Should protestors be able to unilaterally declare a public space a private space then keep out reporters/ Intellectual Freedom on College campuses

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

How was she out of line at all?  How is it out of line to advocate for freedom of expression and intellectual freedom on college campuses?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

This is from a Vox piece on this controversy:

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/7/9689330/yale-halloween-email

From the article:

"The Silliman Master’s role is not only to provide intellectual stimulation, but also to make Silliman a safe space that all students can come home to," Jencey Paz, a Yale student, wrote in an

op-ed for the Yale Herald

. "His responsibility is to make it a place … where you can feel free to talk with them about your pain without worrying that the conversation will turn into an argument every single time."

One line from Paz's op-ed stood out: "I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my pain." This line drew widespread criticism online, and the Yale Herald later took the op-ed offline.

The "I don't want to debate" line spoke to a growing trend worrying some observers of higher education, beyond just Yale: In the balance between sensitivity versus critical thinking and academic freedom, students are increasingly emphasizing the former over the latter.

On college campuses around the country, students, particularly students of color, are forcing white students and administrators to confront the pernicious effects of racial bias.

At the same time, students are demanding that colleges be more sensitive to their mental health and well-being. They're feeling empowered to make requests that professors sometimes feel interfere with their long-cherished right to research freely and to speak their mind in public.

The question facing campuses, then, is how to weigh those issues of sensitivity and mental health against sometimes-competing values of free speech and academic freedom.

Students have called for graduation speakers who have done things they consider offensive to be disinvited from commencement. Some have requested "trigger warnings" for material on syllabuses that could exacerbate mental health issues. At Northwestern University, a professor who wrote an essay about a dispute involving a professor accused of sexual assault ended up facing a Title IX complaint due to her comments about the students involved.

Even President Obama weighed in on the debate in September, criticizing college students who want to be "coddled." "Anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with 'em," he said. "But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, 'You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say.' That’s not the way we learn."

If you don't want to debate or be faced with ideas that may be different from yours, as we tell the offended Christian Students complaining about being offended by some discussions, you shouldn't be in college.

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

How was she out of line at all?  How is it out of line to advocate for freedom of expression and intellectual freedom on college campuses?

I think I've already explained this, but I'll sum it up. EC's position is not purely intellectual, and in my opinion that means she needs to think about more than simple intellectual freedom. As I said, I don't think EC committed a capital offense, but if she'd approached me before clicking "send", I'd have counseled her to hold off.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

This is what Slate has to say about this:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/07/yale_students_protest_over_racial_insensitivity_and_free_speech.html

From the article:

Next, a group of roughly 100 students convened in the Silliman courtyard to hold Nicholas and Erika Christakis to account. When Nicholas emerged to listen to students’ views, but also to defend his wife’s email, he was engulfed in angry shouting. Realizing that Christakis would not apologize for his stance on free speech, one student urged the others to just “walk away” because “he doesn’t deserve to be listened to.”

I was shocked to watch students treat their professors and administrators with such disrespect. But horrified emotional responses aside, it’s troubling to see the Christakises scapegoated for defending the crucial liberal tradition of free speech. That’s not to dismiss the pain of students of color; I’m sure Yale proves far less hospitable to them than to the wealthy white scions it was founded to serve. Nor should anyone mourn the days of good old college fun, when wearing a racist Halloween costume was considered a harmless bit of white wing-spreading. But in censuring the Christakises for wanting to create “an intellectual space,” students are vociferously exercising the very rights—to speak out against people and practices they find objectionable—that the Christakises seem to want to protect.[emphasis added]

 

I absolutely agree. Do these kids recognize the fact that the Christakis' are advocating for their rights to be on that quad screaming at them? Take a look at what Ormond posted up thread from Prof. Nicholas Christakis about the young lady who was calling him disgusting and screaming at him to resign. He says she should be able to express her beliefs that way. That is what free expression means. It means defending ideas and speech you find personably objectionable. I applaud the Christakis' for putting their money where there mouth is and being consistent in their principles.

[Ormond]

I guess I don't know how Yale has written the job description of "Masters", but to me such a role should definitely NOT include having to listen to a student "talk about their pain" in the absence of intellectual discussion.

To me the role of such a person should include referring students to counselors or therapists on campus if they want to "talk about their pain." (Surely a university as large and wealthy as Yale does have such counselors on their staff.) It is not their role to deal with this "pain" -- and indeed is beyond their expertise and ethically would be wrong for them to do so. 

And that's even without adding that, as the article I linked to points out, the whole idea of "trigger warnings" actually runs counter to the research on what makes for good mental health. 

[Summerfell]

Summerfell,

Where did the bullying come from in the first place?

Yeah, I see that the debate has moved on now to general campus culture debates, I just wanted to provide that information on the specifics of what was happening at Missouri. 

I actually don't see the problem with black students creating their own spaces of solidarity. The problem for me becomes when they want to stage a public protest--at that point you need to be prepared to debate your position. As for the in-between spaces, such as sensitivity to minority students within classrooms and such? Not sure of my own opinion, tbh.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Summerfell,

I don't have a problem with "space of solidarity" either.  Just don't claim a public space and then seek to exclude people from that public space.

[Swordfish]

My understanding is that college masters are not just creating spaces for intellectual discussion but that they also influence the "home" environment to which students belong, and I suspect that's what the protester was referring to. I can't read anyone's mind here, but I think she was saying that it's not Christakis' primary job to uphold principles of free speech but to be as welcoming as possible to the students under his authority. I don't know much about the role of a college master so I'm not qualified to make that judgment, but presumably the student knows more than I.

I think Erika Christakis' message, while not without merit, was perhaps not the thing that needed to be said at that time. I myself once made a similar blunder on someone's blog, making a nitpicking point of logic that wasn't important for the place and time, and I got roundly thrashed for it. So I'm sympathetic to EC because, like her, I was subjected to a liberal hazing, but, looking back, I see that to some extent I brought it on myself. I think maybe Christakis did the same.

I'm curious about which parts of that email you feel should have been held back.  Because it seems to me ot be completely non offensive in just about every way.

I read somewhere that some students had approached her with their concerns about the policy, and that is what triggered the email.  It's not clear to me who she sent it to though, or how it was disseminated.

[Ormond]

Here's a link I think is good to add to this discussion. Although I think the complaint about the Yale administration responding to the swastika incident quicker than the sorority accusation doesn't take into account the difference in a case where their is obvious physical evidence vs, one where there isn't; and I think the Christakises seem to have been the target of anger displaced from more appropriate targets, this does show that this didn't happen in a vacuum (and makes TrackerNeil's idea that Ms. Christakis perhaps should have been more circumspect in posting her email at this time much more supportable):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-lewis/whats-really-going-on-at-yale_b_8512736.html

 

[TrackerNeil]

I'm curious about which parts of that email you feel should have been held back.  Because it seems to me ot be completely non offensive in just about every way.

I don't really know what else I can say that I haven't already. I think that EC's message was not in itself offensive, but it's the kind of message that is almost certain to cause controversy, and is that really what a college master wants to do on this topic? Was the message absolutely crucial? I'm not questioning Christakis' character or intentions, and I'm not justifying any overreaction to her email. That's pretty much all I can say on this topic.

[mcbigski]

I think my last post got lost in the board database reshuffle.  But in a nutshell, in response the pervasiveness of white privilege, I made the modest proposal that the only feasible solution would be equal, separate, accommodations.

Then I see today that there was black only healing space created.  You can't fucking out Swift reality these days.

[Altherion]

I think my last post got lost in the board database reshuffle.  But in a nutshell, in response the pervasiveness of white privilege, I made the modest proposal that the only feasible solution would be equal, separate, accommodations.

Then I see today that there was black only healing space created.  You can't fucking out Swift reality these days.

It's rather strange, isn't it? The protesters of today seem to be bent on undoing most of the things their predecessors have accomplished. Colleges used to be a highly regulated environment causing students to fight for adult freedoms... and now they want the authorities to create "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" for them. Likewise, people fought long and hard to end segregation... and now these are self-segregating (yes, I know that at the moment it's not the same thing -- but it's going in a direction where the effects will be similar).

[mcbigski]

Got a notification that you quoted my post.  That feature is probably going to drive most of us to Shrike level posting amounts.  Can only imagine what it'll do the heavy posters.

[TerraPrime]

While not amazed, I am for sure mildly surprised by the lack of perspective on the issue of free speech when it concerns race issues. Do we really think free speech trumps all other considerations? All the time? Does that mean that holocaust denial needs to be included in a curriculum to properly challenge students? Or maybe the bio departments should teach creationism? After all, we wouldn't want to deprive our students of every chance to be "intellectually challenged" at every possible opportunities.  

More specifically, when it is black people taking a stand to problematize the status quo, the free speech argument is levied against them, accusing them of wanting to police thoughts and speech. And more importantly, the focus on the free speech angle drowns out the other parts of the complaint because it's safe and okay to deny a request to limit speech while it's far more difficult to find reasons to justify not wanting to change what we're doing for other reasons. This is a classic case of hearing without listening.

Let me also point out that a lot of the people decrying the demands of the black students are probably the same people who would get upset at others for burning the U.S. flag.

Ultimately, students are people, too, with their own individual cultural baggage. It behooves educators and institutions to keep that in mind, lest we lose sight of the human aspect of an entirely human endeavor - teaching.

[mcbigski]

While not amazed, I am for sure mildly surprised by the lack of perspective on the issue of free speech when it concerns race issues. Do we really think free speech trumps all other considerations? All the time? Does that mean that holocaust denial needs to be included in a curriculum to properly challenge students? Or maybe the bio departments should teach creationism? After all, we wouldn't want to deprive our students of every chance to be "intellectually challenged" at every possible opportunities.  

More specifically, when it is black people taking a stand to problematize the status quo, the free speech argument is levied against them, accusing them of wanting to police thoughts and speech. And more importantly, the focus on the free speech angle drowns out the other parts of the complaint because it's safe and okay to deny a request to limit speech while it's far more difficult to find reasons to justify not wanting to change what we're doing for other reasons. This is a classic case of hearing without listening.

Let me also point out that a lot of the people decrying the demands of the black students are probably the same people who would get upset at others for burning the U.S. flag.

Ultimately, students are people, too, with their own individual cultural baggage. It behooves educators and institutions to keep that in mind, lest we lose sight of the human aspect of an entirely human endeavor - teaching.

Terra, I know you're smarter than that.  Could you argue from a stronger position?

What a straw man about "After all, we wouldn't want to deprive our students of every chance to be "intellectually challenged" at every possible opportunity."   

Clearly, there are an infinite number of dumb ideas, and there's no reason to teach all of them.  Teaching critical thinking would be a phenomenal improvement over the lefty campus status quo though.

And also, that's quite a leap to say that any counter argument made against a black person on racial issues is somehow using free speech as a cudgel.  Frankly, you're the one with selective hearing.

Also, equating people skeptical that Missou is actually dangerous place for black people with neck beards who hate flag burners is also a cheap shot and beneath you.

As for the ultimate goal of educational institutions, teaching ought to prepare students for an indifferent world instead of just indoctrinating them in the grievance de jour.

[AverageGuy]

Do we really think free speech trumps all other considerations? All the time? Does that mean that holocaust denial needs to be included in a curriculum to properly challenge students? Or maybe the bio departments should teach creationism?

That's conflating free speech with equal time. 

[Ormond]

Terra, I think you are mischaracterizing this. Any course on the Holocaust of course should include a discussion of Holocaust denial, and I would applaud a biology course that discusses creationism, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THEM. Some of the examples I am worried about are where students don't even want the existence of certain ideas mentioned because it makes them feel uncomfortable. Not discussing such things actually leaves the students without the information they need to counter them when they run across them in other parts of society. 

It seems to me that the students at Yale have a right to be upset that their earlier concerns about racism on campus were not listened to. And there certainly is a danger right now that focusing on the over the top objections of a few students to the Christakis email will allow people to ignore the more rational complaints about race on that campus which have nothing to do with free speech. But that should itself be implemented by focusing on their own free speech, not on their emotional reactions to the speech of others. 

[TerraPrime]

AverageGuy:

i don't think I am, in the context of this discussion, where folks like Ser Scot are arguing that students' need to be exposed to controversial and negative ideas seems to trump other factors, such as feeling being under attack. But sure, take it out of the classroom hypothetical, and my point still stands: free speech considerations are deployed more on some topics than they are on others, i.e., on some topics, we are more comfortable with limiting free speech, whether it be holocaust denial or slavery apologetics.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Ormond

No, I don't believe I am mischaracterizing the situation. I think the mischaracterization is taking place in the argument of equating a request for safe space, which should be read as a request for a reprieve from the constant barrage of negative attacks on black identity, with a desire to be immunized from traumatic speech and/or an assault on free speech.

Black student's don't need further education in college to know that they will have to face racists and racism in this world.

Black students do not need to be intellectually prepared for the racialized experience of their existence.

When we insist that, in the name of intellectual vigor, they be denied the request for a safe space on campus, we are not doing them any favors because we are not exposing them to anything that they had not already experienced and which they know they will continue to experience. To focus on our duty to intellectually challenge them, on this issue, is self-serving and tone-deaf. We should, instead, focus on our other duty, which is to provide a positive experience for them so they can take some respite against a racist society.

If a wait staff who works 10-hour shifts asks for a 30 minute break, it's not that they are shirking from their duties - they're just fucking tired and want a break. Similarly, black students who ask for a safe space are not asking to be coddled - they are probably just tired of the racist bullshit and want a break from it. Are they trying to limit speech? Yes, of course, because certain patterns and types of speech, in the context of a lack of appropriate response from the institution, are causing them distress.

So yes, in general, we should teach things even if, or particularly when, they are controversial. But in this particular issue of race, are we really teaching them anything by telling them that "hey look, there are racist people who like to say nasty and unjust things about black people?"

[Ormond]

 

Black student's don't need further education in college to know that they will have to face racists and racism in this world.

Black students do not need to be intellectually prepared for the racialized experience of their existence.

 

I very much agree with the first paragraph above.

But I very much disagree with the second. I do not believe that simply experiencing something, even something that happens to you every moment of your existence, automatically leads to you understanding it intellectually.