Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate
axios.com
axios.com
Do I understand why they are protesting Israel? yes. do I disagree with them yes? Do I think they have a right to protest, yes. However, all schools should have codes of conduct that relate to how one deals with their peers. If one can't deal with their peers in a respectful manner they don't deserve the right to be at the school. If the only way to protest is by shouting a speaker you dislike down, you are treating the speaker and the students who came to hear him speak with disrespect. There's no reason on/adjacent to a college campus one can't protest peacefully. A silent protest with signs that everyone has to see as they enter the building would get their point across while treating their fellow students in the manner that they demand to be treated as well.
The problem becomes when you "excuse" those who you feel are weaker for acting in a way while only criticizing those who you view as stronger/powerful for acting that way. Why? because the strong/powerful are the strong and powerful, if you excuse it for the weak, they'll just do it as well and with more impact. One has to not accept it anywhere and therefore not give the "powerful" any room to behave this way against the "weak". It's the main reason I dislike the concept of "punching up" vs "punching down". if you excuse "punching up", those above will end up "punching down" much harder.
this is a problem on both the left and right in the US (a pox on all their houses). The problem for most of us is that do a terrible time calling out those who are closer to what we consider our ideological allies than calling out those who are further from our ideological circles.
this is unjust and it happens whether we excuse it or not
We don't excuse it completely, but we focus our attention on the risks, and the risk of the powerful abusing the weak is far greater - far more harm is done, from slavery to lynching to what is happening to the Uyghur, and if humans are to have freedom and justice, it's the weak who are threatened.
> if you excuse "punching up", those above will end up "punching down" much harder
That seems like Orwellian double-talk (if I remember Orwell's terminology well enough). The powerful have punched down forever, with or without the other happening. We don't need to appease them to avoid their wrath - what a dysfunctional society that would be. They also are in far less danger; it's just words to them, not a threat to their lives or livelihoods.
It's also incredible that we spend our time finding ways to protect the powerful. Not only can they take care of themselves (by definition), we have far better things to attend to. I'm sure some Chinese Communist Party members face discrimination in Xinjiang, and some Russian soliders face it in Ukraine.
No, thanks. I find their position detestable, but I support their right to express it.
There’s no space for that kind of behaviour in a university debate. The individual in question wasn’t a celebrity or politician knowingly stepping into the lions den, but just a student asking an honest and fair question.
Setting the present question aside, I think this is a very time-bound point of view. There used to be riots in Harvard Yard over theological questions. Now we're so cowed that a little booing and a walkout is national news. I think we could use to be a little ruder to each other.
However if you’re someone attending a spoken debate, and you’re asking a reasonable question backed by lived experience (as opposed to a deliberately provocative question based on the assumed experiences of others), then you shouldn’t be subjected to direct personal attacks.
Attacking someone because their lived experiences run counter to your preferred world view is just intellectual cowardice. You’re neither trying to learn from the speaker, or provide a valuable counter-experience. You’re running from knowledge that might force you re-assess your world view.
That would remove a significant portion of campus leftists.
Because it sounds like you are trying to turn it into whataboutism.
Are you asking for my personal opinion, the opinion of college administration, the opinion of student bodies, etc.?
>Because it sounds like you are trying to turn it into whataboutism.
It's not whataboutism because campus leftists have been doing exactly what the OP described:
"But jeering, booing and taunting, that’s a step too far. That no longer protesting a speaker as part of a free debate, but instead attacking them as an individual in the hopes of cowing them into submission."
That's the MO for campus "cancel culture".
> It's not whataboutism because campus leftists
Thank you for confirming that you are unable to have discourse without blaming people uninvolved in the situation via whataboutism.
Students should be cordial and have spirited debate free of jeering and taunting. That used to be the standard.
>because you are trying to distract from unacceptable behaviour by saying "but the left..."
This is a non sequitur. I am not trying to distract anyone, I'm pointing out that if the standard is to exclude those who jeer, taunt, and attack the individual in the hopes of cowing them into submission, then this would lead to large portions of campus leftist being punished.
>Thank you for confirming
That wasn't a confirmation, you literally proved my point for me.
>unable to have discourse without blaming people uninvolved in the situation via whataboutism.
This is by definition not whataboutism because I am not attempting to discredit the OPs position.
QED.
Thank you for confirming that you are incapable of having discourse because you are incapable of understanding basic concepts like whataboutism and are T R I G G E R E D because someone called out leftists as those partaking in unacceptable behavior.
To be fair, it would also remove most Proud Boys and other right-aligned extremists one reads about in the recent news. It would allow well-behaved Nazi sympathizers and other Alt-Right folks, like Bannon and Milo and many right-wing newsfolks, to be able to speak at forums unless the universities recognize that giving a platform to people driven by pseudo-racial nationalism or other incoherent worldviews advocating for violence is a not part of their charter.
So, in other words, its a tradeoff.
Mind showing your research?
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/there-are-two-americas-a...
But in this case there is such a vast power differential between the two (the persecuted and the persecutor). The Chinese kids are literally taunting the victim of a genocide their country is perpetrating. That's not a free speech/hate speech thing, that's just straight up bullying... while that girl's family is still in danger of life and liberty.
"Hahahaha your family is in danger, boooo you suck, hahaha." That is unacceptable in any circumstance, akin to Holocaust denialism in a synagogue, except that in this case the Uyghur holocaust is still ongoing. One side has no power and is at risk of death while the other side is completely protected and just being assholes.
It's not a freedom of expression issue, it's a basic human decency thing. If you don't want to hear it, just leave, don't taunt the people your government is enslaving and murdering.
There's such a thing as a "reputation" for a reason. It's a way societies can hold people accountable for behaviors that are legally protected.
It should be legal to publish a list of names of students who walked out, and it should be considered reasonable for people to express that we believe their conduct is shameful.
Nothing in the student's question can be construed as offensive -- she asked in a forum why the US hasn't responded to genocide and oppression of the Uyghurs (her brother has been detained since 2017 by the Chinese government).
In response, the Chinese students in the audience jeered, booed, and left the room. Through a representative group, which may or may not actually represent the students: "[w]e left today’s colloquium because we felt that the atmosphere in that room was extremely hostile towards us . . . [a]t that moment, we were not sitting in a classroom; we were crucified in a courtroom for crimes that we did not commit."
If they were asked to personally answer for their nation's genocide, I could see this remark having validity. However, they weren't, but by rudely interjecting into a clear question they made it about them, and facts and morality are not on their government's side. In addition to this being extremely rude decorum, their response shows a loyalist's denial of reality.
I'm confused, because the grandparent identified a thought-terminating cliched approach, and your point seems to be unrelated, so I feel like I'm missing steps between.
Thank you for asking, instead of dimly downvoting. =)
I personally don't want my university to have a public stance on these issues, no matter how one sided. Just provide educational services and a safe environment to learn (safe as in physically safe)
The only way to prevent such dictatorial mandatory opinions in education is to have no dictated mandatory opinions.
Free discourse is the only answer, and yes that means discussing abhorrent opinions and statements. The right answer to the darkness is to flood it with light.
- France: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6DLKjDlORo
- Germany: https://www.dw.com/en/battling-salafism-on-germanys-streets/...
- China: https://thediplomat.com/2014/10/chinese-salafism-and-the-sau...
For certain things there is no "not having a stance" -- existence forces a stance. To not be against genocide is to be a collaborator.
I consider it newsworthy as it highlights a growing trend of denying reality and pretending to be a victim when a loyalist's pet topic is discussed.
Fact: China is murdering Uyghurs.
Claim: it is offensive to Chinese culture to point out that China is murdering Uyghurs.
Conclusion: China doesn't want to be reminded that it is murdering Uyghurs.
A lot of people are just uninterested in foreign affairs and want to go about living their lives. In that case you're not getting them to "take a stance", you're getting them to be obedient. And for what purpose? You want to argue there should be a draft and we should fight this injustice? I may disagree but fine. But if you want to argue that we need to force Chinese students to sign some paper that states a belief, then that sounds awful regardless of what that piece of paper says.
Where on earth did you pull that from? Nobody asked them to do or say anything, they chose to do and say things though. Surely that's on them?
The stance referred to was that of Cornell University, given that one of their students exercised their right of free speech and was abused for it. They can't dodge their responsibilities on that.
Does the 1st amendment come with responsibilities? Maybe that would have been a good idea, but I thought it was just rights.
Your right are my obligation. That’s how that works.
I think so. It's the first time I've heard of Chinese students in America, actively decrying the claim (regardless of the base reasoning).
Preventing them from getting in Q&A sessions looks like something to do with repeat offenders.
But I am under the impression that some students left (no problem with that) while others stayed and kept disrupting the event. On retrospect the article isn't clear if they just voiced something and left or if they kept there voicing the complaints.
Here, the Uyghur student is the one the mob (Chinese students) canceled.
Should the Chinese students be reprimanded, it may likely be due to violation of an honor code of behavior if Cornell has such a policy (many universities due), which would be a contractual violation.
News is in fact the appropriate alternative to "hunting down", "reprimanding", etc.
Thankfully, there isn't a binary choice between "imprison for life" and "never speak publicly about bad behavior".
Let's not go over the top, the reaction is not uncommon in public events when a person or a group very strongly objects to what is being said. Whether this is rude or disrespectful is another issue but the point is that this happens all the time. It's not really newsworthy.
Now, a key issue here and in your comment is the choice of terms. China and the vast majority of Chinese people will object and be offended by the use of the term "genocide". The term really is pushed in order to frame the narrative, and it has proved extremely effective (as can be seen here), but is not established fact.
Words have meaning. Genocide is not “horrible mistreatment of a group I believe is sympathetic”.
The Chinese treatment of Uighurs is deplorable, and should be loudly condemned.
Russian invasion and shelling of Ukrainian cities is deplorable and should be even more loudly condemned. It’s much worse than Chinese treatment of Uighurs.
Neither are genocide. Genocide is slaughtering people with the explicit purpose of eliminating a particular type of person.
Attempting to suppress a culture is bad, and on a spectrum whose terminal point is genocide, but when we jump to the terminal point, we lose all ability to distinguish shades of grey in bad behavior.
[A] Killing members of the group
[B] Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
[C] Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
[D] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
[E] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Uyghurs' experience absolutely qualifies.[1]
Links
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-...
Uyghur student adopting State Department propaganda that XJ is genocide is offensive to PRC nationalist who doesn't view XJ as genocide seems pretty straight forward. One sides facts and morality is just another sides definition of useful idiot / propaganda. "Crimes they did not commit" is not about answering for their nations "genocide", it's denying there's any crimes are being committed at all.
Why are you sure about this? Honor codes tend to be a thing at Southern schools.
So long as gigabucks from the PRC-connected continues to flow into the Ivies, Uyghurs should get used to being rarely seen and not heard there.
The Cornell administration? Which has just been wheedling their dads for donations to buy a new biomed building, and fund another 114 worthless administrative jobs on campus? Those guys?
Please, this is a business. Standards for behavior can be found at the Finger Lakes Little League, if you so desire.
It may seem like an extreme suggestion, but surely a group of international students that engaged in Holocaust denial in Germany would be on the next flight home.
If they are, the students that walked out are dicks, and since they were contributing to the discussion are just as worthy of naming in the story as the Uighur questioner.