If you’re a regular, or even a fairly recent newbie here, you’ll know about the Halloween-Costume fracas at Yale University, in which the administration sent a letter suggesting that students consider the potential offensiveness of their Halloween costumes. One of the heads of the resident houses, lecturer Erika Christakis, responded by sending an email to the students of Silliman College, arguing that policing Halloween costumes might stifle useful discussion, and that in any case who could be responsible for dictating or even suggesting “correct” costume choices? (My posts on the whole issue are here.) Many Yale students went ballistic, calling for her resignation as well as that of her husband Nicholas, who was verbally abused by students when he tried to defend Erika’s letter.
Yale ultimately supported the Christakises, and 49 faculty signed a letter defending their freedom of expression. But that wasn’t enough. The New York Times reports that both the Christakeses are taking a break:
A Yale lecturer who came under attack for challenging students to stand up for their right to decide what Halloween costumes to wear, even to the point of being offensive, has resigned from teaching at the college, the university said Monday.
. . . Ms. Christakis has made a “voluntary decision not to teach in the future,” according to a statement from the university on Monday. Her husband, Dr. Nicholas Christakis, a physician and a professor of sociology at Yale, will take a one-semester sabbatical, the university said. The statement said the administration hoped Ms. Christakis would reconsider.
“Erika Christakis is a well-regarded instructor, and the university’s leadership is disappointed that she has chosen not to continue teaching in the spring semester,” the statement said. “Her teaching is highly valued and she is welcome to resume teaching anytime at Yale, where freedom of expression and academic inquiry are the paramount principle and practice.”
By all accounts Erika Christakis was a very good teacher. Assuming that Yale supported her privately as well as publicly, I can assume only that the disaffected students made life so hellish for the couple that they just decided to bail. This is Yale’s loss, and I still think that Yale could have given stronger support, perhaps by rebuking the student or students who were disrespectful to Nicholas Christakis (those students of course had a right to disagree, but not to tell him to “shut up!”), or staving off any subsequent abuse they experienced.
I predict that the Christakises are looking for a new place to work and teach, and that’s sad. But faculty will vote with their feet when colleges allow students to abuse faculty and, in effect, run the institution.
h/t: Les
On the subject of free speech there is a petition to the UK’s National Union of Students, started by the Goldsmith University Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society, which you can sign here.
Signed!
Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
We need whatever pushback we can against the authoritarian anti-free speech movement who want universities (and the world?) to become a version of kindergarten where noone says anything even slightly upsetting or controversial.
Have you been in Kindergarten lately? This time of year the Santa Claus raises it’s controversial head. I have to intervene everyday in heated arguments about the existence of Santa, Jesus, magic and elves carried on by 5-7 year-olds. Only yesterday, I had to take one child aside to explain that she was absolutely correct – there is no such thing as magic; elves are make-believe; but arguing with her classmates would probably not change their minds. She seems OK with this solution. I would prefer that teachers not introduce the Christmas nonsense to the classroom, but that is probably a loosing battle. Kindergarten is far from immune to free-speech issues.
I’m never sure how to respond to the loud shouts of, “Santa isn’t real, my Dad brings the presents.” Or, “I don’t believe in God and the baby Jesus.” I’m not allowed to cheer, but I do want to let all the students know these points of view are OK.
I like this girl you pulled aside. Sadly, she will be annoyed at stupidity and injustice all her life.
Signed. Thanks for the link.
Signed.
The ever-larger university administrations are running a business/athletics institution, and “heads on pillows” will trump academic integrity every time!
It needn’t have been “disaffected students making life so hellish.” Social media pervades everything and online harassment in general is hard to deal with, regardless of and maybe especially when there is no actual personal connection to the events. Once the ball starts rolling, facts matter less and less. Realizing that one’s entire public legacy might end up being as a well-known “racist” could be enough to put someone off of their career.
The person whining about Yale not being a safe, nurturing environment was instrumental in having two professors tarred, feathered and run out on a rail for having a contrary opinion to her. Good job.
Not a problem. They were punching up.
“Not a problem. They were punching up.”
Yes, clearly based on the results the minority students were the powerless ones.
It used to be called a temper tantrum. Baby would get a timeout.
It rather mirrors the recent talk by Maryam Namazie at Goldsmiths University.
The university Islamic society used the notion of “safe spaces” to try and get the talk cancelled and Maryam disinvited.
When they failed to do this, they then proceeded to be as intimidating and disruptive as possible! Whistling, shouting, laughing at bloggers being murdered, walking in and out of the room, haranguing Maryam in the middle of the talk, turing of the projector, and (allegedly) making a subtle death-threat to one of the people present (making a gun to the head gesture).
Talk about a safe space!
Yeah, it used to be ‘your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.’ Now it seems to be ‘if I think your nose is making my fist-swinging space unsafe for me, it’s my right to hit it.’
+1
The opinions of the marginalized are not up for discussion.
Period.
/s
In fact, as the Times story makes clear, the Christakises are not going anywhere. “Dr. Christakis is the master of Silliman College, an undergraduate residence at Yale, and his wife is associate master. They will continue in those posts, the university said.”
The position of Master is quite prestigious and important in the Yale community. Erika, Silliman’s associate master, is temporarily leaving her lecturer position, that’s all.
Okay, just tarred and feathered then.
It’s really wrong that the ones who’ve done nothing wrong are the ones who are suffering.
That is generally and sadly the way it goes. If Yale and many of these other learning institutions and often farm leagues for the professional sports would look at the direction they have taken…oh well, it’s just like the rest of society.
As far as I know, the US is the only country where its universities and colleges are about sport instead education. It’s certainly a way of getting more funding for tertiary institutions, but the cost is pretty high. That’s another topic though.
They are privileged.
That is their crime.
Does it occur to students who use the word “privileged” that most people are privileged in some way? Everyone has some advantages and disadvantages in relation to other people. For instance, a white woman may be a recipient of “white privilege,” yet also be the target of sexism.
In this case, the fact that they are students at an Ivy League university makes them privileged (in this respect, if nothing else) over the vast majority of Americans who will never set foot on an Ivy League campus. I didn’t go to an Ivy league school-I demand that they acknowledge their privilege and feel guilty about it.
They benefit from white privilege, which is the only thing that matters in this case, apparently. See, they have the whole of the white dominant culture backing them up, which gives them an unfair advantage.
Also, as I noted in a previous post, we who are privileged are not permitted to have an opinion on the ideas advanced by those less privileged. Because we are privileged, we are not in a position to judge the veracity of their lived experience. So, if their lived experience tells them that fusion food is racist, we must ‘shut up and listen’
Now, this brings us to a conundrum. What if different people from the oppressed group don’t agree on what, exactly, is oppressing them? What if Mexican Person A believes that whites selling tacos dehumanizes Mexicans, whereas Mexican Person B believes that whites who sell tacos are celebrating the culture.
Since we are supposed to ‘shut up and listen’ and are forbidden from applying critical thought to these ideas, then which oppressed person do we listen to? Whose opinion do we take at face value with zero critical thought? Is the person with the hurt feelings automatically the most oppressed? if so, why????
“Whose opinion do we take at face value”
Simple. You listen to the most negative viewpoint. It’s inconceivable that a majority could do anything good for a minority.
🙁
Oh, and I want a trigger warning for the phrase ‘lived experience’. It sends my BS detector into instant overload. What other sort of experience could there possibly be? Yeah we know, it’s one of those weasel phrases whereby ‘my’ opinion magically trumps everybody else’s.
cr
In that case, the answer is “it is clearly the fault of western colonialists that we are disagreeing. They have poisoned us against each other. If it weren’t for them, we’d be one happy agreeable culture. Probably with all-natural hovercars and a cure for cancer by now.”
Let’s just hope the particular students who started all this don’t become the “privileged” ones. It’s scary to imagine.
On the plus side, as a sociologist this should give Christakis a lot to think and study and write about.
Just a reminder that the whole “Halloween costume fracas” did not involve any actual, extant Halloween costumes, offensive or otherwise. It was about the possibility of offensive Halloween costumes.
This is what we’ve come to: offensive things need not actually exist in order to pose a threat. They merely need be a theoretical possibility. One can now be preemptively triggered by hypothetical future events.
I like what Alice Dreger wrote yesterday comparing the Yale students to Trump:
http://alicedreger.com/trumping
Excellent and a great comparison made.
That is a good piece, very apropos…thanks for the link. I had a couple teachers like that in college and loved them.
For Chrissake, the Christakises should’ve stayed right where they were.
Yeah. If they move to a different school that may or may not be a good thing, but if Erika resigns entirely then the disrespectful students will have won. Either way they’ll likely see this as a victory and be bolstered to press even harder with the same bullying tactics.
In other countries such disrespectful students would have been immediately expelled. However in the US the fact that they are minorities makes the immune to punishment.
You also have to consider the fact universities are increasingly treating their students as customers rather than pupils. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a toxic brand of identity politics that consuming much of the left, this does not, however mean that minorities lead a privileged existence.
that is consuming
They do not. But I just can’t imagine a college professor being forced out for hurting the feelings of white males.
True.
Sub
I’m glad they are deciding to leave. They should vote with their feet and go to an institution that protects them from abuse better. Life is too short to be stuck in a poisonous work environment.
This was in today’s The Atlantic. “Campus Politics: A Cheat Sheet Erika Christakis, the Yale lecturer who drew scrutiny after sending an email to students supporting their right to wear “offensive” Halloween costumes, has resigned.” http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/12/campus-protest-roundup/417570/
The Namazie censorship thread is way old, so I’ll just drop this here.
The head of ISOC is a homophobe.
https://mobile.twitter.com/owolade14/status/673975827059638274
But he has more oppression points than apostates, so clearly he was only fighting oppression and not censoring Namazie
The Christakises, it would seem, are not going anywhere. In the same piece, the Times says, “Dr. Christakis is the master of Silliman College, an undergraduate residence at Yale, and his wife is associate master. They will continue in those posts, the university said.” The role of Master is a highly esteemed and well compensated position at Yale. There are 12 residential colleges, hence 12 masters (and their spouses), who oversee social and cultural life for those resident students. Silliman comprises about 450 students.
Not particularly about Yale, but a brief student-written, end-of-the-year summary of free speech news in 2015, much of which Jerry’s posted about:
Not allowing free speech on-campus is dangerous – universities need to defend their right to be offensive
Ends with an Orwell quote: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
I’m bad with links, apparently:
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/istudents/not-allowing-free-speech-on-campus-is-dangerous-universities-need-to-defend-their-right-to-be-a6788426.html