Two days ago I posted about the Halloween-costume fracas at Yale University, describing how a married couple who were “housemasters” (heads of one of the intra-university colleges) were vilified by students after the woman, Erika Christakis, wrote a thoughtful and temperate email questioning the policing of Halloween costumes. Students not only wrote petitions decrying Christakis’s email, but called for the resignation of her and her husband Nicholas. Nicholas himself was verbally assaulted by students when he went out on the quad to discuss issues with them.
I stand by my criticism of the students’ call for the Christakises resignation, and feel that the treatment of this couple was execrable. However, I’ve learned that there may be a lot more to the students’ anger than simply emails about Halloween costumes, at least if you trust the post of Aaron Lewis, a senior at Yale writing at his website at Medium.com. In his own report, “What’s really going on at Yale?“, Lewis describes a history of racism at Yale, which has, over the years, fueled the anger of black and minority students. These include swastikas drawn on a college dorm last year, and a report, which I remember from January, of a black graduate student being treated shamefully by University police after being mistaken for a burglary suspect.
Lewis claims, and I think this is true, that Yale’s President Peter Salovey has been slow to react to this situation despite the fact that Jonathan Holloway, Yale’s first black Dean of Students, reacted more quickly and met for hours with students.
I wanted to bring this up because the situation may be more complicated than it looks. As I said, there was no call for the students to go after the Christakises, no matter how marginalized they feel. But their explosion of anger might reflect more than just a few emails from University administrators. I do want to note, though, that Lewis’s own report emphasizes not just racism, but students feeling “psychologically unsafe”. He describes one incident that has garnered a lot of press:
Many people (especially women of color) said they feel physically and psychologically unsafe here. Just last weekend, several women said they were turned away from a social event at SAE because it was for “white girls only.” Some people have tried to turn this into a debate about what exactly happened at the door of SAE on Halloween. But that’s not the point. For students of color, the incident is a symbol of the kind of racism that they deal with far too often on this campus.
That incident, which is reprehensible if it happened, is actually subject to some dispute, at least according to the Daily Beast. (However, widespread racism of the ΣAE fraternity at other schools is not.) But Lewis claims that the truth of this report is irrelevant, for it’s a “symbol of racism.” That it might be—if it did happen. But in this narrative, let’s not say that the truth doesn’t matter. As for students feeling physically and psychologically unsafe, well, if they feel physically unsafe because of threats or a climate of harassment, that’s a serious issue that should be recitified. But feeling psychologically unsafe is a completely different issue. “Psychological safety” is rapidly becoming a euphemism on American campuses for “Not having one’s ideas challenged.”
Lewis ends by emphasizing not just racism, but the “safety” issue again:
I hope it’s obvious now that Yale students are concerned about far more than just an email or a frat party. In the petty debates about these two specific incidents, people have lost sight of the larger issue: systemic racism on campus. There’s absolutely no reason why we can’t acknowledge both the value of free speech and the reality of the prejudice that students of color face every day. It saddens me that this has gotten to the point where people feel like they have to take sides. We should all strive for a future where, at the very least, people feel physically safe and confident in their own humanity. Let’s focus on the goals we share, not the unproductive debates that divide us.
Claims of endemic racism at Yale are serious, and should be investigated by the University. The administration needs to respond quickly, and if there are violations of the law or personal harassment, the University should take action. But I’m dubious about statement like this: “There’s absolutely no reason why we can’t acknowledge both the value of free speech and the reality of the prejudice that students of color face every day.” Such statements are often used to suppress truly free speech: the speech that others find offensive but that’s not illegal. After all, some debates, including the one about Halloween costumes, are valuable and productive, and trying to suppress any debate is inimical to the mission of a great university like Yale.
In about half an hour I’ll put up a video by Jonathan Haidt that underscores the dichtomy between free speech and “safe spaces” that is plaguing American universities.
h/t: Randy
That first part sounds good, not sure about that last part. Sound a lot like “…and nobody makes fun of them.”
It’s a very hard line to drawn between just being a jerk and abusive bullying.
At what point does bullying (even joking) becoming psychological abuse? We see it in children, but what about adults or near adults.
I was told, throughout my childhood, to ‘suck it up’ and deal with it. Which I did.
It’s a quandary that i’m struggling with. Freedom vs. mandated niceness (which doesn’t work). But I still remember the bullying and how no one gave a shit unless I had bruises.
There will always be gray areas and humans, being smart and vicious, will always be able to manipulate the letter of any anti-bullying rule to break its spirit. But having said that, the 80% solution is that you move from jerk to bully when you target a specific victim, that person tells you to stop, yet you continue; when you pursue an individual against their wishes. No targeting or no repetition typically means ‘jerk’ rather than ‘harasser’ (at least IMO).
sub
Regarding the claims of racism and students of color feeling unsafe, there appears to be something similar, although more serious going on at the University of Missouri. The football team has joined in by boycotting and will not play or practice. Apparently there are teachers involved as well. They are demanding the resignation of the school president I believe.
The situation at Mizzou is very serious, and at least one grad student is on a hunger strike. If the football players continue their boycott, the university will forfeit an upcoming game against BYU. The boycott gets at the heart of two things that are most important to American universities: 1) money, and 2) football.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/us/missouri-football-players-boycott-in-protest-of-university-president.html?_r=0
My undergrad university has residential colleges, with fraternities and sororities banned. It’s not a perfect system, and college master, even at my beloved alma mater, is not position I would ever want. Back in the Eocene when I was a student, the college master situation was almost invariably male professor at the university + female spouse who did not work outside the home. The duties of the master’s wife apparently included caring for her own family (usually the couple had school-age children), maintaining the decor and welcoming atmosphere of the masters’ house, and supporting the traditional residential college master’s role by baking, cooking, and hosting catered events. Listening to whingeing students might have been a duty as well, but I never felt I had anything to whinge about myself, so I don’t know. As a senior, I had the role of college Fellow, but that was more for academic advising and tutoring. Fortunately, my students who are alumni of the same university tell me that things are more progressive now. I’m biased, of course, but I think it’s a better system than the Greek one.
The University of Missouri (I took there [Columbia] a phd.) president is this morning apparently gone:
http://www.news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl=dl6vqRY6_AK_zfM_b0iiopgB8ZSEM&authuser=0&topic=h&siidp=07c383ac6e1b69a21e58eaf91481b41548e5
Blue
Problem solved there, at least for now.
I wonder if anyone is clamoring to take his place.
FYI Jerry your first link leads to the Wikipedia page for “Guan (bird)”, not your prior post.
“Some people have tried to turn this into a debate about what exactly happened at the door of SAE on Halloween. But that’s not the point. For students of color, the incident is a symbol of the kind of racism that they deal with far too often on this campus.”
Aaron Lewis is attempting to articulate a very important truth, that people react to what they believe is going on around them. If the SAE incident was proven to not have the least bit of racism to it there would be little to no change in perception because of other experiences that people have had. (And demonstrating that the SAE incident was ‘not racist’ would be problematic if the person proving it then made the unsubstantiated leap to assuming there was no racism at Yale, or if ‘classism’ or some other form of not-precisely-racial unfairness was ignored as ‘irrelevant’.)
Truth matters to everyone, and we constantly seek truth with the tools that we have available. But the tools that we have are flawed, and our ability to accurately interpret our experiences are similarly flawed. We evolved to apprehend reality as best as we could, learning more and more about the world around us. What we learn guides our perceptions, and experiences that contradict what we ‘know’ are reflexively rejected because we ‘know’ they are not ‘true’. And knowing the truth is important to survival.
So, when someone who has experienced enough ‘racial slights’ that he or she has come to expect such behaviors is told that a specific incident was ‘not racial’ there is a strong inclination to perceive that message as ‘nonsense’ at best and potentially as an intentional insult.
[Also, from my perspective as someone who grew up in a multi-racial family, I can assure you that racism is so deeply ingrained into American culture that any American claiming to actually be free of racism is probably self-deluding. Some people place a disturbing value on this cultural characteristic, but – thankfully – more and more people are trying to productively engage with their cognitive defect. But, my experience strongly suggests that any claim to truly be ‘not racist’ will not potentially be valid until 2100.)
Tend to agree with the analysis but what happens in 2100?
Guesstimated approximate date by which – if current trends continue – the vast majority of people will either have no recollection of noticing that they were affected by racism, or in which the vast majority of people will have experienced racism as only ‘trivial encounters with the stupid and obnoxious’. With most people experiencing ‘race’ as an essentially irrelevant condition vaguely related to other largely irrelevant characteristics like hair color, height, and like/dislike of cilantro, most people will tend to see ‘race’ as largely irrelevant to most of their important decision-making.
[There are a number of ways that this could fail to happen, but the current trend is mostly in this direction.]
We’re talking students at Yale here; these are not generally kids who grew up in Harlem or Watts. And did you read that letter? You have to stretch really really hard to find any racism in it, let alone racism to the level of a firing offense.
So while I’m sure there are significant problems at Yale and other schools, I can’t help but see some of the students’ reactions as overreaction. Or if not an overreaction, at least mistargeted. A professor defends the notion that the students are mature enough to pick their own costumes, she opposes the administration having a regulatory authority over Halloween costumes, and she gets screamed at as the enemy amongst demands that she gets fired. That seems to me at best a misplaced reaction. At worst, this sort of behavior by our side is what drives fence-sitters to become republican conservatives.
Yup, I read the letter. People react to what they think is going on, and different people have different perceptions of what is going on. This is why the reaction of someone who does not share every detail (and the details matter a great deal) of your worldview (or my worldview) often looks like an ‘over-reaction’ or some other sort of inappropriate/inefficient response.
As for “this sort of behavior by our side is what drives fence-sitters to become republican conservatives”, that is the same sort of ‘inappropriate/inefficient’ reaction to the behavior of others that is being decried. People making mistakes because of (usually mostly fixable) cognitive defects is not a reasonable reason to engage in the same poor thinking.
How could that comment be inappropriate? First off its my opinion, and second off, not mentioning the possibility (of driving people away) isn’t going to solve anything. This is the whole coddling thing again: we don’t do our students any favors by withholding from them the fact that if their actions are perceived as overreactions by bystanders, that can drive people away from their causes instead of making them empathetic to them.
Also, racism is endemic in American society – it is not limited to Watts or Harlem. There is pretty much no one in this country who has not been present when something racist occurred. There are certainly some folks who are not aware of noticing their own racism or that of others, but no one who is actually unaffected.
Thanks for this post.
I’d also like to suggest that while the “new PC” of today’s youth is a serious problem, the bigger problem may be the Left’s collective cowardice in responding to it. Of course, the Academic Left helped create this mess, but now we have a situation where the vast majority of professors and administrators will privately acknowledge the lunacy while remaining silent about it publicly for fear of ending up like Christakis.
And so the orderlies have allowed the inmates to take over the asylum. One look at those Yale videos explains why.
As the philosopher said, “Free speech only important if it’s offensive.”
No one tries to silence unoffensive speech. Larry Flynt is right here, at least.
TYPO: “Free speech is only important if it’s offensive”
So true. Speech that no one finds offensive doesn’t need any protection!
On that point, this is another video from the Yale Halloween costume drama that I hadn’t seen until now:
Yale Silliman College Master Christakis stands up to Cry-Bullies
It’s worth watching the whole thing (it’s only 1m 54s long), but a key part is the following exchange between the students and the Master of the college (Christakis):
Christakis: I defend the right of people to speak their mind.
Christakis: Who gets to decide what’s offensive? Who gets to decide guys?
Student: When it hurts me. When it’s offensive to me.
And there you have to problem in a nutshell. A bunch of students who effectively think that their personal offence is more than sufficient to override the right of other to speak and express themselves freely.
There’s also a bit at the beginning of the video where (and it’s a little hard to hear) it sounds like one of the students asks Christakis if he stands behind free speech. When he says that he does, she replies that what he says “doesn’t mean anything then”.
Worrying stuff.
There is some massive disappointment going on, when these students discover that racism still exists, even at a school like Yale.
I saw a post elsewhere from a student there saying classmates were beside themselves, unable to even go to classes. The discovery of the reality of racism still embedded in our society was too much for them. They were expecting better from Yale – and from America.
While it is true that they must be confronted with reality, and not coddled, it is also understandable that they are upset. Really, America, in 2015, this is still a thing?
I don’t think they should be trying to create safe places in universities, that is just hiding the problem. I do think they should be trying to change the status quo, though, by whatever means necessary.
“While it is true that they must be confronted with reality, and not coddled, it is also understandable that they are upset. Really, America, in 2015, this is still a thing?”
I would say “Really, America, in 2015, people think this ISN’T still a thing?” I thought the only people who claimed to think this were right wing republicans. If this was truly a rude awakening for these minority students someone has been coddling them for their entire lives.
Concur. I’m not black so I don’t speak from personal experience, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that any African-American can get to college-age without knowing that “racism still exists.”
What’s really annoying is that too many whites apparently do think that.
And for the most part, despite lapses, I think universities as a whole have been among the most prominent institutions that have tried to “change the status quo.” They don’t have that liberal reputation for nothing, you know.
I find that so weird that these white people font accept that racism still exists. Do they only hang around with people exactly like them so they are never exposed to different people coming together and al, the good and bad that results?
Okay, point taken, but I still think they are not wrong to be disappointed in Yale. Even I am surprised to hear there was a party there that was overtly rejecting people based on race. I certainly expect better of an Ivy League school.
“Even I am surprised to hear there was a party there that was overtly rejecting people based on race. I certainly expect better of an Ivy League school.”
I haven’t heard about that, so I don’t know the details. It only surprises me that they would actually do such a thing, not that there would be those would want to.
A family member came back to NZ from grad school at Yale with some racist attitudes (which he has since lost again). I always wondered about it. If endemic racism is indeed the case there, that might explain it.
Hate to say it but you are about as likely to get rid of guns in America as to eliminate racism.
When I look at the US I do see a racist country. (Not that we’re perfect either.) I’m constantly aware of how much USians seem to notice race. Bi-racial marriage is completely normal here, and common. About half my 21 cousins are the result of bi-racial marriage, as are half my nieces/nephews. In the US, people still do a double-take at bi-racial marriage. I feel weird even using that term – it’s just marriage. It was never illegal here. We didn’t have slavery either. That’s not to say there haven’t been some major issues, some of which are ongoing, but successive governments are constantly working on them.
The racism is embedded here and it goes many ways. White to Black, Latino, Oriental. You can say we have diversity in racism. The diversity that politicians and others tell us is so good about the U.S. also includes all the bad. For many, as you see, it’s not even denied or embarrassing. Trump has said now, how many times – build that really big wall to keep all the rapist and killers from Mexico out. Then he tells us the Mexicans love him.
Maybe with no wall with Canada they will love him, but probably not.
Depressing that the same racist manifestations — drive-by ‘n..r’ shouting, turning black students away from living-group functions, and swastikas appearing in dorms — are reported both in Yale and Missouri.
I may have said something similar last week, but I’m beginning to wonder if the “every kid needs a college education” movement isn’t contributing to this problem. When you fill campuses with students not there for intellectual training, intellectual conventions/institutions aren’t a high priority.
It’d be easy to just say that the girl in question reacted like that because ‘racism is endemic in Yale’. That’s the flipped reverse of calling her a whining baby who’s having a tantrum about nothing.
Those two conclusions are comfortingly simple and attractive to certain people – the former to the identity politicking illiberal left and the latter to conservatives who really do believe that racism doesn’t exist any more. The frustrating, niggly, unsatisfying conclusion is that the truth is probably somewhere between.
I like Ben Goldacre’s general, multi-purpose motto – “it’s a bit more complicated than that”.
I’ve read several articles about Yale recently but I’ve only seen incidents of racism or racial comments by individual students. Does this really add up to systemic racism? I tend to think systemic racism must involve racism committed by the system, i.e. administrators, faculty, policies, etc. Some of those stories have also mentioned that most white people there are good and understanding, so I’m not sure it’d even rise to the level of pervasive racism. Is there some story I’m missing about the situation at Yale? To me the accusations of systemic racism seem exaggerated.
I agree. It’s hard to draw the line between systemic racism ignored by the administration and racism that is present in American culture, at large.
If black women were turned away from an event for ‘white girls only’ that’s disgusting. (Part of me wonders why any coloured person would want to attend such an obnoxious event anyway, but that’s kinda irrelevant. I have no idea what SAE is but I doubt it’s the Society of Automotive Engineers).
I wouldn’t want to go to such an event and I’m white. (I’m also not a girl but that is also irrelevant in the context).
On the other hand, if this is an invented incident, and if Lewis thinks that doesn’t matter, he’s full of it and it calls into doubt any other incidents he recounts. Of course it matters.
cr
Yes that “psychologically safe” thing is a weird one. I can tell you that as a woman, I rarely feel physically safe. I may feel mostly safe, but I’m never 100% safe. That could be a psychological thing or it could be a safety issue. Who knows?
What we have going on here, and in many similar cases is intolerance of intolerance. The problem with this ideology, beyond the obvious, is that feelings are often the sole arbiter of what is intolerance. If I feel something someone says or does is a display of intolerance (offensive, bigoted, racist, sexist, etc,) I have not just the right, but the moral obligation to be intolerant of it.
I wanted to add that another part of the problem is that these people also accept, almost unquestioningly, the idea that if someone is offended by something it is in fact offensive. An African-American for example saying something is racist isn’t just his opinion, it’s treated as expert testimony. Steve Shives a popular SJW on youtube makes exactly that argument.
🐾