University of Missouri Football Strike

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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 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?

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

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?

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

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 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.

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

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.

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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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

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

Five! *waving hand Horschach style*

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I think the intensity of the reaction stems from the fact that her opinion was totally unnecessary in this case.

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