7 ms·

Anyone remember when students seemed to be actually fighting for freedom of speech, and universities were about challenging people's ideas and assumptions? Wha

• wheaties 11y ago
  Remember when professors actively made you confront ideas that you felt were uncomfortable to explore yourself and examine if you had any inner biases? Those were the professors whose classes you _wanted_ to attend...
• dudul 11y ago
  Same here. I want to believe that it's just a minority of students, but it's like every day there is a new incident like that. It was reported that most of the administration in colleges is composed of liberals. To be clear, I have nothing against liberals but the over-representation of a specific political/societal opinion in an education setting is not a good thing. And I would say the same thing if it was mostly conservatives in charge of education. And to contrast with what I just wrote, I don't think colleges are responsible (not directly at least) for this new trend, I think they just go with the flow and try to cater to students to attract them, they just give them what they want (safe spaces, puppy time, trigger warnings, etc) to make sure they can keep bringing revenue.
  • chris_wot 11y ago
    Interesting observation. Can't understand why you have been voted down!
    • pjc50 11y ago
      Sweeping characterisation of college students as "liberals", especially in a thread where they're being accused of illiberalism. It's the continuation of the US 'culture war'.
      • thaumasiotes 11y ago
        You're confusing "liberal", the US political affiliation, with "liberal" and "liberalism", the philosophy.
        • pjc50 11y ago
          As vezzy-fnord is arguing nearby, they're not unrelated.
          • thaumasiotes 11y ago
            The sweeping generalization that college students are liberals is completely warranted.
          • chris_wot 11y ago
            Link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10535836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10535836 The more I read that posters comments the more of a fan I become. Not because I agree, but because it makes me think. I honestly don't say that lightly.
      • AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        OK, you used the word "illiberalism". It's a good word, and perfectly expresses your point. It has a nice, clear meaning. But "liberal" has two meanings: It means the opposite of "illiberal", that is, in favor of human freedom. It also means "to the left on the political spectrum", which is a completely orthogonal meaning. (The political left can be as anti-freedom as the political right, and historically, I'm not sure which side has been "better".) Whether or not you like it, both definitions of "liberal" are in common usage. If anything, the political usage is more common than the not-illiberal usage. That means regarding it as "culture war" to call the college students "liberal" is... swimming against the tide? Trying to fight an unwinnable war? Not a good occasion for getting up in arms, at any rate.
        • vezzy-fnord 11y ago
          Using the word "liberal" to describe leftist policies is a U.S. invention that emerged out of the New Deal and was later hammered to death by neoconservatives who began abusing it to describe profoundly illiberal ideas, or really anything they disliked. It wasn't some grassroots movement, it was a conscious propaganda technique. "I never use the words Republicans and Democrats. It's liberals and Americans." - James G. Watt. It'd be like if one day people started completely uncritically and unironically referring to "libertarians" as "authoritarians". Sure, it's human language and anything goes, but it wouldn't be any less pants-on-head idiotic. Fun fact: the politically conservative party in Australia is called the Liberal Party.
  • nailer 11y ago
    While a large part of what you're saying is correct, I think the problem you're describing isn't cultural liberals (who are tolerant of dissenting views), but rather cultural authoritarians. These people are on the left, but they are not liberals.
    • dudul 11y ago
      Very true. I guess my confusion comes from the fact that "liberals" is often associated to "left-wing" while "authoritarians" is linked to "conservatism". In the end, they are actually orthogonal concerns.
    • bpodgursky 11y ago
      I mean... while that may be correct in some semantic sense, it's not a useful distinction. If you took a survey of the groups described in the article, 90% would self-identify as liberal. So the distinction you draw isn't really helpful for clarifying the issue.
      • nailer 11y ago
        Sure. But as a cultural liberal, I think the burden is on actual liberals to disown authoritarians. Otherwise the same thing will happen to the left as what happened to the right in the early 2000s: the end of rational thought, and everyone who disagrees 'hates America' (now 'hates minorities'). And similarly a whole bunch of bad things will happen as a result.
        • bpodgursky 11y ago
          > Otherwise the same thing will happen to the left as what happened to the right in the early 2000s Well, the only disagreement I have is that you think that hasn't happened yet.
        • dudul 11y ago
          Don't you think we're pretty much already there? Isn't the first tactic of liberals to call "racist" and "intolerant" everyone who dares disagree with them? Isn't Hillary's main argument that she's a woman, therefore you should vote for her otherwise you hate women? I came late to America and have no interest in politics (I can't even vote) so I want to believe that I'm able to observe and make a fairly impartial judgement. To me there is no difference between conservatives and liberals, the only details is you either hate America or minorities as you pointed out. Politics in America is sports for the educated.
  • wfo 11y ago
    I think it is a tiny minority of students but the weapon these students are using (public humiliation, being abusive and hateful after trying very hard to establish a position of weakness) doesn't discriminate and I think the silence from the rest of the student body and administrators is primarily out of fear. This weapon can destroy anyone no matter how careful or respectful or noble so the simple fear of it is what keeps the administrators and other students silent.
  • morgante 11y ago
    I don't think the fact that liberals dominate the ranks of most universities is actually related to this phenomenon. Faculty liberals are from the time of student activists favoring free speech, not opposing. Though maybe that is part of the problem: it's harder to have a coherent argument when two very different camps both use the same overarching ideological name to define their diametrically opposed views.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  • AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > So when they want to replace some backwards, incompetent administrators, they must turn to activism. If you're pointing that at the Christakises, I seriously question your judgment. At least in this situation, they acted with considerable patience, forbearance, and restraint.
• wfo 11y ago
  What worries me is that it is almost entirely intellectually devoid of content. There are these words "privelege" "microaggression" "appropriation" "problematic" and many others which do have some meaning in some cases but generally are used to express group identity and ostracize those who don't use the language of.. social justice? This entire movement isn't really about ideas or arguments it's about group identity -- people who "get it" and people who don't. And group identity is very flimsy here: especially if you're a white male god forbid beware, you can be part of it but if you ever say the wrong word or give someone the wrong look or even take the time to carefully consider any position other than the default your membership card is revoked and let the smearing and hate and abuse begin. The videos there were particularly poignant and eminently predictable: student expresses group identity with the 'victimization culture' and screams and shouts over careful, thoughtful, measured academic, ignoring his statements and refusing to accept his right to even have an opinion. Student body watches in silence, possibly supporting the abusive screaming student, possibly in support of the professor but absolutely terrified to say anything lest they become a target of hate and abuse and country-wide public harassment. I'm not sure people with this attitude are mature enough to belong at any university, much less one of our best -- learning requires patience, respect, and an openness to other ideas. But maybe there's an opportunity there to teach them if they stay, it would just take a firm and brave stance from college administration -- the cynic in me suspects they'll find a way to fire this professor rather than that.
  • caseydurfee 11y ago
    "This entire movement isn't really about ideas or arguments it's about group identity" I'm curious whether you recognize this as your opinion, which is valuable to you because it flatters your own political beliefs, rather than an objective analysis. You've provided no evidence; you're just arguing with a straw man here. Maybe it's time for a new hobby, bro.
    • wfo 11y ago
      I'm not sure if this is exquisite parody or a genuine response which does nothing but prove my point by responding to thoughtful argument with literally nothing other than a personal smear attack, the technique characteristic of the culture I am describing. You might as well have just said "check your privilege, bro" and ended your post -- there's literally nothing else there. You will of course find all the evidence you need in TFA: the letter, the video, and if you need more it's readily available just look around. Welcome to actual discussion where we do not simply cite facts relevant or not and claim victory but provide thoughtful analysis and intellectual critique and arguments. Take a philosophy class more advanced than the "intro to rhetorical devices" one that taught you that the phrase "straw man" is a good one to throw out at random in an argument and you'll begin to understand.
• zyxley 11y ago
  > What went wrong all those years ago? It probably had to do with the general shift towards substantially more jobs requiring a college degree as a condition of employment, regardless of any actual relevance to the position, and at the same time parents pushing children towards college regardless of personal aptitudes or preferences. The quote from the article is striking: > It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It’s about creating a home here. That's not the attitude of someone going to college because they see it as a method of intellectual development. It's the attitude of someone going to college because they see it as a required phase in their life that has to be done to tick off the checkboxes to enter professional life.
  • Frondo 11y ago
    I interpreted the "creating a home" bit as referring to it being a residence hall, not a classroom. I don't have a problem if people don't want to face swastikas made of human feces in their homes -- different school, but sounds like the same kinda idea, http://www.salon.com/2015/11/09/amid_racial_justice_protests_mizzou_president_tim_wolfe_resigns/ http://www.salon.com/2015/11/09/amid_racial_justice_protests... -- because free speech at all times in all places isn't the single most important thing ever, especially when people are living together. (edit: fixed a broken link)
    • tedunangst 11y ago
      The basic premise of the residential college system at Yale (and elsewhere) is to bring intellectual development (read: challenge) into the home. It's quite literally on the brochure.
      • cholantesh 11y ago
        What intellectual development is fostered by smearing "swastikas made of human feces" onto a dorm's wall?
        • Frondo 11y ago
• calibraxis 11y ago
  The Christakis family is quite powerful at Yale, certainly in comparison to the students trying to get them replaced. They were Co-Masters at a Harvard house, and one of them extended that position to Yale. In 2009, one made Time magazine's list of the 100 most influential people in the world. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_A._Christakis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_A._Christakis) Yale students do not get to run their own university. So when they want to replace some backwards, incompetent administrators, they must turn to activism. They can't merely decide to hire better ones. > "this sort of thing worries me more than any government activity or corporatism." Thanks for sharing your priorities. Government and corporations are the dominant power structures which lead to international mass murder ("war"), subordination/obedience, surveillance, mass incarceration... But students replacing backwards administrators are most worrying of all.
  • Mtinie 11y ago
    As an outside observer, I'm interested in your position. What have (or haven't) the Christakis's done to deserve the "backwards, incompetent administrators" moniker?
  • wfo 11y ago
    Government and corporations are essentially the norm, we have gotten used to them though they are admittedly much worse: a student culture that is focused on faux-victimization and hate and abuse and refusing to even acknowledge the existence of much less an attempt to understand the opinions of others is something that is altogether new. The future leaders of the country thinking in lockstep with each other and joining forces to humiliate, demean, silence, and abuse anyone who dares think differently is dangerous as well, but more importantly, it is new.
  • rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    I think the poster may have a point. Student activity is an indicator of where society in general is going. If students are so easily swayed by their definition of intolerance, it can have serious ramifications throughout society. Those students become the next consumers, neighbors, managers, politicians, lawyers, judges, and, indeed, activists. Their power is not in angry protests, it manifests slowly, in the kinds of products people sell or buy, or laws we promote or demonize. The reason I suspect student intolerance is perceived as a big problem is that for whatever nasty things THE SYSTEM is up to today, those students represent who will run it tomorrow.
• xlm1717 11y ago
  What's funny is that a lot of the times the people in power would seek to ban certain books because they were (supposed to be) harmful mentally. Now the students are turning around and almost saying, 'you were right, take these books away!'
• vellum 11y ago
  >What went wrong all those years ago? It's always been there. Except now, they have the power of social media. Do you find a view "problematic"? No problem. Just round up a few thousand like-minded cohorts and burn the heretics.
• makomk 11y ago
  What went wrong is that social justice activists don't buy the whole "challenging people's ideas and assumptions" line anymore exactly because of incidents like this one. Some Yale staff sent out a letter very politely asking students to think about their Halloween costumes and how they might be seen by minority students, and were accused of violating student "free speech" for it - not because the letter placed any restrictions on their costumes, but just because it might make white students uncomfortable wearing certain things. Then when students protested this, apparently it meant university wasn't about challenging people's ideas and assumptions anymore and they just wanted to be coddled. Apparently it's not "coddling" to demand that the white students aren't made uncomfortable by thinking about racism, though, because reasons - just like it's not "free speech" and part of the university tradition of "challenging people's ideas and assumptions" to ask them politely to do so.