4 ms·
> 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 o
by 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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 agoWhat intellectual development is fostered by smearing "swastikas made of human feces" onto a dorm's wall?
- Frondo 11y agoWell, that's the thing, these two things aren't even in tension at work here: The students want their homes to be free from racist shit (literally, in this case) and the administration responds with "intellectual development!" which is cowardly and nonsequitor. As if you either get to be coddled (i.e. not wanting pervasive racism to filter into your living quarters) or you get to be challenged to grow intellectually (in practice, a shockingly conservative--for a university--position of "nothing's wrong, everything's fine!"). They're not working at cross-purposes, the claims of intellectual development are just a weasel word defense of the status quo; a staus quo where a lot of people of color apparently feel the continual sting of systemic discrimination. Or, taken more positively, the administration is giving these students a chance to experience, first-hand, the concepts that power concedes nothing without a demand, that collective action is a powerful force for change, that sometimes people have to get their hands dirty and fight for things, and so on.