9 ms·

A ‘Disgusting’ Yale Professor Moves On

94 points by hodgesrm 8y ago

peterwwillis 8y ago
"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.
- kderbyma 8y ago
  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
tomlock 8y ago
> 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?
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  You quoted four separate sentences. They all appear to be well-formed. Which one are you calling a run-on sentence?
devoply 8y ago
Identity politics and outrage culture has jumped the shark, but for some reason it does not recognize this fact. Here is in summary his "crime" a letter his wife wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-halloween-email-led-to-a-campus-firestorm--and-a-troubling-lesson-about-self-censorship/2016/10/28/70e55732-9b97-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.26db09f08fd7 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-halloween-email-l... 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... "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.
- Aloha 8y ago
  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.
  - inertiatic 8y ago
    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.
    - nzjrs 8y ago
      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.
diminoten 8y ago
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.
krastanov 8y ago
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.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  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.
  - krastanov 8y ago
    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.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      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.
caterama 8y ago
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.
- aaronblohowiak 8y ago
  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
  - dexen 8y ago
    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.
- cttet 8y ago
  According to the evolution history we stayed quite a long time as tribes. This tribal emotional tendency may be deep rooted in our brains.
- Frqy3 8y ago
  Humanity needs an existential level extraterrestrial threat to unify us.
  - mmsimanga 8y ago
supernintendo 8y ago
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.
- speedplane 8y ago
  > Give me trailer park trash and gang bangers from the hood over woke intellectuals and anti-SJW crusaders any day. 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?
  - supernintendo 8y ago
    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.
    - speedplane 8y ago
      > 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.
      - supernintendo 8y ago
nkkollaw 8y ago
I hate outrage culture. This must really end.
2bitencryption 8y ago
I actually think about that viral video once or twice a month. 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.
- krastanov 8y ago
  That was a cute excerpt with which I do agree. 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.
  - kissickas 8y ago
    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.
  - Lazare 8y ago
    > 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?
    - krastanov 8y ago
      I tried to respond to a similar question in a sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19445027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19445027
- 8y ago
peisistratos 8y ago
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.
golemiprague 8y ago
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.
despera 8y ago
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.
- MagicPropmaker 8y ago
  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. It's too bad you can't say silent to sexism.
  - despera 8y ago
    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?
    - MagicPropmaker 8y ago
      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.
  - Yetanfou 8y ago
    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.
Haga 8y ago
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.
ripsawridge 8y ago
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.
ziari 8y ago
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. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19439316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19439316
sunstone 8y ago
This incident makes one wonder about the quality of students going to Yale these days.
Communitivity 8y ago
How far does this go? 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.

94 points by hodgesrm 8y ago

"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.

kderbyma 8y ago
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

tomlock 8y ago

> 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?

thaumasiotes 8y ago
You quoted four separate sentences. They all appear to be well-formed. Which one are you calling a run-on sentence?

devoply 8y ago

Identity politics and outrage culture has jumped the shark, but for some reason it does not recognize this fact. Here is in summary his "crime" a letter his wife wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-halloween-email-led-to-a-campus-firestorm--and-a-troubling-lesson-about-self-censorship/2016/10/28/70e55732-9b97-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.26db09f08fd7 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-halloween-email-l... 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... "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.

Aloha 8y ago
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.
- inertiatic 8y ago
  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.
  - nzjrs 8y ago
    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.

diminoten 8y ago

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.

krastanov 8y ago

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.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
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.
- krastanov 8y ago
  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.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    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.

caterama 8y ago

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.

aaronblohowiak 8y ago
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
- dexen 8y ago
  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.
cttet 8y ago
According to the evolution history we stayed quite a long time as tribes. This tribal emotional tendency may be deep rooted in our brains.
Frqy3 8y ago
Humanity needs an existential level extraterrestrial threat to unify us.
- mmsimanga 8y ago

supernintendo 8y ago

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.

speedplane 8y ago
> Give me trailer park trash and gang bangers from the hood over woke intellectuals and anti-SJW crusaders any day. 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?
- supernintendo 8y ago
  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.
  - speedplane 8y ago
    > 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.
    - supernintendo 8y ago

nkkollaw 8y ago

I hate outrage culture. This must really end.

2bitencryption 8y ago

I actually think about that viral video once or twice a month. 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.

krastanov 8y ago
That was a cute excerpt with which I do agree. 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.
- kissickas 8y ago
  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.
- Lazare 8y ago
  > 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?
  - krastanov 8y ago
    I tried to respond to a similar question in a sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19445027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19445027
8y ago

peisistratos 8y ago

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.

golemiprague 8y ago

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.

despera 8y ago

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.

MagicPropmaker 8y ago
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. It's too bad you can't say silent to sexism.
- despera 8y ago
  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?
  - MagicPropmaker 8y ago
    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.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  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.

Haga 8y ago

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.

ripsawridge 8y ago

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.

ziari 8y ago

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. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19439316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19439316

sunstone 8y ago

This incident makes one wonder about the quality of students going to Yale these days.

Communitivity 8y ago

How far does this go? 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.