> That’s clear in the book itself, which makes unmistakable allusions to the Yale ugliness. “I have seen the effects of overidentifying with one’s group and witnessed mass delusions up close,” he writes. He rues America’s intense polarization, which perhaps makes this “an odd time for me to advance the view that there is more that unites us than divides us.” But advance that view he does.
Is it strange to anyone else that there'd be a run on sentence that starts with discussing how deluded some people are and ends with trying to claim a moral stance for unification?
"Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society."
They are both right. People who opposed them are wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Going after someone's career for a perfectly legitimate voiced opinion is not good faith regardless of disagreement. Also in general this whole idea of empowerment through silencing is what nasty religions have done in the past, shunning people for speaking their truth. It's a disgusting tactic and people using it to silence legitimate discourse should instead be shunned.
You are missing a couple of facts, namely, they were not simply faculty, they were also in very particular and prestigious mentorship positions at the college. How can you be a mentor if you dismis the concerns of your students? This whole debacle was not over just some stupid letter, rather it was over the complete lack of empathy in the conversation that followed.
You are confusing "disagree" with "dismiss". I don't think they dismissed the concerns of their students, I think they disagreed with the students' proposed solution and explained their reasoning. What kind of mentor would they be if they acquiesced to every demand a student makes, even when they believed it to be incorrect? Is not the purpose of having a mentor to learn from them, not to have them simply confirm everything you already want to believe?
> How can you be a mentor if you dismis the concerns of your students?
Just curious, what would be the opposite of them dismissing the concerns. It seems you have been there and have a better perspective on things. So given the context at that time, how should this professor have reacted that would have been satisfactory for the students?
I would say the debacle was worsened[1] due to poor communication on everyone's part, but the professor focused on a topic that was not the main complaint of the students (the prof was also officially hired in a prestigious mentorship position, with expectations to listen to comments about bullying/racism/sexism). Most people agreed with what he said about free speech, but the main complaints about consistent casual racism (comments only tangentially related to the stupid letter that started the discussion) were never responded to. A simple acknowledgement that "yes, I now see that you face casual racism on a daily basis here at Yale, so let's work together on educating people about this casual racism" would have probably defused the situation.
[1]: I mean, just see all the sibling comments that assume this whole thing was about some stupid letter about costumes, and everyone calling all the students childish and dismissing their legitimate concerns (not even trying to find out what these concerns were) because they have seen the reaction of a couple overly-emotional students on YouTube.
> A simple acknowledgement that "yes, I now see that you face casual racism on a daily basis here at Yale, so let's work together on educating people about this casual racism" would have probably defused the situation.
That does make sense. In a way a lot of conflicts suffer from this. It is not always just the issue that starts the confrontation but there is a whole "iceberg" part hiding underneath that's not being usually addressed and might not be visible to a casual observer.
> I mean, just see all the sibling comments
Thank you for taking the time to respond. That's why I wanted your opinion as you seems have been there and are aware of a larger context.
Bad faith doesn't require lack of sincere belief. Perhaps the most common form of bad-faith disagreement is when you disagree with someone and are unwilling to really listen to what they say for fear that it would cause you to rethink your current sincere belief.
What I'm saying is that it seems likely the students understand exactly what was written in that latter and how the argument in that letter could be steelmanned, and that they also understand their own point of view in depth, and they should not be dismissed as people so wrong as to be un-serious debaters.
I don’t really see how, if you sincerely believe something, you can be afraid to listen to an argument in case it dissuades you of it. That seems to me to be a blatant disregard for whether what you ‘believe’ is actually true.
Furthermore it is also a blatant disregard for whether what you think someone means is actually what they are saying. That really is bad faith in a pretty raw form.
> if you sincerely believe something, you can be afraid to listen to an argument in case it dissuades you of it.
I know the holocaust happened. I don't need to listen to holocaust deniers talking about the size of the ovens or any of their other talking points. I know I'm not going to change their mind; I know they're not going to change my mind. I also know that my society is better because we teach children about these points of denial without suggesting that they're true.
Relatives of Holocaust victims still visit Holocaust museums though they, like you, know what happened. Some topics have to continuously be investigated for them to remain true, relevant, and impactful. You don't want those topics to rest on handed down truths, for they will become archaic and will seem distant and irrelevant.
Most conversations about the Holocaust do not involve Holocaust deniers, and it is in fact quite common policy for people hosting such conversations (e.g., museums) to disallow deniers.
Apart from anything else, how are you going to persuade someone if you don't talk to them? A lot of people that get pulled into these things don't have access to reasoned counter-points. They might have just searched for something on Youtube and got sucked down a fringe kook rabbit hole by the recommendation engine.
a) Curious to know how one could reasonably disagree with it?
b) More importantly: how on earth such a letter could cause alarm, to the point where someone had to be fired.
It's on the 'b' point that the SJW's not only lose the argument, but should be quashed.
Controversial statements require nuance, but this is not even that. It's not controversial.
That Yale would dump someone for such a statement is shocking. It makes me wary almost to the point of conspiratorial as to who on earth could possibly be happening.
You are being rather reactionary. If the premise of your questions was true, I would indeed find the situation as ridiculous as you do. But the problem was not just the stupid letter, it was the tone deaf way in which they disregarded any feedback in the conversation that ensued. They were hired to be mentors for these students (separately from their faculty positions) but made no honest attempt to listen to them, which resulted in everyone being frustrated.
There's a difference between disagreeing, and being brought to tears by the fact that a college professor's wife said that adults should be able to pick their own Halloween costumes and explicitly calling for said professor to be fired: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiMVx2C5_Wg
This video was surreal, I had trouble convincing myself this wasn't some sort of hoax.
The greatest risk to free society in my opinion is the overwhelming response of the Outrage Army, and the accompanying chilling effects on free speech and civility.
Consider for a moment that the rise of the right wing political movements are in my opinion, an irrational response to the growth of tribalism and outrage culture on the left.
In Europe the culture you're describing is pretty much non-existent, yet far-right parties are on the rise everywhere.
I don't think there's a causal relationship, perhaps it exacerbates the issue yes, but it's not the cause of it.
I think far-right rhetoric is just too easy to digest, a clear group of enemies is identified for you (just like it is for the people on the left you described). And digging deeper and analyzing an increasingly complex socioeconomical situation, where things interconnect on a global level, is becoming harder and harder, so the inherent tribalism in us drives us to adopt those easy answers.
I've noticed the Europe where I am living for a long time successfully import outrage culture from the USA. The internet has truly brought us closer together - and not in positive ways.
What about the tribalism and outrage culture on the right, that various civil rights movements has been fighting for decades, now? The right's been outraged over all sorts of things, most of which having no effect on it (Gay rights, for one - the amount of outrage that people opposed to them have voice over the years is staggering), has engaged in decades of tone policing, and is incredibly tribal.
Does your theory explain why having to put up with decades of this sort of thing hasn't galvanized a Trump-of-the-left into power?
I don't like framing it as "Trump-of-the-left". I also hate the "right-wing" vs "left-wing" dichotomy. Because it jambs many dimensions into one. But whatever.
There have been a few shots at electing candidates who promised to address various sorts of "left-wing" concerns. Most recently, in their own ways, Hillary Clinton (feminism) and Bernie Sanders (humanism). And Barach Obama (anti-racism). Back in the day, there were Eugene McCarthy (pacifism) and Jessie Jackson (anti-racism). Even Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Although Clinton was a right-wing Democratic con, in my opinion. But in my cynical moments, I suspect the same of Barach Obama.
Anyway, there's really nothing unique about Trump, in this regard.
Yeah, I am so glad that I left academia in the 90s. I can't imagine the bullshit that professors must deal with now. There's also the fact that I earned lots more money as a consultant, but whatever.
What worries me is that we are in a period of relative peace in the developed world, and yet there seems to be an attempt to create instability in society via this culture. I don't believe that it has just organically emerged from nowhere nor that it would persist unless it served the interests of power in some way, yet the useful idiots that support it are unable to recognise themselves as such.
We forget just how incredibly worse life could be if people weren't inherently good. So many times throughout each of our days people are given the chance to make their lives better at our expense, and so very often they cede that moment back to us, and vice versa.
This is a bit of a weird take on the situation. I was at Yale when this whole debacle took place. Sure, there were some undergrads that took it too far, but for the vast majority it was simply the straw that broke the camel's back: there have been so many big and small slights over the years that were funneled into this situation. The response to the students legitimate concerns was tone deaf and dismissive which only led to the vindication of the loud and angry. I can believe that the Christakises certainly wanted to be good and empathetic and supportive to their students, however they most certainly failed at it. This self-congratulatory piece does little to inspire faith that they actually considered their own failings in this story.
I like the premise of the book, that we are all inherently good, but I am confused by the author's stance when they do not acknowledge any of their own dismissiveness and lack of empathy in the whole situation.
There are some small things that are problems only because they are consistently happening to just a subpopulation: if only one ethnic group is consistently asked whether they are janitorial staff for instance. It is funny the first time, but it sends a message of "you do not belong" on the tenth time.
And then there are big things that thankfully happen less and less often, are dealt with more swiftly, and are less ambiguous (like some more ancient professors making disturbing comments).
And then when you get a complete dismissal of your initially polite and well-worded informal complaint... Of course you will get angry, even if anger is unproductive.
As an outsider, my initial reaction to this situation was "why the fuck students from one of the best Uni whine over meaningless Halloween costumes? It's university, not kindergarten."
But if there is a group of students teasing another group of students all the time, and they won't stop, it's natural that at some point you ask the attention of who has the authority to do something about it; just to make them stop. And if authority won't do anything as well, it's kind of a given that somebody will overreact (either against other students or authority).
Anyway, I wasn't there, so I simply speak for my limited understanding of what has happened.
It's a tautological statement isn't it? "overidentifying" presupposes the effort has gone too far, so he's basically saying "what I deem as too much I believe is too much".
No one would disagree with that, how could you? The real statement is, "It's possible to go too far when defending an identity."
And, honestly, how could you also not agree with that?
Can you provide some explanation/details when you say "but for the vast majority it was simply the straw that broke the camel's back: there have been so many big and small slighs over the years that were funneled into this situation."
Because honestly I followed the situation extremely closely when it happened, and the only thing I was disgusted by was how an intelligent student body was incapable of looking beyond the tribalism of their position and try to actually understand what the Christakises were saying. So if there is more to the story I'd like to know what it is.
I was disappointed with the extreme reaction of some students, but that was the exception (although that exception was what was seen on YouTube). I am much more disappointed that the people in power that were entrusted with the mentoring of these students (the Christakises were not simply in faculty positions, they were also entrusted with very particular respected mentoring positions at the college) failed to comprehend the complaints of the students. It was not about one stupid email, it was about the consistent dismissal of the small but compounding negative experiences. I am certain you will find as many opinions as there were students, but you can see the examples that I observed in one of the sibling comments.
Can you actually provide any concrete example that demonstrates the patter of dismissal that you're repeatedly mentioning? It's starting to sound an awful lot like weasel words to keep insisting on a thesis that's already been put to rest due to the oveewhelming evidence of the contrary.
Most of the "overwhelming evidence of the contrary" is the prof trying to pacify overly-angry and overly-emotional students in a YouTube video, without any commentary on the majority of the events and conversations surrounding the debacle. The fact is that the prof did little to fight the casual racism on campus (and their position as "head of college" expects them to deal with problems surrounding bullying/racism/sexism/etc). They simply tried to switch the topic (not maliciously, rather because of obliviousness) to talking about freedom of speech. Most people already agree with them about the freedom of speech topic, so let's try to do something about the casual even oblivious racism on campus.
How can it be the 'straw that broke the camel's back' if it's not a straw and has no mass?
You honestly think there is popular legitimacy in student's demand for authoritative policing of Halloween costumes?
(Edit: literally putting Yale students, the nations 'best and brightest' under more policing literally than children, high schoolers or other adults who for some crazy reason don't need to have their halloween costumes regulated)
This is not a 'yes, but' situation.
There are no 'butts'.
I'm actually quite shocked to read your comment as I had hoped that most Yale students had common sense and thought of the whole episode as pedantic rubbish.
From your comment I am left to believe we are not talking about the same event? Could you describe what you think happened? Do you think this whole debacle was really over one stupid letter? As I described elsewhere, the letter just started a conversation. The tone deaf responses in that conversation is what escalated the situation.
The student's concerns about costumes were heard, some advice was given apparently, and that's all any academic organization or otherwise should have to contend with.
That's the end of the story.
There's no reason for the faculty to have to address it further.
Whether or not responses were 'tone deaf' it subjective, and certainly besides the point with respect to anyone being fired.
Students who bullied the staff should have been admonished (or possibly expelled), not the other way around.
The whole costume thing was a minor part of the conversation (and went more or less as you described). It was a convenient chance to start a conversation. Students had legitimate complaints about documented casual racism on campus, and initially they received only dismissal. This is the source of all the anger.
Not a "weird" take. Conflict resolution is never simple even when you involve people who know what they are doing. It takes training and a whole lot of discipline to produce good outcomes.
Throw people who are untrained into the situation and invite our polarizing media to the event and bad outcomes are more or less guaranteed.
Christakis isn't a trained psychologist. I am a fan of his work on network effects and he didn't cause unnecessary further escalation, but he still wasn't the right guy to send into that quad. Send in a Marshall Rosenberg and the outcome would have been different.
If you look closely, the agreement students have with Yale does not promise them empathy or emotional support. It promises an education.
The idea that someone else's opinion or words 'hurt you' is entirely in your head. I'm told that wise Italian grandmothers tell their grandchildren "what other people think of you is none of your business." You can choose to be completely okay, or you can act like a baby. It's entirely your choice. Once you get that, once you embrace that, it is liberating. You are free of the slavery of other people's opinions. You are free of racism, of elitism, of sexism, of all of that s* because you realise that their opinions are meaningless to you. When it comes to physical actions, that's the line you let nobody cross, and you get the police involved. This is just part of growing up. But don't listen to me, I don't have a horse in this race, I'm not from your country, and I'm not from your generation. I'm just someone far removed from the situation spouting another meaningless opinion. There, see? You really don't care what I think. Good on ya.
This is a bit dishonest (and very self aggrandizing). If you did not care you would not have commented.
However I agree, there is no point in caring about the negative comments that someone throws at you if they are just comments. Too bad that usually it is not just comments, rather it is also fewer mentorship opportunities, worse starting salaries, and all the other consequences of racism.
And you are wrong about the "agreement students have with Yale". There is supposedly a code of conduct that includes protecting each other's dignity.
That's a wild misrepresentaton of what I wrote. I was talking about what people think and say, not what they do. Actions are actionable. You can and should fight racist actions using the legal system. And if the laws aren't good enough, then let's fix them.
Perhaps we are inherently good, but I think we're also groupish. How can that be reconciled? There must be an "other" -- something to conflict or compete with -- in some sense. Unfortunately, that conflicting other usually manifests as other humans. Examples are everywhere: democrats versus liberals, professor vs student, rich vs poor, nation vs nation, sports team vs sports team.
I'm excited to see if and how "Blueprint" addresses this.
If “Good” means altruistic for all people, we are not. We are altruistic for the groups we identify with (“groupish”) — see the work of Jonathan haidt (the righteous mind) if this stuff interests you
Preferring the groups we identify with is a practical heuristic for being efficient with your well-intended actions. Helping primarily locally will often (heuristic) be time & energy efficient. Belonging to the same group as the targets of help will usually (heuristic) ensure the help is rendered when needed, as needed.
Certainly there are complex moral issues here that can be discussed for days on end, but as a rule of thumb, focusing first on your ingroups (family, friends, community) will yield results pretty close to optimal. There's a reason humanity - just like other species - evolved the ingroup preference.
I read somewhere that this is the most peaceful humans have ever been. Since we are not fighting physical wars it seems we are fighting ideological wars.
Why should I even care about the opinions of privileged Yale students and faculty who love the smell of their own farts? Give me trailer park trash and gang bangers from the hood over woke intellectuals and anti-SJW crusaders any day. I generally think “both sides” arguments are a cop-out, but my approach to this pointless culture war has been to take the stance of an anarchist; laugh at any one who even bothers to participate. Regardless of where you stand, we’re all probably going to die in a nuclear hellfire at some point in the coming decades. If you’re like me and don’t give a fuck, skip this article. The New York Times does a lot of great, important journalism but this piece is the epitome of unimportance.
I would agree if we were talking about hard facts like science or mathematics. When it comes to matters of society and culture, the salt of the Earth rules the Earth. How much great music, art, fashion, food, etc. comes from rich pricks at Yale, Harvard, etc? Virtually none. I find these people and their debates to be stuffy and boring.
> How much great music, art, fashion, food, etc. comes from rich pricks at Yale, Harvard, etc? Virtually none.
You're sadly misinformed. A huge amount of culture came out of these institutions, including pop culture. As one tiny example, Lady Gaga went to an elite private school in Manhattan. Spike Lee got his start at NYU.
You can cite individual examples of talented people who were born with privilege and I can cite entire genres and art forms that were born out of struggle. The foundation of Western music, the blues, originated on American slave plantations. Punk music was started by poor and disaffected youth in the United Kingdom. Hip hop, the most popular and innovative genre of music today, was invented by African American youth who continue to be systematically disenfranchised and discriminated against in our society. These are artistic movements that changed the course of history and I'm only talking about music. The same can be said for other mediums and if you'd like me to present arguments supporting this claim I'd be happy to do so.
Let me address your two cherry-picked examples though. Lady Gaga is overrated. Without the aesthetic (which is an amalgamation of many creative energies from different backgrounds), she would be another formulaic pop artist. Sorry to any Gaga fans, but her music is not that interesting on its own. She's no Björk or Nina Simone or SOPHIE. Her time at an "elite private school in Manhattan" apparently didn't teach her how to color outside the lines. Give me the name of her magnum opus and I will gladly stack it against any number of great albums, both indie and mainstream, from the past 10 years. She won't fare well.
Spike Lee is a more interesting example. I love Spike Lee. He does come from a relatively well-to-do background. But you have to admit, the subject matter of his work tends to focus on disenfranchised people and communities. We also can't ignore the racial prejudices of people in Hollywood that may have made his story a bit more turbulent. I'd have to look into this a bit more but I'm willing to bet it's not as simple as you think.
Final note, I apologize if any of my arguments here have come across as insensitive. I believe that personal struggle plays a huge role in the creation of important artists and creators but I absolutely do not see that as a valid excuse for social injustice. My original point was only targeted to OP's post. The Yale professor mentioned in this article and the students calling him "disgusting" are largely insignificant in my view, and I considered it a waste of a click (especially considering NYT only gives you three free reads a month).
Sure, although my original comment was flagged so no one else will see this (pretty ironic considering the “free speech” arguments of other commenters in this thread).
When I mention "modern art" one might be quick to associate it with the type of people I was criticizing in my original post; rich, well-adjusted individuals who go to Ivy League schools and end up spending more money on paintings than you or I will ever see in our lives. But it didn't start this way. If you trace modern art back to its roots, you'll find a trend among most of the foundational artists and painters of this period: personal turmoil and careers which were almost universally dismissed by the art schools and museums of the time.
Vincent van Gogh's last words before shooting himself in the chest with a revolver is reported to have been, "The sadness will last forever." Indeed, van Gogh lived a troubled life of alcoholism, poor academic performance and psychotic episodes. He is also widely credited as being one of the most important 19th century painters and an artist whose works serve as an underpinning of expressionism, one of the foundational stylistic movements of modern art. We see similar lives of turmoil among other important post-impressionists during this period. Paul Gauguin, who witnessed domestic abuse and death in the family at an early age, ended up broke and living in a hut in Panama when he produced some of his most important works.
Of course there were other key post-impressionists who lived less tragic lives, such as Henri Matisse who was lucky enough to be non-Jewish during the Nazi occupation of Paris. He and other artists of this movement were harshly criticized and rejected by the art establishment of the time, however, which considered their rejection of tradition an affront to art. Nonetheless, it's this artistic movement that led to an entire era of artistic experimentation; expressionism, cubism, surrealism, abstract art, pop art and other genres would follow.
Your original point was that "[v]irtually [no]" good culture comes out of elite institutions. I cited two examples, there are many more. Of course much more culture is created outside of elite institutions than within them, but that's largely because elite institutions are by their very nature very small.
Those "rich pricks at Yale, Harvard, etc" make up a tiny fraction of society, likely far less than 1%. Accordingly, it would be crazy to think they create a majority or even a plurality of culture.
However, they do have a very outsize influence. They make up less than 1% of the population, but contribute much more than that percentage to culture (I'd unscientifically gander somewhere between 2 and 8%).
Also, my intention was never to give an exhaustive list of artists that went to elite schools, but your point focused on "great" culture, and while Lady Gaga is definitely beloved by many (and I personally think she's pretty great), it's understandable that some would find that a controversial choice.
So here are a few more "cherry-picked" pop musicians, surely some of them would qualify under your rubric:
- Tom Morello - Rage Against the Machine - Harvard
- Lauryn Hill - Columbia (dropped out, but released The Score while still a student)
- Alicia Keys - Columbia (dropped out after growing fame)
This is the inherent prejudice of the intellectual.
People 'on the street' often do think about it, just in a more instinctive, applied manner.
People who 'have time to think about it' put things in entirely constructed contexts, that may make no sense in the real world.
This is evident in business as well, it's shocking how different the reality of business from all of the even more applied aspects of anything one might learn in bschool.
Not to mention often just parroting things they've been told by the "teacher" who may or may not have had a fully independent thought process himself. I mean if I were a professor who wants to save his job, I for one would definitely approve of "ban on culturally insensitive clothing"
"Complex societies are possible and durable only when people are emotionally invested in, and help, one another; we’d be living in smaller units and more solitary fashions if we weren’t equipped for such collaboration"
Has this person lived in a city? I don't see how you could be more solitary or isolated. Big, complex societies are almost entirely dependent on collaboration with small groups in compartmentalized ways. Usually you're very far removed from the things and people that actually support your life, and emotional investment is zero. It's really the smaller, more rural areas where combining collaboration with emotional investment is necessary.
I have to disagree with your statement because in my experience having lived in a big city for my entire life - we are highly collaborative to the point of dependence. Smaller communities are much more isolated and self sufficient, but larger cities have larger demands which results in a general understanding of the population that they need to do their part. It is not biologically possible to be invested in millions of people, so we get invested in the culture we participate in
But it has little to do with the main concerns that the students tried to voice (without being listened to). Please do not present it as the gist of the situation.
What concerns of theirs were not listened to, and which ones do you think were legitimate? Today is the first time I'm seeing these videos and I cannot see anything that matches your description. I heard him say "I agree with you" about fifty times and say "I disagree with you" on one point - that he caused violence to occur. He certainly did a better job at listening than I ever would to such a disrespectful mob.
> But it has little to do with the main concerns that the students tried to voice (without being listened to).
I mean, they certainly seem to have been listened to by Christakis. And it certainly seems like their concern is, in fact, addressed by the point about free speech.
What do you view those concerns were, in specific, and why do you think they were not "listened to" during a two hour meeting? Or are you just expressing a generalised approval for the protestors and disapproval of Christakis?
In 2005 Yale kicked David Graeber out for his political beliefs. Yale is giving this Christakis awards, yet we hear an endless lament over student backlash to the stereotyped Halloween costume comments.
It is hard for me to grasp how the Tom Perkins class of people see themselves as victims, but as Barry Switzer used to say, lots of people born on third base think they hit a triple.
Let's face it, most of those student are frustrated affirmative action type of students with chip on their shoulder. They don't belong there and whatever they achieve in life is dependent on keeping those handouts based on identity and outrage.
The whole article reads like middle-aged man's crying for attention.
Well, i guess could be worse though. For example, over a decade Yale's professor (now moved to Oxford) Stathis Kalyvas has even tried to whitewash the greek military dictatorship.
Anyway, it's only a healthy sign that young people don't stay silent to racism.
I'm glad young people at least think about not staying silent to racism.
However, do not forget, these students were yelling at a man for a letter his wife wrote. That is not defensible. It's also sexist--as if the man is the one who's really behind all the wife's thoughts and can't think for herself.
uhm, the Open Letter they signed is specifically about Erika Christakis.
If her husband did try to get in the discussion and received the response he got, how that makes them sexist?
You switched topics. The article cites the incident where a group of Yale students surrounded this Yale professor whom the article is about and started screaming at him.
It is too bad that so many people are so quick to put an -ism label on anyone and anything which they do not agree with, without giving a moments thought to whether that label is really applicable and whether such overuse of the terms might end up doing more harm than (supposed) good.
It is even worse that this attitude is so prevalent in institutes of higher education where an open mind to a different view is essential for the institute to achieve its intended purpose.
Were this all confined to the realm of digital communications I'd suggest implementing rules around the misuse of -ism labels so that the negative effects of a misapplied label would backfire, something akin to a moderation system. As it stands now it is totally free of consequence to heap someone with a bucket of -isms in the hope that some of them will stick.
One must be gentile, I guess. Of cause, the lower classes have no way to be that, stuck in a lowest wage war inflicted on them from up high. Well, this new aristocrats will do with the land of the free what they always do to societys. Human nature 1:constitution 0. Just another copy of Europe.
Maybe the tribal identity is muted in good times, when the greater, more complex societal organization offers advancement and the reasonable hope of attaining goals.
But when inequality increases, when a grim determinism seems to hover over all fates, then the tribe is more appealing. So people make them, or draw into them. And tribal allegiance requires demonstration.
Here, students who already suspect they'll get the short end of the stick in the years ahead signal tribal allegiance, as it becomes a growing power in the world. Smart, I guess. But sad if you believe(d) in the complex society.
I was an undergraduate at Yale in 2015, and I agree with @krastanov's claim that the Christakis incident was a tipping point in a much larger struggle between students and administrators. [1]
Also, I lived in Silliman College and would frequently exchange long emails (1500+ words) with Nicholas and Erika. They would always respond thoughtfully and extend an invitation to discuss further over a meal. Perhaps the Halloween note was poorly written... but anyone who actually spoke with Erika knew that student activists had distorted her message beyond recognition.
Consider the wide diversity in our world. Many different faiths, creeds, axis of preference.. most of which have been persecuted in some way in the past. Many of the different European colonist groups that came to this country came to avoid persecution, and the resulting American culture has persecuted native americans, irish, italians, jews, hispanics, african-americans... and the list goes on.
If we ban any activity that offends, or could offend anyone, then the eventual extension of that is banning much of our activity. Yet we cannot allow all activities, because some are intended to offend, as made clear by the actor's speech and other actions.
So where do we draw the line? For me personally (and I have no grounds for saying this should be your metric), it is where malice is clear to me. If it from ignorance (the college student who wear's a witch's hat, offending Wiccans), or from prevailing custom (skimpy halloween costumes, offending some conservatives), then I can't ascribe malice to the costume. If someone wears a Nazi SS uniform, a reasonable person could assume the wearer intended malice. Even so, they should be asked, to confirm malice before punitive action, and informed if malice is not clear - ignorance is still a possibility.
One could say any costume that can be labelled cultural appropriation is evidence of malice on some level, and should be avoided. What does that mean though? Perhaps it would mean avoiding all costumes that do not depict non-human monsters? Would that avoid cultural appropriation, and the possibility of offense?
No. Because a culture's monsters are often unique to the culture, and what one culture might regard as a monster due to some metric, another might worship or praise.
The appearance of half-man / half-animal for example, another might include worship. "Ganesha or (Ganesh) is the elephant-headed god in Hinduism. He is the son of Shiva and Parvati. Ganesha is a very popular god in Hinduism, and is one of the most worshipped. " - Wikipedia.
Another example was mentioned before, the prevalence of "Witches" in pointy hats and warts at Halloween, which fall under the label of monster according to many, but has little resemblance to Wiccans, other than the label of Witch.
So where does that leave us? It would seem that dressing up as anything other than ourselves, or our own cultural heritage is out.
Still not enough, because each person's take on their cultural heritage is different. According to Ancestry DNA I am over 70% scandinavian, and I've traced our family to Vikings. Suppose I dress up as a historically accurate by most accounts Bear-shirt (ber-serkr, aka Berserker) for Halloween? That could still offend someone who has a different view of their own Viking heritage.
So we are now at not being able to dress up as anything other than ourselves, if we do not want to offend anyone.
Even that runs the risk of offending. In some cultures certain colors or decorations (clothing with a dragon with 7 claws was only for the Japanese emperor in Japan during certain periods; white is the color of death in some asian cultures; all black makes some people worry about your mental health due to similarities with clothing worn during some terrible active shooter tragedies).
So we cannot avoid the risk of offending.
For me, it means I tend to turn a blind eye to anything that does not exhibit malice, even that which personally offends me. I will not chastise for a typical native american costume, unless the person adds deliberately offensive elements. I won't chastise for the drunk Thor costumes. I won't chastise for the Witches with pointy hats and warts.
105 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 151 ms ] threadIs it strange to anyone else that there'd be a run on sentence that starts with discussing how deluded some people are and ends with trying to claim a moral stance for unification?
Here is in summary his "crime" a letter his wife wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-halloween-email-l...
https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing...
"Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society."
They are both right. People who opposed them are wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves.
But I don't believe that anyone should be shunned. Maybe thrown in jail, if they hurt others, but not shunned.
Just curious, what would be the opposite of them dismissing the concerns. It seems you have been there and have a better perspective on things. So given the context at that time, how should this professor have reacted that would have been satisfactory for the students?
[1]: I mean, just see all the sibling comments that assume this whole thing was about some stupid letter about costumes, and everyone calling all the students childish and dismissing their legitimate concerns (not even trying to find out what these concerns were) because they have seen the reaction of a couple overly-emotional students on YouTube.
That does make sense. In a way a lot of conflicts suffer from this. It is not always just the issue that starts the confrontation but there is a whole "iceberg" part hiding underneath that's not being usually addressed and might not be visible to a casual observer.
> I mean, just see all the sibling comments
Thank you for taking the time to respond. That's why I wanted your opinion as you seems have been there and are aware of a larger context.
I don't think anyone accused the students of arguing in bad faith. I think they sincerely believe what they were saying. I also think they were wrong.
What I'm saying is that it seems likely the students understand exactly what was written in that latter and how the argument in that letter could be steelmanned, and that they also understand their own point of view in depth, and they should not be dismissed as people so wrong as to be un-serious debaters.
Furthermore it is also a blatant disregard for whether what you think someone means is actually what they are saying. That really is bad faith in a pretty raw form.
I know the holocaust happened. I don't need to listen to holocaust deniers talking about the size of the ovens or any of their other talking points. I know I'm not going to change their mind; I know they're not going to change my mind. I also know that my society is better because we teach children about these points of denial without suggesting that they're true.
b) More importantly: how on earth such a letter could cause alarm, to the point where someone had to be fired.
It's on the 'b' point that the SJW's not only lose the argument, but should be quashed.
Controversial statements require nuance, but this is not even that. It's not controversial.
That Yale would dump someone for such a statement is shocking. It makes me wary almost to the point of conspiratorial as to who on earth could possibly be happening.
That's very telling of the motivations behind this stunt.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This video was surreal, I had trouble convincing myself this wasn't some sort of hoax.
Consider for a moment that the rise of the right wing political movements are in my opinion, an irrational response to the growth of tribalism and outrage culture on the left.
I don't think there's a causal relationship, perhaps it exacerbates the issue yes, but it's not the cause of it.
I think far-right rhetoric is just too easy to digest, a clear group of enemies is identified for you (just like it is for the people on the left you described). And digging deeper and analyzing an increasingly complex socioeconomical situation, where things interconnect on a global level, is becoming harder and harder, so the inherent tribalism in us drives us to adopt those easy answers.
Where? That type of culture definitely exists in at least some places (e.g. Italy which is where I grew up, I've seen examples in UK too).
Wonder what is the cause then. The economy is stagnant and people are reaching for the extremes?
It's all over the media in the UK
Does your theory explain why having to put up with decades of this sort of thing hasn't galvanized a Trump-of-the-left into power?
There have been a few shots at electing candidates who promised to address various sorts of "left-wing" concerns. Most recently, in their own ways, Hillary Clinton (feminism) and Bernie Sanders (humanism). And Barach Obama (anti-racism). Back in the day, there were Eugene McCarthy (pacifism) and Jessie Jackson (anti-racism). Even Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Although Clinton was a right-wing Democratic con, in my opinion. But in my cynical moments, I suspect the same of Barach Obama.
Anyway, there's really nothing unique about Trump, in this regard.
I like the premise of the book, that we are all inherently good, but I am confused by the author's stance when they do not acknowledge any of their own dismissiveness and lack of empathy in the whole situation.
Can you give some examples?
And then there are big things that thankfully happen less and less often, are dealt with more swiftly, and are less ambiguous (like some more ancient professors making disturbing comments).
And then when you get a complete dismissal of your initially polite and well-worded informal complaint... Of course you will get angry, even if anger is unproductive.
Anyway, I wasn't there, so I simply speak for my limited understanding of what has happened.
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure if the unification efforts or the author are going to be successful if he's putting passages like this in his book.
No one would disagree with that, how could you? The real statement is, "It's possible to go too far when defending an identity."
And, honestly, how could you also not agree with that?
Because honestly I followed the situation extremely closely when it happened, and the only thing I was disgusted by was how an intelligent student body was incapable of looking beyond the tribalism of their position and try to actually understand what the Christakises were saying. So if there is more to the story I'd like to know what it is.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19445027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19442868
Most of the "overwhelming evidence of the contrary" is the prof trying to pacify overly-angry and overly-emotional students in a YouTube video, without any commentary on the majority of the events and conversations surrounding the debacle. The fact is that the prof did little to fight the casual racism on campus (and their position as "head of college" expects them to deal with problems surrounding bullying/racism/sexism/etc). They simply tried to switch the topic (not maliciously, rather because of obliviousness) to talking about freedom of speech. Most people already agree with them about the freedom of speech topic, so let's try to do something about the casual even oblivious racism on campus.
You honestly think there is popular legitimacy in student's demand for authoritative policing of Halloween costumes?
(Edit: literally putting Yale students, the nations 'best and brightest' under more policing literally than children, high schoolers or other adults who for some crazy reason don't need to have their halloween costumes regulated)
This is not a 'yes, but' situation.
There are no 'butts'.
I'm actually quite shocked to read your comment as I had hoped that most Yale students had common sense and thought of the whole episode as pedantic rubbish.
That's the end of the story.
There's no reason for the faculty to have to address it further.
Whether or not responses were 'tone deaf' it subjective, and certainly besides the point with respect to anyone being fired.
Students who bullied the staff should have been admonished (or possibly expelled), not the other way around.
Please provide any link on this, i'm curious about these problems.
This story is rather ridiculous (and it would have been funny if it was an isolated incident, but a subset of the students face this more often than others): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/05/1...
YDN from around that time would probably have testimonials.
Throw people who are untrained into the situation and invite our polarizing media to the event and bad outcomes are more or less guaranteed.
Christakis isn't a trained psychologist. I am a fan of his work on network effects and he didn't cause unnecessary further escalation, but he still wasn't the right guy to send into that quad. Send in a Marshall Rosenberg and the outcome would have been different.
The idea that someone else's opinion or words 'hurt you' is entirely in your head. I'm told that wise Italian grandmothers tell their grandchildren "what other people think of you is none of your business." You can choose to be completely okay, or you can act like a baby. It's entirely your choice. Once you get that, once you embrace that, it is liberating. You are free of the slavery of other people's opinions. You are free of racism, of elitism, of sexism, of all of that s* because you realise that their opinions are meaningless to you. When it comes to physical actions, that's the line you let nobody cross, and you get the police involved. This is just part of growing up. But don't listen to me, I don't have a horse in this race, I'm not from your country, and I'm not from your generation. I'm just someone far removed from the situation spouting another meaningless opinion. There, see? You really don't care what I think. Good on ya.
However I agree, there is no point in caring about the negative comments that someone throws at you if they are just comments. Too bad that usually it is not just comments, rather it is also fewer mentorship opportunities, worse starting salaries, and all the other consequences of racism.
And you are wrong about the "agreement students have with Yale". There is supposedly a code of conduct that includes protecting each other's dignity.
I'm excited to see if and how "Blueprint" addresses this.
Certainly there are complex moral issues here that can be discussed for days on end, but as a rule of thumb, focusing first on your ingroups (family, friends, community) will yield results pretty close to optimal. There's a reason humanity - just like other species - evolved the ingroup preference.
Absolutely with you. My suggestion: Climate change. Why would you need hostile aliens when our environment itself turns against us?
Why would you choose to trust someone who is not exposed to a topic and hasn't put much thought into it over those who have?
You're sadly misinformed. A huge amount of culture came out of these institutions, including pop culture. As one tiny example, Lady Gaga went to an elite private school in Manhattan. Spike Lee got his start at NYU.
Let me address your two cherry-picked examples though. Lady Gaga is overrated. Without the aesthetic (which is an amalgamation of many creative energies from different backgrounds), she would be another formulaic pop artist. Sorry to any Gaga fans, but her music is not that interesting on its own. She's no Björk or Nina Simone or SOPHIE. Her time at an "elite private school in Manhattan" apparently didn't teach her how to color outside the lines. Give me the name of her magnum opus and I will gladly stack it against any number of great albums, both indie and mainstream, from the past 10 years. She won't fare well.
Spike Lee is a more interesting example. I love Spike Lee. He does come from a relatively well-to-do background. But you have to admit, the subject matter of his work tends to focus on disenfranchised people and communities. We also can't ignore the racial prejudices of people in Hollywood that may have made his story a bit more turbulent. I'd have to look into this a bit more but I'm willing to bet it's not as simple as you think.
Final note, I apologize if any of my arguments here have come across as insensitive. I believe that personal struggle plays a huge role in the creation of important artists and creators but I absolutely do not see that as a valid excuse for social injustice. My original point was only targeted to OP's post. The Yale professor mentioned in this article and the students calling him "disgusting" are largely insignificant in my view, and I considered it a waste of a click (especially considering NYT only gives you three free reads a month).
Can you name anything like that besides music? I'm genuinely curious.
When I mention "modern art" one might be quick to associate it with the type of people I was criticizing in my original post; rich, well-adjusted individuals who go to Ivy League schools and end up spending more money on paintings than you or I will ever see in our lives. But it didn't start this way. If you trace modern art back to its roots, you'll find a trend among most of the foundational artists and painters of this period: personal turmoil and careers which were almost universally dismissed by the art schools and museums of the time.
Vincent van Gogh's last words before shooting himself in the chest with a revolver is reported to have been, "The sadness will last forever." Indeed, van Gogh lived a troubled life of alcoholism, poor academic performance and psychotic episodes. He is also widely credited as being one of the most important 19th century painters and an artist whose works serve as an underpinning of expressionism, one of the foundational stylistic movements of modern art. We see similar lives of turmoil among other important post-impressionists during this period. Paul Gauguin, who witnessed domestic abuse and death in the family at an early age, ended up broke and living in a hut in Panama when he produced some of his most important works.
Of course there were other key post-impressionists who lived less tragic lives, such as Henri Matisse who was lucky enough to be non-Jewish during the Nazi occupation of Paris. He and other artists of this movement were harshly criticized and rejected by the art establishment of the time, however, which considered their rejection of tradition an affront to art. Nonetheless, it's this artistic movement that led to an entire era of artistic experimentation; expressionism, cubism, surrealism, abstract art, pop art and other genres would follow.
Those "rich pricks at Yale, Harvard, etc" make up a tiny fraction of society, likely far less than 1%. Accordingly, it would be crazy to think they create a majority or even a plurality of culture.
However, they do have a very outsize influence. They make up less than 1% of the population, but contribute much more than that percentage to culture (I'd unscientifically gander somewhere between 2 and 8%).
So here are a few more "cherry-picked" pop musicians, surely some of them would qualify under your rubric:
- Tom Morello - Rage Against the Machine - Harvard
- Lauryn Hill - Columbia (dropped out, but released The Score while still a student)
- Alicia Keys - Columbia (dropped out after growing fame)
- Greg Graffin - Bad Religion (punk band) - Cornell PhD
In the non-pop world, at least classical and much avante garde, much of the new activity is based out of these "elite institutions".
People 'on the street' often do think about it, just in a more instinctive, applied manner.
People who 'have time to think about it' put things in entirely constructed contexts, that may make no sense in the real world.
This is evident in business as well, it's shocking how different the reality of business from all of the even more applied aspects of anything one might learn in bschool.
Has this person lived in a city? I don't see how you could be more solitary or isolated. Big, complex societies are almost entirely dependent on collaboration with small groups in compartmentalized ways. Usually you're very far removed from the things and people that actually support your life, and emotional investment is zero. It's really the smaller, more rural areas where combining collaboration with emotional investment is necessary.
That one line (regarding free speech and what should be protected):
> student: Even if it offends me?
> professor: Especially if it offends you!
That little exchange defined how I view freedom of speech.
But it has little to do with the main concerns that the students tried to voice (without being listened to). Please do not present it as the gist of the situation.
I mean, they certainly seem to have been listened to by Christakis. And it certainly seems like their concern is, in fact, addressed by the point about free speech.
What do you view those concerns were, in specific, and why do you think they were not "listened to" during a two hour meeting? Or are you just expressing a generalised approval for the protestors and disapproval of Christakis?
It is hard for me to grasp how the Tom Perkins class of people see themselves as victims, but as Barry Switzer used to say, lots of people born on third base think they hit a triple.
Well, i guess could be worse though. For example, over a decade Yale's professor (now moved to Oxford) Stathis Kalyvas has even tried to whitewash the greek military dictatorship.
Anyway, it's only a healthy sign that young people don't stay silent to racism.
However, do not forget, these students were yelling at a man for a letter his wife wrote. That is not defensible. It's also sexist--as if the man is the one who's really behind all the wife's thoughts and can't think for herself.
It's too bad you can't say silent to sexism.
It is even worse that this attitude is so prevalent in institutes of higher education where an open mind to a different view is essential for the institute to achieve its intended purpose.
Were this all confined to the realm of digital communications I'd suggest implementing rules around the misuse of -ism labels so that the negative effects of a misapplied label would backfire, something akin to a moderation system. As it stands now it is totally free of consequence to heap someone with a bucket of -isms in the hope that some of them will stick.
But when inequality increases, when a grim determinism seems to hover over all fates, then the tribe is more appealing. So people make them, or draw into them. And tribal allegiance requires demonstration.
Here, students who already suspect they'll get the short end of the stick in the years ahead signal tribal allegiance, as it becomes a growing power in the world. Smart, I guess. But sad if you believe(d) in the complex society.
Also, I lived in Silliman College and would frequently exchange long emails (1500+ words) with Nicholas and Erika. They would always respond thoughtfully and extend an invitation to discuss further over a meal. Perhaps the Halloween note was poorly written... but anyone who actually spoke with Erika knew that student activists had distorted her message beyond recognition.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19439316
Consider the wide diversity in our world. Many different faiths, creeds, axis of preference.. most of which have been persecuted in some way in the past. Many of the different European colonist groups that came to this country came to avoid persecution, and the resulting American culture has persecuted native americans, irish, italians, jews, hispanics, african-americans... and the list goes on.
If we ban any activity that offends, or could offend anyone, then the eventual extension of that is banning much of our activity. Yet we cannot allow all activities, because some are intended to offend, as made clear by the actor's speech and other actions.
So where do we draw the line? For me personally (and I have no grounds for saying this should be your metric), it is where malice is clear to me. If it from ignorance (the college student who wear's a witch's hat, offending Wiccans), or from prevailing custom (skimpy halloween costumes, offending some conservatives), then I can't ascribe malice to the costume. If someone wears a Nazi SS uniform, a reasonable person could assume the wearer intended malice. Even so, they should be asked, to confirm malice before punitive action, and informed if malice is not clear - ignorance is still a possibility.
One could say any costume that can be labelled cultural appropriation is evidence of malice on some level, and should be avoided. What does that mean though? Perhaps it would mean avoiding all costumes that do not depict non-human monsters? Would that avoid cultural appropriation, and the possibility of offense?
No. Because a culture's monsters are often unique to the culture, and what one culture might regard as a monster due to some metric, another might worship or praise.
The appearance of half-man / half-animal for example, another might include worship. "Ganesha or (Ganesh) is the elephant-headed god in Hinduism. He is the son of Shiva and Parvati. Ganesha is a very popular god in Hinduism, and is one of the most worshipped. " - Wikipedia.
Another example was mentioned before, the prevalence of "Witches" in pointy hats and warts at Halloween, which fall under the label of monster according to many, but has little resemblance to Wiccans, other than the label of Witch.
So where does that leave us? It would seem that dressing up as anything other than ourselves, or our own cultural heritage is out.
Still not enough, because each person's take on their cultural heritage is different. According to Ancestry DNA I am over 70% scandinavian, and I've traced our family to Vikings. Suppose I dress up as a historically accurate by most accounts Bear-shirt (ber-serkr, aka Berserker) for Halloween? That could still offend someone who has a different view of their own Viking heritage.
So we are now at not being able to dress up as anything other than ourselves, if we do not want to offend anyone.
Even that runs the risk of offending. In some cultures certain colors or decorations (clothing with a dragon with 7 claws was only for the Japanese emperor in Japan during certain periods; white is the color of death in some asian cultures; all black makes some people worry about your mental health due to similarities with clothing worn during some terrible active shooter tragedies).
So we cannot avoid the risk of offending.
For me, it means I tend to turn a blind eye to anything that does not exhibit malice, even that which personally offends me. I will not chastise for a typical native american costume, unless the person adds deliberately offensive elements. I won't chastise for the drunk Thor costumes. I won't chastise for the Witches with pointy hats and warts.