A ‘Disgusting’ Yale Professor Moves On
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
That one line (regarding free speech and what should be protected):
> student: Even if it offends me?
> professor: Especially if it offends you!
That little exchange defined how I view freedom of speech.
But it has little to do with the main concerns that the students tried to voice (without being listened to). Please do not present it as the gist of the situation.
I mean, they certainly seem to have been listened to by Christakis. And it certainly seems like their concern is, in fact, addressed by the point about free speech.
What do you view those concerns were, in specific, and why do you think they were not "listened to" during a two hour meeting? Or are you just expressing a generalised approval for the protestors and disapproval of Christakis?
Also, I lived in Silliman College and would frequently exchange long emails (1500+ words) with Nicholas and Erika. They would always respond thoughtfully and extend an invitation to discuss further over a meal. Perhaps the Halloween note was poorly written... but anyone who actually spoke with Erika knew that student activists had distorted her message beyond recognition.
But when inequality increases, when a grim determinism seems to hover over all fates, then the tribe is more appealing. So people make them, or draw into them. And tribal allegiance requires demonstration.
Here, students who already suspect they'll get the short end of the stick in the years ahead signal tribal allegiance, as it becomes a growing power in the world. Smart, I guess. But sad if you believe(d) in the complex society.
I like the premise of the book, that we are all inherently good, but I am confused by the author's stance when they do not acknowledge any of their own dismissiveness and lack of empathy in the whole situation.
Because honestly I followed the situation extremely closely when it happened, and the only thing I was disgusted by was how an intelligent student body was incapable of looking beyond the tribalism of their position and try to actually understand what the Christakises were saying. So if there is more to the story I'd like to know what it is.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19445027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19442868
Most of the "overwhelming evidence of the contrary" is the prof trying to pacify overly-angry and overly-emotional students in a YouTube video, without any commentary on the majority of the events and conversations surrounding the debacle. The fact is that the prof did little to fight the casual racism on campus (and their position as "head of college" expects them to deal with problems surrounding bullying/racism/sexism/etc). They simply tried to switch the topic (not maliciously, rather because of obliviousness) to talking about freedom of speech. Most people already agree with them about the freedom of speech topic, so let's try to do something about the casual even oblivious racism on campus.
The idea that someone else's opinion or words 'hurt you' is entirely in your head. I'm told that wise Italian grandmothers tell their grandchildren "what other people think of you is none of your business." You can choose to be completely okay, or you can act like a baby. It's entirely your choice. Once you get that, once you embrace that, it is liberating. You are free of the slavery of other people's opinions. You are free of racism, of elitism, of sexism, of all of that s* because you realise that their opinions are meaningless to you. When it comes to physical actions, that's the line you let nobody cross, and you get the police involved. This is just part of growing up. But don't listen to me, I don't have a horse in this race, I'm not from your country, and I'm not from your generation. I'm just someone far removed from the situation spouting another meaningless opinion. There, see? You really don't care what I think. Good on ya.
However I agree, there is no point in caring about the negative comments that someone throws at you if they are just comments. Too bad that usually it is not just comments, rather it is also fewer mentorship opportunities, worse starting salaries, and all the other consequences of racism.
And you are wrong about the "agreement students have with Yale". There is supposedly a code of conduct that includes protecting each other's dignity.
Throw people who are untrained into the situation and invite our polarizing media to the event and bad outcomes are more or less guaranteed.
Christakis isn't a trained psychologist. I am a fan of his work on network effects and he didn't cause unnecessary further escalation, but he still wasn't the right guy to send into that quad. Send in a Marshall Rosenberg and the outcome would have been different.
Can you give some examples?
And then there are big things that thankfully happen less and less often, are dealt with more swiftly, and are less ambiguous (like some more ancient professors making disturbing comments).
And then when you get a complete dismissal of your initially polite and well-worded informal complaint... Of course you will get angry, even if anger is unproductive.
Anyway, I wasn't there, so I simply speak for my limited understanding of what has happened.
You honestly think there is popular legitimacy in student's demand for authoritative policing of Halloween costumes?
(Edit: literally putting Yale students, the nations 'best and brightest' under more policing literally than children, high schoolers or other adults who for some crazy reason don't need to have their halloween costumes regulated)
This is not a 'yes, but' situation.
There are no 'butts'.
I'm actually quite shocked to read your comment as I had hoped that most Yale students had common sense and thought of the whole episode as pedantic rubbish.
That's the end of the story.
There's no reason for the faculty to have to address it further.
Whether or not responses were 'tone deaf' it subjective, and certainly besides the point with respect to anyone being fired.
Students who bullied the staff should have been admonished (or possibly expelled), not the other way around.
Please provide any link on this, i'm curious about these problems.
This story is rather ridiculous (and it would have been funny if it was an isolated incident, but a subset of the students face this more often than others): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/05/1...
YDN from around that time would probably have testimonials.
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure if the unification efforts or the author are going to be successful if he's putting passages like this in his book.
No one would disagree with that, how could you? The real statement is, "It's possible to go too far when defending an identity."
And, honestly, how could you also not agree with that?
I'm excited to see if and how "Blueprint" addresses this.
Certainly there are complex moral issues here that can be discussed for days on end, but as a rule of thumb, focusing first on your ingroups (family, friends, community) will yield results pretty close to optimal. There's a reason humanity - just like other species - evolved the ingroup preference.
Absolutely with you. My suggestion: Climate change. Why would you need hostile aliens when our environment itself turns against us?
Has this person lived in a city? I don't see how you could be more solitary or isolated. Big, complex societies are almost entirely dependent on collaboration with small groups in compartmentalized ways. Usually you're very far removed from the things and people that actually support your life, and emotional investment is zero. It's really the smaller, more rural areas where combining collaboration with emotional investment is necessary.
Here is in summary his "crime" a letter his wife wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-halloween-email-l...
https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing...
"Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society."
They are both right. People who opposed them are wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves.
This video was surreal, I had trouble convincing myself this wasn't some sort of hoax.
I don't think anyone accused the students of arguing in bad faith. I think they sincerely believe what they were saying. I also think they were wrong.
What I'm saying is that it seems likely the students understand exactly what was written in that latter and how the argument in that letter could be steelmanned, and that they also understand their own point of view in depth, and they should not be dismissed as people so wrong as to be un-serious debaters.
Furthermore it is also a blatant disregard for whether what you think someone means is actually what they are saying. That really is bad faith in a pretty raw form.
I know the holocaust happened. I don't need to listen to holocaust deniers talking about the size of the ovens or any of their other talking points. I know I'm not going to change their mind; I know they're not going to change my mind. I also know that my society is better because we teach children about these points of denial without suggesting that they're true.
But I don't believe that anyone should be shunned. Maybe thrown in jail, if they hurt others, but not shunned.
Just curious, what would be the opposite of them dismissing the concerns. It seems you have been there and have a better perspective on things. So given the context at that time, how should this professor have reacted that would have been satisfactory for the students?
[1]: I mean, just see all the sibling comments that assume this whole thing was about some stupid letter about costumes, and everyone calling all the students childish and dismissing their legitimate concerns (not even trying to find out what these concerns were) because they have seen the reaction of a couple overly-emotional students on YouTube.
That does make sense. In a way a lot of conflicts suffer from this. It is not always just the issue that starts the confrontation but there is a whole "iceberg" part hiding underneath that's not being usually addressed and might not be visible to a casual observer.
> I mean, just see all the sibling comments
Thank you for taking the time to respond. That's why I wanted your opinion as you seems have been there and are aware of a larger context.
Consider for a moment that the rise of the right wing political movements are in my opinion, an irrational response to the growth of tribalism and outrage culture on the left.
I don't think there's a causal relationship, perhaps it exacerbates the issue yes, but it's not the cause of it.
I think far-right rhetoric is just too easy to digest, a clear group of enemies is identified for you (just like it is for the people on the left you described). And digging deeper and analyzing an increasingly complex socioeconomical situation, where things interconnect on a global level, is becoming harder and harder, so the inherent tribalism in us drives us to adopt those easy answers.
Where? That type of culture definitely exists in at least some places (e.g. Italy which is where I grew up, I've seen examples in UK too).
It's all over the media in the UK
Wonder what is the cause then. The economy is stagnant and people are reaching for the extremes?
Does your theory explain why having to put up with decades of this sort of thing hasn't galvanized a Trump-of-the-left into power?
There have been a few shots at electing candidates who promised to address various sorts of "left-wing" concerns. Most recently, in their own ways, Hillary Clinton (feminism) and Bernie Sanders (humanism). And Barach Obama (anti-racism). Back in the day, there were Eugene McCarthy (pacifism) and Jessie Jackson (anti-racism). Even Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Although Clinton was a right-wing Democratic con, in my opinion. But in my cynical moments, I suspect the same of Barach Obama.
Anyway, there's really nothing unique about Trump, in this regard.
It is hard for me to grasp how the Tom Perkins class of people see themselves as victims, but as Barry Switzer used to say, lots of people born on third base think they hit a triple.
Consider the wide diversity in our world. Many different faiths, creeds, axis of preference.. most of which have been persecuted in some way in the past. Many of the different European colonist groups that came to this country came to avoid persecution, and the resulting American culture has persecuted native americans, irish, italians, jews, hispanics, african-americans... and the list goes on.
If we ban any activity that offends, or could offend anyone, then the eventual extension of that is banning much of our activity. Yet we cannot allow all activities, because some are intended to offend, as made clear by the actor's speech and other actions.
So where do we draw the line? For me personally (and I have no grounds for saying this should be your metric), it is where malice is clear to me. If it from ignorance (the college student who wear's a witch's hat, offending Wiccans), or from prevailing custom (skimpy halloween costumes, offending some conservatives), then I can't ascribe malice to the costume. If someone wears a Nazi SS uniform, a reasonable person could assume the wearer intended malice. Even so, they should be asked, to confirm malice before punitive action, and informed if malice is not clear - ignorance is still a possibility.
One could say any costume that can be labelled cultural appropriation is evidence of malice on some level, and should be avoided. What does that mean though? Perhaps it would mean avoiding all costumes that do not depict non-human monsters? Would that avoid cultural appropriation, and the possibility of offense?
No. Because a culture's monsters are often unique to the culture, and what one culture might regard as a monster due to some metric, another might worship or praise.
The appearance of half-man / half-animal for example, another might include worship. "Ganesha or (Ganesh) is the elephant-headed god in Hinduism. He is the son of Shiva and Parvati. Ganesha is a very popular god in Hinduism, and is one of the most worshipped. " - Wikipedia.
Another example was mentioned before, the prevalence of "Witches" in pointy hats and warts at Halloween, which fall under the label of monster according to many, but has little resemblance to Wiccans, other than the label of Witch.
So where does that leave us? It would seem that dressing up as anything other than ourselves, or our own cultural heritage is out.
Still not enough, because each person's take on their cultural heritage is different. According to Ancestry DNA I am over 70% scandinavian, and I've traced our family to Vikings. Suppose I dress up as a historically accurate by most accounts Bear-shirt (ber-serkr, aka Berserker) for Halloween? That could still offend someone who has a different view of their own Viking heritage.
So we are now at not being able to dress up as anything other than ourselves, if we do not want to offend anyone.
Even that runs the risk of offending. In some cultures certain colors or decorations (clothing with a dragon with 7 claws was only for the Japanese emperor in Japan during certain periods; white is the color of death in some asian cultures; all black makes some people worry about your mental health due to similarities with clothing worn during some terrible active shooter tragedies).
So we cannot avoid the risk of offending.
For me, it means I tend to turn a blind eye to anything that does not exhibit malice, even that which personally offends me. I will not chastise for a typical native american costume, unless the person adds deliberately offensive elements. I won't chastise for the drunk Thor costumes. I won't chastise for the Witches with pointy hats and warts.
Is it strange to anyone else that there'd be a run on sentence that starts with discussing how deluded some people are and ends with trying to claim a moral stance for unification?
Well, i guess could be worse though. For example, over a decade Yale's professor (now moved to Oxford) Stathis Kalyvas has even tried to whitewash the greek military dictatorship.
Anyway, it's only a healthy sign that young people don't stay silent to racism.
However, do not forget, these students were yelling at a man for a letter his wife wrote. That is not defensible. It's also sexist--as if the man is the one who's really behind all the wife's thoughts and can't think for herself.
It's too bad you can't say silent to sexism.
It is even worse that this attitude is so prevalent in institutes of higher education where an open mind to a different view is essential for the institute to achieve its intended purpose.
Were this all confined to the realm of digital communications I'd suggest implementing rules around the misuse of -ism labels so that the negative effects of a misapplied label would backfire, something akin to a moderation system. As it stands now it is totally free of consequence to heap someone with a bucket of -isms in the hope that some of them will stick.