http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2...toric-fall-mu/
Here's a little timeline of the things this fall that led up to it

Now I'm even more confused. Is there evidence that the people yelling the racial slurs are students or affiliated with the university? And why would the university have anything to do with Planned Parenthood one way or the other? If you need to go there you go - it's for everyone, not just for students.

Oh, not THAT Yale incident. Basically a professor sent an email out encouraging what I considered thought and moderation regarding Halloween costumes. The deanery had prepared some guidelines and her response to that has students spitting on her and her husband and calling for their jobs.

My understanding was that the system president, under pressure from Republican legislators, revoked the hospital access of the one doctor at the university hospital who could perform abortions.

http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2...ing-abortions/

ETA mizdove added more of a helpful explanation

It's not about utilizing planned parenthood - previously, Mizzou nursing and medical students could complete clinicals and rotations at planned parenthood and since the university cut ties with them, they can no longer do so.

A staff member sent out an email saying not to do racist costumes. The professor responded that the staff member's request was PC gone amok and racist costumes are cool.

...and student "activists" felt it was okay to insult the faculty members and spit on them.

You mean this email?

https://www.thefire.org/email-from-e...ween-costumes/

That is not remotely what the email talked about. This is exactly what is so goddamn ridiculous about the PC warriors on college campuses. This letter is exactly the sort of academic, honest, open dialog which should be occurring.

Instead though, some jackass students and maybe some adults at this point are trying to get this educator and her husband fired for offering a viewpoint contrary to PC dogma?

This is exactly the sort of thing which makes the PC movement look so goddamn ridiculous.

The Atlantic published a thoughtful piece on the Yale matter.

This is a flippant misrepresentation of what was actually written. Whether or not you disagree with the sentiment of the e-mail (and I can see where there are many people who would disagree with what was actually said), this is incorrect.

Her thesis was more or less summed up here:
"And the censure and prohibition [referring to the school administrator's mandate of what is appropriate and what is not] come from above, not from yourselves! Are we all okay with this transfer of power? Have we lost faith in young people’s capacity – in your capacity – to exercise self-censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you?"

Essentially she was voicing her concerns that a) this was a "top down" demand from the institution, not a grass roots movement among the students themselves, and b) that in doing such, the administration was negating young people's abilities to determine for themselves what was appropriate, as well as have an intelligent discussion within their own community about what was troubling them (on either side of the spectrum).

In addition, she seemed to be trying to start a discourse on the specific holiday, and at what point the "fantasy" element starts to blur into appropriation. From reading this article, I got the impression that this woman would not tolerate, say, blackface, but is trying to grapple with the issue of intent for a costume (for example, mentioning if a student wanted to dress up as a character from a different race, in this case Mulan or Tiana, why do we accept that from children but not from young adults?).

I'm not sure I agree with everything she had to say, but calling for a resignation for this woman and her husband for simply articulating her viewpoint on a matter?

I found the Atlantic piece to be very well-written.

Um wow. I can understand a religious school doing that (Duquesne I'm looking at you) but for a public university, that's way too much interference.

According to "The Federalist" there is no photographic evidence of the poop swastika at Mizzou, only an anonymous report from a student who visited a Rez hall bathroom at 2am on a Saturday morning in October. I would link, but am on a mobile device.

I just read an article on USA Today's website about university employees - one of them a mass communications professor (!) - actively trying to interfere with student journalists, one of them named Tim Tai, trying to cover the protests on university (thus public) space. Unfortunately, this quote caught my eye:

"Another woman seen berating Tai in the video has been identified as the university’s director of Greek Life, Janna Basler."

And unfortunately (I think), the three Greek councils on campus are standing behind her. As someone with a background in communication, I disagree with that.

The article is here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...atus/75536062/

A similar article can be found in "The Federalist", plus a link to a video of the media professor telling the student to leave, and to quit filming.

She asked for 'muscle' to remove him.

I saw the video #ConcernedStudent1950 vs the media on YouTube. A news site I was on linked to it. It's probably the same content as the other videos out there (which I'll also check out), but in this one the Greek Life advisor, named Janna Basler, is portrayed prominently. In fact, she identifies herself to the reporter as 'ConcernedStudent1950'. Her behavior towards the reporter is appalling, and she should be reprimanded if not outright fired.

The name of the assistant professor of communication (!) - I still can't believe that's what she is - at the end of the clip is Melissa Click.

Now, let's talk about calling for jobs. If there has ever been an example more warranted for losing your job, it would be the one set by Ms. Click. What outrageous, abhorrent, misguided behavior. It is appalling to me and should be to anyone who cares about First Amendment rights that an associate professor of COMMUNICATION at a publicly funded university has demonstrated this behavior. The university should fire her ass lickety-split, no questions asked. How can you ever have any credibility as a professional communicator when you attack the very systems you deem to call yourself an expert!?? It's absolutely unbelievable. Fortunately, the university has begun to distance itself from her, and an appointment she holds at the School of Journalism at that school is being "investigated immediately", or something like that.

I have no connection to this school whatsoever, but I am just itching to contact someone there to call for her immediate dismissal. If I was a student there, I would be disgusted and embarrassed to have her as a teacher. If I was a parent with a child there, I would be horrified and mad as hell that there's a whack job like that being paid by my tuition and tax dollars to educate my child about communication while displaying such reckless disregard and disrespect to journalists and other communicators. It's not about what and why she was protesting. I get that. But to call for "muscle over here" to remove a reporter from PUBLIC space at a PUBLIC demonstration at a PUBLIC university? Absolutely unforgivable.

This may be slightly off the track...from a little online digging I notice Melissa Click graduated James Madison University in 1993 with a B.B.A. degree in retail marketing and women's studies.

Back in that same time frame, Camille Paglia wrote scathing essays against then-current, university-taught women's studies classes based on what and how schools taught/didn't teach the subject.

Guess Melissa Click is an outcome of what she was taught.

No, I don't think she should be fired, and yes, my summary was EXTREMELY flippant. But to bring up her email without bringing up the one that preceded it (as was done in this thread) is equally misleading.

So she wants students to self-police instead of administrative policing? Well, that's a noble goal, but it ignores the reality of the situation, which is 1) The original email was a suggestion, not something with the force of the institution or potential consequences behind it, and 2) This "self-policing" is not happening and it is having a negative effect on students of color.

The bottom line, in my mind, is that institutions cannot relieve themselves of the responsibility to provide campus experiences that are free from racism, and to brush things off as free speech or not the institution's responsibility is to avoid conflict at the expense of students of color.

So the Student Body President has claimed the KKK is on campus, but then deleted his post? Can he be believed regarding anything at this point? If he's using his position just to stir the pot, he shouldn't have that position.

So you disagree (largely) with her. I partially disagree with her and if anybody is truly interested I can get into why, but I doubt people are. I don't think it's a big deal when people disagree with each other. I do think the nature of our cultural climate at the moment is to immediately attempt to violently destroy and negate the opinions that are different than ours. People are literally calling for this woman's resignation in a frenzy over a well articulated opinion. If somebody disagrees with her, then it should be time for dialogue between the two sides, not a frenzied attempt to destroy somebody's livelihood over saying such a thing.

Universities should be a place for debate of ideas, of viewpoints. Too long have marginalized viewpoints been violently silenced, but now I wonder if other viewpoints are being violently silenced as well, even if the intentions are good (to make a safer space for said marginalized viewpoints). This woman certainly said things that not everybody may agree with, but her thoughts are hardly extreme, nor bigoted, nor crudely or aggressively stated. Is a person's opinion on Halloween costumes (and yes I understand that this fits into a larger narrative, but still) now to be the deciding factor on whether or not said person is a hero or a villain?

Again, I don't think she should be fired for her opinion.

I think the intensity of the reaction stems from the fact that her opinion was totally unnecessary in this case. What did she hope to accomplish by responding to that email? What pre-existing relationship did she have with those students? What would have been the harm in just letting the first email stand?

My understanding is that the students were only those in her residence hall, where she lived as the faculty adviser. I assume she was trying to open a dialogue with the students that lived in the building she advised. Somebody more familiar with Yale can comment on how that relationship works.

I also think this article from The Atlantic summarizes my concerns quite effectively. It is quite long but I think well worth the read, regardless of what side of the argument you find yourself falling on.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...t-yale/414810/

I thought she was married to the faculty adviser, so lived there incidentally, not as a result of her role with the university, but I don't know exactly how residential colleges at Yale work.

Regardless, I don't think that anyone needs to come out and disagree with an email that says "don't wear a racist Halloween costume." If she thought that costumes were a topic worthy of discussion, she could have raised the issue at any time.

How unnecessary is the opinion if it challenges preconceived notions and makes people challenge their assumptions? Isn't that what college is about?

I didn't have time to read the entire article, but here's what I got: helicopter parenting has gone so far off the deep end that the college masters are expected to continue the helicoptering. And worse, students have been so completely indoctrinated into the helicoptering that they are absolutely unwilling to think for themselves. And therefore any incidence of cognitive dissonance causes them to completely implode.

I'm not saying I believe she was right. I am seriously questioning how a campus movement that purports to be pushing toward inclusiveness of different cultures and viewpoints can justify their actions toward this e-mail, which have included public verbal harassment, threatening, calling for firing, and in one case publicly spitting on colleagues who dared to publicly side with this woman, all over a cautiously and respectfully written e-mail that they just did not agree with. The Atlantic article is, in my opinion, spot on.

Not really, I don't think. I think the primary thesis is that a movement that is geared toward promoting inclusiveness and tolerance of opinions is rampantly turning into an extremely exclusive movement that is completely intolerant of different opinions, to the point where one can no longer disagree to any degree with the "party line", so to speak, even if expressed tactfully and even if the differences are only slight, without being violently censored and silenced and in many cases demanded to leave the university completely. This is of course wildly ironic and hypocritical, and I think this piece is attempting to display just that, as well as highlight the absence of healthy debate on college campuses, and the demands that students assume their opinions should not be challenged to any degree because their personal pain trumps the free thoughts of others.

Oh, I agree, the blowback was far out of proportion to the original email. Nobody should lose their job because their attempt at dialogue happened to be the last straw.

But I also think that white people need to have a good think about what they are adding to a conversation like this when they chime in on questions of racism. Not every opinion deserves equal time, and we've gotten to say our piece for a very, very, very long time.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...eech-diversion

So colleges are turning into Sassy Magazine?

LOL, nice. I bet about three people here will know what that is.

*Raises hand* I remember Sassy!! :D Going off track here, but I remember they wrote an article about UGA sorority rush. I wonder if that's online anywhere.

Me too! My mom always renewed my subscription. It was great.

...I think that's four people already.

She began her email with "Nicholas and I have heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the mass email sent to the student body about appropriate Halloween-wear." I take that to mean that her email was prompted by conversations she and her husband had already had with students—conversations that were in turn prompted by the first email.

She then very quickly tied the perspective she was offering, and the questions she was raising, to her own academic field. Then she said:

I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.

It seems to me that we can have this discussion of costumes on many levels: we can talk about complex issues of identify, free speech, cultural appropriation, and virtue “signalling.” But I wanted to share my thoughts with you from a totally different angle, as an educator concerned with the developmental stages of childhood and young adulthood.

She acknowledged the valid concerns of others and then offered a different perspective on the conversation, based on her own academic expertise. Seems to me like exactly what it is to be hoped will happen in a university community.

Five! *waving hand Horschach style*

She created a strawman. The initial email was not a "bureaucratic and administrative" exercise of implied control over college students, and categorizing it as such does, indeed, trivialize it.

Again, I'm not calling for consequences for her, I just think she is wrong.

Also, this:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...eech-diversion

I get that you're not calling for or condoning consequences.

But we'll just have to disagree on whether she was wrong. I don't think she created a strawman at all. I can easily see how students might interpret the email from the Intercultural Affairs Committee—signed by what appear to be 13 administrators or staff members, one of whom is a senior associate dean of the College and five of whom are assistant deans of the College—as an "an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students." I think that as a student I probably would have interpreted it that way.

As for the New Yorker article, I get that claims of "free speech" can be used as a deflection of hard discussions about racism. I don't see that being the case in this email, though.

SHOW ME THE POO SWASTIKA!

But in all seriousness, I've learned never to underestimate the ability of people to make things up. All of these threats have been anecdotal or hear-say and in a world overrun of smartphones I wonder why no one has filmed or photographed these threats? There was a widely publicized series of tweets from a woman claiming that a group of white guys in a lifted honky truck was trapping them in a parking lot. You can post minute by minute twitter updates on the situation but can't snap one pic of the truck or the license plate for the police? :roll eyes:

As for Yale, what kind of crap pedigree are they producing there now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QqgNcktbSA

This was painful to watch. Do students actually speak to their professors and deans like this? The irony of this is when she speaks about how he was supposed to create a safe home for these students and what would freshman students think of Yale based off of the email. I personally find her behavior and attack on him more unsettleing than any email.

Really? You would have thought that an email asking you to be thoughtful about your Halloween costume was the university's attempt to control you?

I don't get any sort of implication that there would be institutional consequences for racism from the original email:

https://www.thefire.org/email-from-i...tural-affairs/

I get that there were students who allegedly complained to Christakis, and she was responding, in part, to that. I really believe that it is her duty, as a professor, an authority figure, and a white person, to help dismantle systems of oppression, and validating those students' complaints does just the opposite.