What’s new with the protests at Yale (and now Princeton)

November 19, 2015 • 1:30 pm

Here’s a brief update on college protests I’ve written about lately, as well as new ones at Princeton. I will withhold most of my own comments in favor of the readers’:

A.  According to the Yale Daily News, the University’s Political Union hosted a debate on Tuesday about affirmative action. Amy Wax, a professor at law at Penn, spoke against affirmative action. Even Yale’s black Dean of the College made an appeal to calm before the talk:

Still, before Wax delivered her speech, Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway spoke before the YPU, asking members to respect freedom of expression at Yale.

“By preventing anyone from bringing ideas into the light of day, we deny a fundamental freedom,” Holloway said, going on to remind students of the University’s policies regarding disruption and appropriate demonstration at University-sponsored events like YPU debates. Five Yale police officers stood at the back of the hall for the duration of the event.

That wasn’t enough to curb the public offense, though:

During Wax’s speech, about a dozen members of the YPU, including the two who had asked to postpone the debate and members of the political left, rose and walked to the back of the room, where they turned their backs on Wax and raised their fists in the air. Several students cried during her speech.

Crying? There is a real debate to be had about affirmative action, though I think the better arguments are in favor of it. Students should be mature enough, though, to listen to countrarguments without walking away or crying.

B.  Also according to the Yale Daily News, Yale’s President and Dean Holloway defended the beleaguered Erika and Nicholas Cristakis, demonized by many because of Erika’s thoughtful email about Halloween costumes and Nicholas’s subsequent defense of free speech. The administration also announced policy reforms to deal with the demands of the Next Yale protestors, but I can’t find out what those reforms are. Certainly the administration should be taking steps to examine what they can do to improve the climate for the protesting students.

C.  According to the Daily Princetonian, the Princeton University student paper, the protests and demands have spread to that college as well, where some students are staging a sit-in in the office of President Christopher Eisgruber:

The organizers demanded cultural competency training for faculty and staff, an ethnicity and diversity distribution requirement and a space on campus explicitly dedicated to black students. In addition, protesters sought acknowledgement that former University President Woodrow Wilson, Class of 1879, has a racist legacy that is impacting campus climate and policies and requested that Wilson’s name be taken off of the Wilson School and Wilson College.

However, Eisgruber said he will not meet the demands.

“The demands include some things I have no authority to do, and some things I disagree with,” he noted.

Eisgruber met with the students for an hour and agreed in principle to some of their requests, like creating a space limited to black students (I’m not at all sure about that, and what about other minorities?), as well as the need for discussing Woodrow Wilson’s racism. He also said that creating that ethnicity and diversity distribution requirement was a “good thing,” but I don’t agree with that, either. Eisgruber, though, pretty much ruled out the cultural competency training for faculty and staff. But reasonable requests (not demands) should be examined, and reasonable reforms initiated. We’ll see what lies ahead at Princeton.

What bothers me about these “demands” is not that they’re all ludicrous, because they’re not, but the admixture of the serious with the ridiculous. I pretty much agree with a new article about college protests in The Economist, “The right to fright“:

At the University of Missouri, whose president resigned on November 9th, administrators did a poor job of responding to complaints of unacceptable behaviour on campus—which included the scattering of balls of cotton about the place, as a put-down to black students, and the smearing of faeces in the shape of a swastika in a bathroom.

Distinguishing between this sort of thing and obnoxious Halloween costumes ought not to be a difficult task. But by equating smaller ills with bigger ones, students and universities have made it harder, and diminished worthwhile protests in the process.

52 thoughts on “What’s new with the protests at Yale (and now Princeton)”

    1. #notallstudents are delusional social justice warriors.

      When Ayaan Hirsi Ali still lived in the Netherlands, some political commentators equated her criticism of islam with nazism, saying that Hirsi Ali’s criticism was exactly the kind of talk that incited hatred against the Jews in the 1930’s. The murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh sarcastically called those critics the “post-war resistance” and said they only criticised Ayaan so they could feel good about themselves. I think the word “post-war resistance” applies to the protesting students of Yale as well.

    2. This nonsense appears to be the result of two trends in American society: increased juvenilization and increased self-absorption/narcissism. In a world where there are places in which beheadings, rape, and torture are rampant, in which true sexism and racism are widely condoned and codified, for one to CRY just because a speaker is against affirmative action seems to be the height of immaturity. “Look at ME, I’m so offended and so sensitive that I am crying!”

      1. “Look at ME, I’m so offended and so sensitive that I am crying!”

        Well, no doubt what the crying is being sold as; but in actual fact I suspect they’re just tears of frustration from someone who isn’t getting what they want.

  2. I’ve said all I need say regarding wiping names off of building and such. Maybe I could disturb a few others by thinking…Are the rich and overworked kids going to school today just a bit spoiled? Do they think the rest of us own them something special that no one else gets? They should be very happy to be going to school where they are and that’s what they should be thinking about.

    1. I would have loved to go to those schools, but that simply wasn’t possible for a poor kid from NZ. And NZ isn’t exactly the boondocks (or aren’t I allowed to use that word in a negative context?).

      I would think something named after Woodrow Wilson was an opportunity to start a discussion, and educate people about history and societal development. If they were still waving the Confederate flag – yes, take it down.

      I don’t know anything about Wilson, but it’s not like he was Hitler or Stalin is it? Personally, I’m embarrassed to be associated with the attitudes and behaviours of several relatives who share my surname, but I’m not going to deny the connection either.

      1. I don’t know a great deal about Wilson but he won for the Democrats after many years republican. He was from academia as I recall and he was no friend to the women’s movement at the time. If anything you would think the women would be protesting but really, this was 100 years ago. He tried to get the League of Nations going after the first world war. At this time, if you went down south in America you would see complete segregation and that lasted until the 60s. If Wilson was racist so were all the presidents before and after so they better get going with the new names of everything.

      2. To be fair, it’s difficult to single out a non-racist US president, (Obama being the obvious exception.) Twelve presidents owned slaves, (8 while in office), and many others backed and/or signed legislation promoting segregation and Jim Crow laws. Of modern presidents, though, Wilson stands out, and probably has a claim to being the “most racist.” As President,he signed legislation making interracial marriage illegal in Washington, D.C., in order to, “reduce the social friction building up in American society.” When blacks protested at the White House because they were not allowed to fight in WWI, he proclaimed, “segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.”

        As president of Princeton University, he said, “The whole temper and tradition of the place are such that no Negro has ever applied for admission, and it seems unlikely that the question will ever assume practical form.” There are many other instances of him defending Southern racists and Jim Crow laws. I can understand why black students are not fond of his exalted status at Princeton.

        1. Thanks Tom. Very interesting. He does sound like an a-hole, even for his time. I don’t know how old the building is that is named after him, but if it’s a really old one, I think my comment stands. Though I don’t like the idea of anything being named after such a person, I can understand wanting to name a building after an old student who had been president. If it was named more recently, that’s a disgrace, and it should be renamed imo.

          Another idea perhaps is to put up a plaque on or in the building acknowledging the bad stuff, apologizing, and stating that the university has moved on from that era, or something along those lines.

        2. I have pretty much stated my ideas on this and some can disagree. But this is one of the important reasons why you cannot look at history with your 21st century views and put them on people 100, or 300 years ago. If you want to do that you will need to lock up 80% of the people in the past. It is ridiculous.

          Where do you draw the line. Who gets your approval and who does not. As I said before, tell these kids to get that Monument to Washington and Jefferson out of there and off of all those school buildings in every state. What they are doing is bogus, it’s wrong and it is they who are the hypocrites. 100 years from now people just like them will be saying the same thing about them. It’s distortion and it is sick. You can check around with any number of reputable historians and they will tell you this.

          1. “Segregation is not a humiliation, but a benefit.”
            They should put that quote on a plaque in the “space on campus explicitly dedicated to Black students.”

    2. These kids kill me – so spoiled, so rich, so incapable of living. They need to work a summer job where people called you a c*nt for asking for $5 to enter the park or where you would fear for your life when working until 1am in a campground after security lets a criminal in. That was what I had to do to pay for my university education.

      And I never cried about it. Not even once.

  3. an ethnicity and diversity distribution requirement

    In September we heard about students complaining because they had to read Fun Home.

    I guess schools are damned if you do, dammed if you don’t. In September the students will complain about the Uni making read about the diverse nature of humanity, then in October they will complain that Uni needs to make them read about the diverse nature of humanity.

    1. The learned two things from your link.

      1. Even when he’s making a half-decent point, Alan Dershowitz sounds like a whiner.

      2. I’m glad Jerry stuck with the ad-free site. The WashTimes is nothing but a horrible eye-slam of ads.

      2. Dershowitz has sullied his reputation by having articles published in the far right wing Washington Times, founded by the late and unlamented Fascist Sun Myung Moon, and Newsmax a far right wing web site. When one gets into the pen with the pigs, one can expect to emerge with a coating of mud.

        1. Dershowitz didn’t write that article. The article quotes comments made in an interview he gave to Business Insider. And in any event, we should focus on the substance of his argument and not the medium of publication.

          P.S. Dershowitz was responsible for Harvard instituting blind grading to protect female and minority students from discrimination.

  5. “A space limited to black students”
    They want to put themselves into a ghetto? That seems extremely dangerous – for them.

    2. The idea of these requests for safe places is strange. It also reminds me of something I could always see at Kimpo Int’l airport in Seoul, South Korea years ago. They decided to stop smoking everywhere in the airport because that was the trendy thing to do. But most Koreans smoke like chimneys so they built this large cube of glass in the middle of the terminal and if you wanted to smoke, that is where you had to go.

      It was ridiculous – imagine 5 or 6 people in there smoking and the smoke had no where to go. So it got very cloudy in there and just stayed that way. No one could stand to go in there.

      1. Yes, to show how inclusive they are, they want a special place that only allows black people. Nothing racist about that in any way, right?

        How clueless are these kids?

      2. That’s just brilliant! No need to buy those expensive cigarettes anymore; just go into the cube!

        1. Yes, smoking without even lighting up. And the trains were worse. You did not want to be on a smoking car or you were dead. Within an hour you could not see and you almost needed to get on the floor to breath.

    3. I thought the same. As a woman, I abhor separation of the sexes. I fight against it when I can (except washrooms because men are filthy in their washroom and I want mine nice and clean ;)). I really don’t like boy scouts and girl scouts for example. When you are separate from someone, you see them as the “other”.

    5. That struck me too.
      what do they want to call this “safe space”? The “Jim Crow Oubliette?”

  6. If you have a few hours to kill, the latest installment of ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ podcast has a discussion with Christina Sommers who is a philosopher and host of a weekly blog: The Factual Feminist. They discuss this very topic among other things.

  7. Black students demand that parts of the campus be racially segregated????

    Checking my calendar.. No, its not April Fools Day..

    I suppose it would be fair game then for white students to want places on campus where blacks cant go?

    Wow, a segregated approach to race is interesting. Im surprised nobody has thought of it before.

    Is there a campus bus system? Maybe one race could sit in the front and one in the back..

  8. I’m an Anthropologist. Do I need cultural competency training? Who is going to provide such training and what are their qualifications for doing so? Also. Black-only spaces? Really?

  9. These students remind me of ID creationists. Are your ideas too dumb to gain acceptance by intellectual persuasion alone? Well, if you’re a creationist, just bypass peer review with politics. If you’re an SJW, bypass persuasion by physical confrontation and censorship.

  13. Does anyone know of any evidence for the notorious “poop” swastika?

    What I have seen is “so and so reported that”…..

        1. And in poop, which is not something that I could see actual Nazis and neo Nazis being pleased about

  15. A safe space for left-handed students might protect them from those damned right-handed scissors.

  16. Crying! Because someone disagrees with you. The infantilisation process continues.

    It’s the new privilege. The privilege of victimhood.

  17. What is next?
    Book burning?
    Had the European Powers and Congress listened to Mr Wilson the rise of the Nazi Party and rebirth of Militarism in Germany would probably not have happened.
    Some of these students are the mirror images of revisionists, they are desperate to exaggerate the bad behaviour of good people.

  18. An area for black students? That’s one of the silliest things I have yet heard from this bunch. Can you imagine the shenanigans they would have deciding who was allowed in? Is it only for those who are 100% black, or three quarters, or an eighth? How would they verify it – DNA sample? “Please visit the on-campus office of the Racial Certification Directorate where you will have your cheek swabbed and be assigned to the appropriate racial classification“. The more you think about it the more Orwellian it gets! And what about ‘people of colour’ who aren’t actually black? Or those who ‘identify as’ black but are actually white? The mind boggles – how did these people get into good universities, or any university for that matter?

  19. The right-wing media are having a field day with this type of infantile behavior on college campuses by describing it as “liberal” which is factually wrong. One of the hallmarks of traditional Liberalism is a very strong stance in support of Freedom of Speech and Expression. I remember the brouhaha back in 1977 when the American Nazi Party wanted to march in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, Illinois. More than half of the town’s population at that time were Jewish with many being survivors of the Holocaust. It seemed like everyone was in agreement that the ANP should not be allowed to march because their political philosophy was so deeply odious and offensive to the residents of this city. The ACLU took up their case as a First Amendment issue because it is vitally important to defend the civil liberties of every citizen even if others claim they would be offended by them. This is one of the core Liberal values that I support and believe in because it is a part of our social contract as Americans. These students are acting quite illberally demanding censorship and special rights to be guaranteed they will never face the possibility of being offended by denying the Free Speech rights of their fellow citizens. A good paper on this subject is, “SKOKIE, THE ACLU AND THE
    ENDURANCE OF DEMOCRATIC THEORY,” at http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3589&context=lcp

Comments are closed.