If my RA said "hai no blackface" that would be a suggestion.

But an email from deans and administrators, yes, I would feel I was being ordered not to do this and resistance would affect my schooling.

On another note, I saw in USA Today that Janna Basler, who is identified as a Greek Life liaison or some such has been suspended after being identified as one of those involved with the Click "pushback' incident.

Any Mizzou folks know of this person?

And for what it's worth, when I get a memo from the Greek Life office requiring us to register all parties with them and to disclose whether those parties will indeed involve any racial or national sort of component, that is more than slightly coercive.

Exhibit A:

http://krcgtv.com/news/local/missour...se-information

Yes.

Exactly. They don't have to say "there will be consequences." They are in positions of authority and when they speak, they are understood to speak for the university. It is not a stretch for a student to assume that the university would be displeased if he or she ignored the email, and that that displeasure might lead to consequences of some sort.

Well, that depends on what the complaints are and whether she was actually validating complaints that were a cover, consciously or unconsciously, for racism. If the complaints were about, say, university administrators using their authority in what was perceived as inappropriate ways, is validating those complaints really opposed to dismantling systems of oppression?

I read her email as saying that this is an issue that's worth having dialogue about, and that there are a variety of perspectives that can make that dialogue more meaningful and productive. Like others, I might not agree with all that she said. Meaningful dialogue allows for an opportunity for others with different perspectives to challenge what she said.

I'll put it this way from a parent's perspective: I understand when the schools my kids attend have rules and expectations designed to minimize racism and its effects on campus, and I sympathize completely with that goal. But I am much happier when, instead of relying on directives and statements from administrators, those schools find ways for students to learn how to talk about these issues, listen to others, consider a variety of perspectives and approaches (and implications), and work things out together.

And with all the resignations happening at Mizzou right now, why has he not submitted his?

I've seen this circulating on social media

https://medium.com/@interruptingstar...f-3b853ba0e8f4

Haven't read either article yet but am planning to.

Very good question.

I guess he's the one campus leader who is allowed to make mistakes.

Harvard couldn't resist.

http://hlrecord.org/2015/11/fascism-at-yale/

But yeah.. I think the fascism label sort of sticks here.

Yay Harvard! A very well articulated article. It's comforting to know there are still some voices of reason on college campuses today.

I would love to know this chick's Greek affiliation (please don't let it be Tri Delta!). You know it's more than likely that she's NPC.

I was glad to hear she was put on administrative leave, but she really needs to be fired.

Click has been charged with assault for her actions in that video. I agree--educators who assault students should be terminated. The other students who participated in the assualt ought to face some consequences as well.

Articles like this set up a false binary system for critique of activist behavior. You are either in full support of all that activists do, or you are criticizing them in order to maintain an oppressive structure in a manipulative way. It is therefore an implicit position that activists are so free of any fault that if anybody dares to comment on how any aspect of their behavior is incorrect, or even dangerous, or even verging on fascism (which I do agree with), well then that person is using their position of power to manipulate to silence minority voices, because of course there can be no truth in their claims whatsoever. When a group or movement is so free of criticism, dangerous and unchecked behaviors can emerge, and they are certainly emerging.

It is this very assertion that is leading to the problems that many are speaking of.

My wife and I speak out about white privilege among our family and friends. I see where privilege has affected my life, and attempt to do what I can to rectify it. We contribute our money and time to organizations that help bridge that gap in privilege in our hometown (San Francisco) by supplying marginalized groups of children with the additional tools they need to succeed in school, starting in pre-K and ending with post-college coaching. We are not perfect, we all have biases, and I understand this paragraph is close to "ally theater", but all of this to say I support the goals of the movement and do see oppression and lack of opportunity in our society.

That being said, when we address the issue of "power" with regard to racism, we all too often ignore the "micro" aspect in favor of the "macro". Yes, overall minority groups do not have power in American society, and their voices have been silenced. However, in smaller situations, they (alongside allies) are gaining a strong and powerful voice, which is something to be celebrated. Being able to demand the resignation of high profile campus administrators, and actually see those people resign because of it, is certainly a sign of power. However, in some university settings, as that power grows, I am saddened and angry to see it abused.

The issues I think we are seeing:

(1) A substantial lack of proof of many claims put forward, and the readiness of activists to condemn people and organizations in a highly visible manner without actually examining the proof (or lack thereof) at hand. I think the most recent example of this was UCLA's Alpha Phi and Sig Ep chapters, who were widely broadcast throughout the media as dressing in blackface when no blackface actually occurred. The members of these chapters received death threats of their own and yet nobody seemed to care. And even when the lack of proof was widely known, protests and condemnations continued, and with no apology. The Rolling Stone UVA rape case is an even more extreme version of this. If a story or claim is presented that fits a preconceived narrative, we are seeing aggressive behavior without examining whether or not these incidents truly happened. It is not longer "innocent until proven guilty", but it is on the accused to prove their innocence, and even upon proving it nobody ever seems to care or retract their statements. If you have the power to condemn a person so violently, visibly, and nationally, then you must use that power wisely and make sure something has actually occurred before going forward. People's lives and being played loosely with in an abhorrent manner, but if they are from a cultural group that has power, well then their feelings and lives don't matter at all on behalf of their skin color, gender, hometown, etc and if they get falsely dragged through the mud, "at least a conversation has been started".

(2) Reactionary anger toward having any sort of opinion that does not align with what an activist believes. There are constant calls for dialogue, and yet when dialogue happens that is not complete and utter agreement, no matter how tactful, often instead of engaging, these people are violently silenced themselves in any way necessary. I mean violent in the sense of verbal violence, but with the recent cases of spitting on people at Yale (an actual crime, battery, by the way) and blocking the videographer at Missouri (a clear violation of freedom of the press), we are actually beginning to escalate to (i) culturally sanctioned physical violence and (ii) culturally sanctioned law breaking, but only if the ideology is right. Considering that if the ideology is "wrong", even a well written e-mail can be a cause for resignation, I can only imagine what would happen if this woman at Yale tried to slap a camera out of her face or spit on somebody. NOTE: I am not talking about anger if, say, a person uses a racist slur or something of that note. I am talking about the Yale e-mail in this case, where an opinion was posited in an articulate, tactful, and well meaning way. Engage with it in disagreement, sure. But this has gone way too far.

(3) Invalidation of people's statements based on race, gender, class status, or any other cultural identifier. So, for example, the temptation of many to see what I wrote, look for my cultural identifiers, and upon finding them (white, straight, male, etc) discount my opinion, often times in a very public and aggressive way, not by examining what I say and finding it to be true or not, but by there mere nature of who I am as a person. I understand that as a white man, I do need to let people of color speak about their experiences and not assume my knowledge of their lives is accurate, as well as listen to what they are saying. But I draw the line at an "inclusive" movement that will not accept any critique or comment, especially when it is an inclusive movement that feels fairly comfortable speaking on behalf of majority (oppressive, in their terms, which can often be true) groups on what goes on in their heads, their families, and their communities.

(4) Lastly, violent hate speech. One woman I read on Twitter frequently, because she promotes an exceptionally radical view on race, sexuality, etc that I enjoy learning about (some I agree with, some I do not, but it has certainly broadened my horizons) will frequently go on tirades about the "Rancid mayo" she has to interact with (white people), not in terms of political or cultural discussions, but in every day activities, often not even directly interacting with her but just being near her, but will justify this hate speech because of past interactions with white people. The hypocrisy here is, of course, delicious given that this is the same exact justification that oppressive groups often give when speaking hatefully about minorities ("I'm not sorry for what I called them, in my experience [GROUP] has been [STEREOTYPE]"). And then we just culturally nuance the hell out of it all "No but this hateful speech is OK for [THIS PERSON] because [REASON]".

I support and will continue to support much, if not all, of what these movements are based on. I do think we have a large way to come. However, we should have the right to comment if we seeing disturbing trends, especially if they are contrary to the type of society that these same activists want to bring about. If we cannot comment on the irony and hypocrisy of the actions above, then we are veering toward an extremely dangerous place.

That's not at all what fascism means. You two both know better, as does the writer of this article.

Like it or not, calling for someone's resignation is ALSO an exercise of free speech.

Indeed it is an exercise in free speech to call for someone's resignation, but unfortunately (in my view) if there's not immediate acquiescence, it causes a problem and is interpreted in a manner that serves to further a certain storyline.

I'm an old lady but as a veteran of the 60's on an activist campus, there's just not enough GFY out there when folks make extreme demands. Fetal curl ups abound, however.

Agree.

It will be seen that, as used, the word "Fascism" is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if "Fascist" means "in sympathy with Hitler", some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word "Fascist" in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By "Fascism" they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept "bully" as a synonym for "Fascist". That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

George Orwell, "What is Fascism?," Tribune, 24 March 1944.

While I think the word has more definitive meaning that Orwell gave it in 1944, I don't think the writer at Harvard has grasped that meaning. His protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, I think he is, as Orwell suggests, using the word "facist" to mean "bully."

Fair enough. In either event, their behavior is not excused. And while calling for someone's resignation as occurred in Yale is, yes, protected by the First Amendment, there are a number of adjectives which would also attach--bully, ant-intellectual, entitled.

And let's be clear--it's not fair game. The professor is not going to consider turnabout being fair play and reasonably expect the students acting like complete douchebags to resign from Yale.

And let's go ahead and group all of the speech and activity against that professor.. we can of course agree that spitting on someone isn't an exercise of free speech.

Sally Kohn comes to the defense of the shrieking Yale student. I was always on the fence when it came to Kohn, but after reading this I think she's an idiot.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/opinio...sts/index.html

And just to confirm, if you were on the fence, there are apparently some idiot students at Mizzou behind these protests.

http://www.barstoolsports.com/barsto...ion-than-them/

Yes... the Paris coverage is being used as an excuse by the media not to cover your kerfuffle... morons. I really hope this is just satire.

No more entitled than the students who went crying to Christakis because of the big bad email asking them not to do blackface on Halloween.

You know, it is possible to think that blackface and other offensive costumes are never appropriate under any circumstances, and at the same time to have reservations or concerns about the email sent by Yale administrators. The two positions are hardly mutually exclusive.

Would they be equally concerned about an email reminding students not to cheat on exams? Or reminding students not to rape women?

I just don't see how this reads as anything but white fragility.

When someone in authority assumes you are going to do bad things, it obviously sets your teeth on edge and makes you defensive, no matter who you are or what the thing is. If a mall had on their Facebook page "please park your car between the lines and do not take up multiple spaces" I would say "eff you, mall."

So it's not possible to disagree with what the administrators did, or perhaps with how they did it, without being motivated by white fragility?

I didn't say it was impossible. I said it was highly unlikely, given that administrators send out emails about all sorts of things you should and should not do on a college campus.

I have a really hard time believing that, if a bunch of cheaters were busted and there was a subsequent email about academic integrity, students would complain to their residential college directors.

Maybe there are students who had no idea about recent race-related incidents at Yale and elsewhere, and therefore saw the email as being unprompted, but that speaks to the privilege of those students rather than Yale's overreach.

Thank you.

For those who don't understand all the hubbub about Mizzou, this article might explain it a bit. It does read a bit like someone's thesis, but at least it is fully documented and comes with graphics ;)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b08cda3488f34d

In short, Missouri is a whole different place and comparing it to your typical northern (or southern) school with similar diversity concentrations is not going to explain the racial tension. And assuming the black situation at Mizzou is the same as at similar regional schools like Illinois, Tennessee or Arkansas (all reasonably close and similarly sized) is going to make you think this is all much ado about nothing.

Of course not, because academic integrity and cheating are at the core of the university's disciplinary powers. Who would question that?

Which is one reason why some of us have said we can see how the email here seemed like an implied threat of discipline.

If that's what happened, then yes, it does. But as far as I've seen, we know nothing about the students who expressed concerns (which is not the same as complaining or "crying"), nor do we know what concerns they expressed. We don't know that they were all white students. We just don't know.

It seems that an unwarranted and false dichotomy is being presented: either one supports the email completely and unquestioningly, or one is wrong, and that wrong-ness is motivated by privilege, fragility or the like. Is there absolutely no room for someone to say something like "I agree with what you're trying to accomplish, but I think there may better ways to get there, and I think the conversation needs to be broader"?

I sure wouldn't, but I also wouldn't question that creating a safe environment for students of color is at the core of a university's duties as well.

Scott Woods says it better than I can:

https://scottwoodsmakeslists.wordpre...horrible-goal/

In short, we are WAY past the time for conversation.

Again, a false dichotomy—that concerns about this email mean one is against creating a safe environment for students of color.

It's late; I'll read the Scott Woods article tomorrow, when I can digest a little better.

Very good article, with much to think about. Thanks for sharing it.

I agree with him completely when he says:

A conversation about race in 2015 is not a goal.

It is not a good goal, it is not a reasonable goal, and it is not an equitable goal. In fact, treating the conversation like a goal is offensive to thinking people who have been having these conversations longer than you or your daddy or your grandfather have been alive, let alone the people forced to live as the subjects of your well-meaning conversations.

And I groan when at every catalyst, I hear something along the lines of "maybe this will start the conversation on race we need to have."

And I readily acknowledge that not all conversations are created equal, nor are all conversation entered into honestly. Making conversation the goal is indeed a smokescreen, a way of deflecting and avoiding. The goal is, or should be, a just society for all. In my view, honest dialogue is one of the ways we work towards that goal.

My issue is when the environment at an educational institution stifles that dialogue or dismisses it as unnecessary or inappropriate, or when dissenting views are stifled—not countered, but just shut out entirely.

Shutting out dissenting views in the manner suggested and refusing to have a dialog is itself a form of oppression. Oppression does not justify oppression. And when you have little things like Constitutional Rights dangling in the background, you can either accept that occasionally you will be offended or you can accept that there need to be resources available to help people, on their own, maybe with a little help be decent to each other.

Sure, but I don't read that in the initial email. I don't think you and I are that far apart on this, I just don't think that we can sit around and wait for students to make good choices. It would be really nice if they did, but again and again we have blackface or related incidents, and at some point, the university needs to step up and really do something concrete.

Which is to say, if Christakis heard concerns from students, I think the right path would be to ask the students to reflect on why that email may have been perceived as necessary.

I don't think we are that far apart either. And I didn't necessarily read that in the initial email, but I can see how some could—particularly when we're talking about 18- and 19-year-olds—and I'm not willing to dismiss that inference as simply arising out of privilege, fragility or the like.

I think that could have certainly been a good path. But I don't think it's the only path that could be taken. And frankly, I'm not sure I think it should be limited to one path. I think it could be quite appropriate to raise questions and to invite students to reflect on why those who sent the email might have thought it was necessary to do so.

These stories are just proof that the world is what we make it; people have an equal ability to be both good and/or evil. It is nice to hear of people doing simple things to improve the lives of those around them.

GoodShop/GoodSearch is now offering a $5 referral donation ($5 donated to the new user's charity + $5 donated to the referring user's charity) once a new user has made a $25 purchase through GoodShop.

The donations can add up fast, depending on where you shop. Many of the donations are in the 2-6% range:
Starbucks - 3.5%
Walmart - 2%
Sephora - 5%
Etsy - 2%
Nordstrom - 3%
The Body Shop - 6%
Birchbox - 4%

The next time you make a big vacation purchase, think about these donations:
Hotels.com - 3.5%
Priceline - up to 5%


If you're interested in a referral link to raise $5 for your charity, PM me.

Thanks all!

^^^ What on earth??

I posted this in the GoodShop thread, NOT this thread.

What happened???

Also - I don't have an edit button to that post, so I can't change anything about it.