Hacker News Reader

Comment by devoply | Hacker News Reader

Going after someone's career for a perfectly legitimate voiced opinion is not good faith regardless of disagreement. Also in general this whole idea of empowerment through silencing is what nasty religions have done in the past, shunning people for speaking their truth. It's a disgusting tactic and people using it to silence legitimate discourse should instead be shunned.

View on HN

Yes, and yes.

But I don't believe that anyone should be shunned. Maybe thrown in jail, if they hurt others, but not shunned.

You are missing a couple of facts, namely, they were not simply faculty, they were also in very particular and prestigious mentorship positions at the college. How can you be a mentor if you dismis the concerns of your students? This whole debacle was not over just some stupid letter, rather it was over the complete lack of empathy in the conversation that followed.

How can you be a mentor for college students if you indulge them in childish delusions?

You are confusing "disagree" with "dismiss". I don't think they dismissed the concerns of their students, I think they disagreed with the students' proposed solution and explained their reasoning. What kind of mentor would they be if they acquiesced to every demand a student makes, even when they believed it to be incorrect? Is not the purpose of having a mentor to learn from them, not to have them simply confirm everything you already want to believe?

> How can you be a mentor if you dismis the concerns of your students?

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?

I would say the debacle was worsened[1] due to poor communication on everyone's part, but the professor focused on a topic that was not the main complaint of the students (the prof was also officially hired in a prestigious mentorship position, with expectations to listen to comments about bullying/racism/sexism). Most people agreed with what he said about free speech, but the main complaints about consistent casual racism (comments only tangentially related to the stupid letter that started the discussion) were never responded to. A simple acknowledgement that "yes, I now see that you face casual racism on a daily basis here at Yale, so let's work together on educating people about this casual racism" would have probably defused the situation.

[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.

> A simple acknowledgement that "yes, I now see that you face casual racism on a daily basis here at Yale, so let's work together on educating people about this casual racism" would have probably defused the situation.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com