University of Missouri Football Strike

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[33girl]

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."

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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

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?

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[Sen's Revenge]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

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.

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.

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"?

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

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.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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"?

Scott Woods says it better than I can:

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

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