It was implicitly co-signed by her husband, the master. The letter was only sent to those students.

* Most of the rest of the letter has a different questioning rhetoric tone, of course no one can make you see that if you don't want to.

* The article shows she had an agenda and wasn't just reacting to the letter. It bring into question whether she is appropriate for the roll as associate masters since she apparently thought promoting her own agenda was more important than good relations to the students.

> We are supposed to feel encouraged to go to our Master and Associate Master with our concerns and feel that our opinions will be respected and heard.

What's missing: "Respected and heard" does not necessarily equate to "agreed with." It seems more like these students are pissed that the Master is not agreeing with them, but instead is respecting and hearing their opinions while agreeing to disagree.

> It is simply incredible to see anyone criticized for having a strong commitment to the freedom of speech.

There does seem to be some kind of a racist pattern at Yale which I would imagine violates at least some free speech law:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/2015/11/07/purp...

http://www.businessinsider.com/yale-university-racism-on-cam...

Which "free speech law" would that be which is being violated here?

Freedom of speech and expression can exist as a concept outside the limited bounds of codified law.

Sure, but in that conceptual form they're not laws. The original comment seemed pretty confident about some law that was being violated, so I wanted to know which one it was.

Sorry, the mobile design has subtler indentation and I lost track of who's us and who's them.

I'm a little disgusted that this self-evident fact is greyed.

>>> I would imagine violates at least some free speech law:

>> Which "free speech law" would that be which is being violated here?

> Freedom of speech and expression can exist as a concept outside the limited bounds of codified law.

I didn't downvote it, but it's pretty obvious why it got downvoted.

They seem to be okay with freedom of speech for themselves, but not for the freedom of speech that goes with a reaction. Furthermore, why should freedom of speech trump community? We all recognize that in certain groups you don't just say whatever you want for the sake of it (e.g. try that at work and see how long you last); harmony within a community is important. Arguing for knowingly offensive speech/actions negates the importance of harmony.

For reference here is Erika Christakis's original email:

http://pastebin.com/egSQGfgK

Describing it as "knowingly offensive" seems pretty crazy to me (though obviously others disagree).

Per the letter she isn't arguing for offensive speech, she's asking (among other things) when does certain speech (here represented by costumes) become offensive? A paraphrase: Why can my friend's 5-year old white daughter dress as Mulan, but a 22-year old white woman can't? That's a valid question. She's not declaring that the latter is ok, but asking why we currently accept the former and not the latter. At what age is the distinction made between "Oh, she's so precious" and "She's appropriating a culture that's not her own!"?

And if you want to go with community and what's appropriate. It's a fucking college. Colleges are places of discussion, learning and debate. College is the place to be offended. To learn why something is offensive, why something else is not, and determine whether offense is appropriate or not.

As a non-American, what is wrong with a 22-year old white woman dressing as Mulan ?

The argument would be that it reduces an important world culture to a cartoon stereotype.

(It is a stupid argument.)

I don't know. But some people find it to be crossing a line. I don't get it, but I'm also not in a particular minority group (religious minority in my area, but I don't get upset about sexy nun costumes) that's commonly discriminated against.

Some people might see it as cultural appropriation. But it's a fictional character. Similarly, my ex-girlfriend often (with the approval of her Taiwanese and Chinese friends) dressed in some traditional Chinese outfits for Halloween for several years. None took offense, they encouraged it!

It's really hard to tell what's going to offend and what's not.

The concept of cultural appropriation as somehow offensive is misguided in my opinion, but

"with the approval of her Taiwanese and Chinese friends"

Is the wrong argument to make. It's the equivalent of "I say offensive black jokes around my black friends and they think it's funny."

The aggrieved always initially present their offense as being representative of the entire community of x. Saying "my friends are OK with it" is a way of saying "you don't speak for all X" and puts them in a position of replying "well maybe the people who know you best and live in your community aren't offended, but they should be according to this essay on critical race theory.

The idea of Chinese people being a "minority group" makes me laugh. It is so absurd that it must be a strawman.

Depends on where you are. And even if globally or even regionally they aren't, in the US there's a history of legal and extralegal abuse of Chinese immigrants. And then go back and look at the way they have been represented in numerous movies and tv shows over the decades in the US. It's not a pretty picture.

Calling them a minority group may not be accurate, but there certainly is or was racism/nationalism/religionism targeted against them.

So you could say that cultural appropriation has nothing to do with foreign cultures, but is more of a conflict between different American subcommunities.

If a person is Chinese, born and living in China, it seems highly unlikely that they would care about what Americans say or do.

If a person is an American, who speaks American English, lives in America, but also has Chinese ancestry: appropriation of their identity is more likely to be a problem.

As far as Halloween goes this is all hypothetical, because I'm not totally convinced that anybody is sincerely hurt by 'appropriative' costumes.

I'm not sure that Mulan is really that much more of a stereotype than, say, Shan Yu or even the emperor. They're all Greek style heroes : rejected by their parents/city/mother/... (or at the very least against their wishes) who go off to save the world from some evil villain lacking depth, and they get some desirable significant other as pretty much the only reward.

Same story as Lilo & Stitch in many ways. I bet real aliens would be offended too, and frankly all humans should be offended at how the black suits are portrayed.

For some people, altering what other people do by acting super offended is the only power they will ever experience. The text of the offense is not important and does not have to make any sense to you.

I love this comment and idea put forth.

Nothing. Very sensitive people get pissed over anything and everything. Sadly those people have time on their hands to write, picket, and generally get attention.

There is a tendency for white people to take reduction of other races and wear them as a way to make fun of that race/culture. Black face is a good example. The group of people being made fun of see this as another way of not being recognized for anything but their cultural stereotype. The line for this, however, is not universally agreed upon. Some seem to advocate that any cross-cultural dress-up is offensive, other believe any criticism at all is a violation of their 'free speech'.

In the context of this discussion, that statement borders on the offensive.

There's a tendency for people of all races to take reduction of other races and wear them as a way to make fun of that race/culture.

To presume otherwise is to fall into the same trap as the students being discussed here.

Sure. But not all races are in charge in America, so it hardly matters. White people are the ones who enslaved black people, kicked American Indians off of their land, etc. The offensiveness is ultimately in the context of historical power. Without this context, it's all made up. This is precisely why the protests against the museum in Boston were nonsensical: the US doesn't exert cultural dominance over Japan.

So you're telling me that as someone who comes from a historical power structure, I'm not allowed to have feelings? That I cannot be offended by a book about "Stuff White People Like," because of the "context of historical power"?

That I am to be judged solely by my race and not as an individual? That standards should be different for me because I'm white?

Hardly seems the world Dr. King was envisioning.

>So you're telling me that as someone who comes from a historical power structure, I'm not allowed to have feelings? That I cannot be offended by a book about "Stuff White People Like," because of the "context of historical power"?

The purpose of expressing offense to speech or content is to draw attention to historical power imbalances that have enabled the abuse of one group at the hands of another. Because no one has the power to control your feelings unless you allow them to, I would not presume to tell you how to feel.

However, if you're arguing that "Stuff White People Like" is an example of how a dominant American group denigrates 'white culture' and is indicative of further systematic abuse of white people, I'm happy to take you to task on that claim, as it's demonstratively false.

The same mistake is being made by these Yale students: they're focussing on their feelings and demanding that their government (in this case, the administration) take action against the people hurting their feelings. This has not worked and never will. You cannot legislate people's beliefs. You can only attempt to reason with them or draw their empathy through education. Some will believe you and join you, others will disagree.

>But not all races are in charge in America, so it hardly matters.

Bollocks: it is of pivotal importance. There is always going to be some group with more power than the others, regardless of whether the difference is based on race, class, handedness, or simply having more power than other groups.

Blaming one race for problems implies that, if another race was in power, there wouldn't be problems. Which is A) racist and B) exactly the kind of thinking that keeps getting us into this situation, over and over, as some of us struggle towards a more enlightened and egalitarian future, rather than engaging in group shaming and futile identity politics.

Until we can start accepting that in-group bias is simply an extension of out-group prejudice, and that no group of people is immune to it, we are just going to keep bickering and fighting and struggling to dominate each other.

I'm not saying that you have to agree with it yourself, but if you are willing to accept that other people believe there is something wrong with it in the first place, that question seems obvious enough to not even merit asking. We are lenient with children because we accept that they don't know any better, and the cutoff is as gradual as the one for the age where it's okay to ask "mommy, why is that man chocolate colored?" in a grocery store.

> They seem to be okay with freedom of speech for themselves, but not for the freedom of speech that goes with a reaction.

The concept of freedom of speech exists to preserve people's ability to communicate and express ideas. The "reaction" you refer to is merely an attempt to control the behavior of others. They are not equivalent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com