4 ms·

That perception seems necessarily incorrect to me, since the Master is defending himself directly against accusations from the students. Sea Lioning, as I unde

by hsod 11y ago

That perception seems necessarily incorrect to me, since the Master is defending himself directly against accusations from the students. Sea Lioning, as I understand it, refers to a person derailing a discussion to which they are not a direct party. To dismiss the defense as Sea Lioning would be to demand he simply accept your censure and bow to your demands, entirely robbing him of his agency.

zyxley 11y ago
> Sea Lioning, as I understand it, refers to a person derailing a discussion to which they are not a direct party. That's what that email (very politely) did, though, didn't it? However well-intended it was meant, it was a reply to "please be considerate about your costumes" with (to paraphrase much more bluntly) "well, why should we care about college students being offensive or inoffensive?". It's the kind of thing that is worth discussing in the abstract, but it would be hard to argue it's not tangential to the original topic.
- gozo 11y ago
  I just have no idea how he though publishing this rant wouldn't undermine his position as Master, especially since his wife is the Associate Master. The answer is he probably didn't think, which doesn't exactly work in his favor. It's almost like he is being schooled in politics by the students. There's a reason why you usually have a number of co-signers on these things.
- cxseven 11y ago
  Did we read the same email? It's at https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing-yourselves-email-to-silliman-college-yale-students-on-halloween-costumes/ https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing... "I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students." The original email coaching students on acceptable costumes had 13 signatures from Yale administrators and faculty. Erika's email was NOT asking why anyone should care, it was asking why the students should not be their own agents.
  - gozo 11y ago
    You're selectively quoting the sensible lead up in the e-mail. The question whether student should be their own agent isn't relevant, since the first e-mail doesn't prevent them from being that. Rather it asks people to reflect on their choices. If she really was concerned about the faculty's control over students she wouldn't herself have tried to influence the students, but rather raised her concerns with the faculty itself. The whole thing seems premeditated rather then fueled by student concerns when you consider she has written an article on the subject: http://ideas.time.com/2012/10/23/have-adults-ruined-halloween/ http://ideas.time.com/2012/10/23/have-adults-ruined-hallowee...
    - cxseven 11y ago
      | If she really was concerned about the faculty's control over students she wouldn't herself have tried to influence the students That doesn't follow. Furthermore, she was signing her single name to her response to a letter signed by 13 administrators and faculty. If anything, her dissent might have reduced the appearance of a cohesive insertion of Yale authority. What I have quoted was near the heart of her message and sensibly supported throughout. Her Time article was on the same theme of the insertion of adult control over Halloween. Is this supposed to reveal a "premeditated" crime?
      - gozo 11y ago
        I don't really see you making any arguments here. * Her letter tries to influence the students she had authority over as her position as associate master. It was implicitly co-signed by her husband, the master. The letter was only sent to those students. * Most of the rest of the letter has a different questioning rhetoric tone, of course no one can make you see that if you don't want to. * The article shows she had an agenda and wasn't just reacting to the letter. It bring into question whether she is appropriate for the roll as associate masters since she apparently thought promoting her own agenda was more important than good relations to the students.

by hsod 11y ago

zyxley 11y ago

> Sea Lioning, as I understand it, refers to a person derailing a discussion to which they are not a direct party. That's what that email (very politely) did, though, didn't it? However well-intended it was meant, it was a reply to "please be considerate about your costumes" with (to paraphrase much more bluntly) "well, why should we care about college students being offensive or inoffensive?". It's the kind of thing that is worth discussing in the abstract, but it would be hard to argue it's not tangential to the original topic.

gozo 11y ago
I just have no idea how he though publishing this rant wouldn't undermine his position as Master, especially since his wife is the Associate Master. The answer is he probably didn't think, which doesn't exactly work in his favor. It's almost like he is being schooled in politics by the students. There's a reason why you usually have a number of co-signers on these things.
cxseven 11y ago
Did we read the same email? It's at https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing-yourselves-email-to-silliman-college-yale-students-on-halloween-costumes/ https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing... "I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students." The original email coaching students on acceptable costumes had 13 signatures from Yale administrators and faculty. Erika's email was NOT asking why anyone should care, it was asking why the students should not be their own agents.
- gozo 11y ago
  You're selectively quoting the sensible lead up in the e-mail. The question whether student should be their own agent isn't relevant, since the first e-mail doesn't prevent them from being that. Rather it asks people to reflect on their choices. If she really was concerned about the faculty's control over students she wouldn't herself have tried to influence the students, but rather raised her concerns with the faculty itself. The whole thing seems premeditated rather then fueled by student concerns when you consider she has written an article on the subject: http://ideas.time.com/2012/10/23/have-adults-ruined-halloween/ http://ideas.time.com/2012/10/23/have-adults-ruined-hallowee...
  - cxseven 11y ago
    | If she really was concerned about the faculty's control over students she wouldn't herself have tried to influence the students That doesn't follow. Furthermore, she was signing her single name to her response to a letter signed by 13 administrators and faculty. If anything, her dissent might have reduced the appearance of a cohesive insertion of Yale authority. What I have quoted was near the heart of her message and sensibly supported throughout. Her Time article was on the same theme of the insertion of adult control over Halloween. Is this supposed to reveal a "premeditated" crime?
    - gozo 11y ago
      I don't really see you making any arguments here. * Her letter tries to influence the students she had authority over as her position as associate master. It was implicitly co-signed by her husband, the master. The letter was only sent to those students. * Most of the rest of the letter has a different questioning rhetoric tone, of course no one can make you see that if you don't want to. * The article shows she had an agenda and wasn't just reacting to the letter. It bring into question whether she is appropriate for the roll as associate masters since she apparently thought promoting her own agenda was more important than good relations to the students.