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.
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?