I don’t think anyone is arguing that there’s no history of racial grievances at these institutions, at least as far as informed discussion goes. The closest I’ve seen, aside from some neanderthal Facebook comments, was along the lines of something like “it happened, but it doesn’t matter now.” And while I don’t agree with that notion, free speech at least gives me the ability to debate it with such individuals.
One of the more interesting philosophy courses centered on whiteness and critical race theory, and was taught by a brilliant professor named George Yancy. I remember talking with him as we headed out of the building one night, and we were debating terminology after he had shared an interesting story about walking down the sidewalk while traffic was backed up beside him. As we was walking, he noticed that a number of drivers were reaching over and locking their doors (again) as this black man in suit with a red hat was walking near them. A really stupid little action on their part that made them feel safer—conscious or not—but one that was kind of mind-boggling to him as he walked. It wasn’t just one car, but a large number of them even though it looked like the doors were already locked. Racist? Definitely; he was shoehorned into this stereotype of a “black gangster/thug” that might try to carjack them in broad daylight or otherwise threaten them. They took preventive action to protect themselves from this perceived threat, and the general consensus was to label the action as racist. But the question I asked him was whether the term worked in this context. When we hear the term “racist,” the first thing that comes to mind are images of the KKK. Lynchings. Slavery. Overseers trying to “cure” drapetomania (mental illness causing slaves to run away) by “whipping the devil” out of their slaves (interesting how the cure for supposed illness matched up with their normal practices so perfectly). No one wants to be lumped into that sort of company, so the immediate response is to deny it. “I’m no racist! [insert reasons X,Y,Z here].” He felt that there’s definitely a difference, but that the label still worked because it sought to critique racism in its less obvious forms. In other words, the shock of having one’s actions compared to the horrors of the past helps pin down racial privilege behind the scenes that isn’t even given conscious thought.
My argument was that the term is so loaded that it prevents that introspection from occurring. Worse yet, it whips up a frantic frenzy to avoid the charge that serves to further mask that privilege from being seen. Consider an authoritarian state where neighbors are in a rush to inform on one another, constantly pushing further in an all-out effort to avoid becoming the focus of the state’s secret police themselves. Rather than address the substance of the critique, the individual being critiqued is so concerned with the label associated with the critique--"racist"--that they avoid hearing the critique at all.
The end result is that two groups find themselves looking at the same term and using two radically different definitions for it that are, effectively, mutually exclusive. And the worst part is that neither group realizes that they give such radically different meaning to the same term, leading to confusion and pain for all involved while stifling even the hope for meaningful progress. Neither group will ever be able to fully understand these differences without sustained dialogue between them. That dialogue may be painful at times, but it’s still necessary if you hope to see any sort of change or progress. That’s where free speech comes in.
The students at Yale, and those supporting the broader push for “safe spaces” in general, are missing this point to the point where they're undermining the very progress they seek to achieve. Not just because they’re mocked in the media, but because they’re preventing it from occurring in the first place. What good is it to push for everyone to feel “safe” on campus (again, it comes down to how we define yet another word) if those outside that group don’t understand what it is that makes them feel unsafe in the first place. Authoritarian efforts to force this issue, to carve out the so-called safe space by squashing other voices can only end in one thing: the creation of a new, sacred cow. You aren’t creating a dialogue that fosters genuine understanding and respect. You’re purposely avoiding it, which only serves to take the sacred cow in your midst and have it set aside and ignored out of fear of giving offense. The end result is that those you believe to be marginalized are marginalized further.
Nowhere in the Christakis email does she “salt the wound.” It’s an intellectual effort to engage a debate about Halloween costumes and the nature of interpersonal communication in this context. Agree with her or disagree as you wish. But engage her points; don’t make up this interpretation in order to justify ignoring and silencing her in the first place.
Race relations and progress with them have never been easy. Much of their history is written in pain and blood. Why would anyone be so foolish as to think that you can force this issue and avoid the discomfort that comes with engaging with one another? It's an attempt to take a shortcut that avoids the very reasons for the journey itself. Even if you succeed, you only manage to mask the very issues that concerned you in the first place.