4 ms·

Free speech on campus does actually mean freedom from consequences from the administration. Yale might not have to allow free speech on its campus, but it purp

Free speech on campus does actually mean freedom from consequences from the administration. Yale might not have to allow free speech on its campus, but it purports to. And what they did was a violation of that principle. And while the other students are free to harass him for invented crimes, he's free to call them out for doing so.

whoknew1122 5y ago
What consequences did he face from Yale? A couple of conversations with an Associate Dean and Director of DEI? An email stating that Yale didn't agree with his language? Oh, the horror! He's still at Yale Law School. His blog post is being circulated on Hacker News. Give me some of those consequences.
- rhino369 5y ago
  Threats from the administration, specifically threats they would report him to the bar C&F committee.
  - drcongo 5y ago
    Threats are not consequences. They are, quite literally, the threats of consequences, not consequences.
    - rhino369 5y ago
      Of course they are.
    - david38 5y ago
      Literally they are treated equivalent. Ever hear “through the use of force or threat of force”?
shadowgovt 5y ago
Honestly, Yale's administration is trying to help. This individual's major risk surface isn't what Yale will do to him... It's that his peers have filed his name away in their personal Rolodex-analog as "Someone very, very clueless about tone and reading a room." i.e. "Someone I don't want as partner in my law firm." And the legal profession is (relatively speaking) a tiny community... But big enough that there's rarely only one choice of who to work with. He's severely curtailing his potential future options if he doesn't recognize the value of keeping contacts smooth with relative strangers.
- rhino369 5y ago
  Maybe they did think they were helping. But their threats and denouncement of him were likely harmful. IMO, an apology just looks like an admission of guilt in this case.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    The denouncement clearly wasn't helping him, but since it's Yale, it's not unexpected. Yale itself has a bad racism reputation (https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/05/10/yale-responds-after-black-student-reported-for-napping-in-common-room/ https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/05/10/yale-responds-afte...), so the administration can be expected to respond by covering their own asses via declaring their lack of condonement or concurrence with his speech. The letter they proposed is an acknowledgement that his actions were harmful and a specific declaration of lack of intent. It'd have been a good tack for him to take. Doubling down, instead, that the word choice should not be considered hurtful is risky; definitions are semi-subjective, and the history of the term he chose was clear (reference to a controversial left-wing blog isn't really an excuse; it's basically an argument "Well if shock jocks can use it, why can't I?" Because your profession of choice is lawyer, friend, not audio entertainer).

whoknew1122 5y ago

What consequences did he face from Yale? A couple of conversations with an Associate Dean and Director of DEI? An email stating that Yale didn't agree with his language? Oh, the horror! He's still at Yale Law School. His blog post is being circulated on Hacker News. Give me some of those consequences.

rhino369 5y ago
Threats from the administration, specifically threats they would report him to the bar C&F committee.
- drcongo 5y ago
  Threats are not consequences. They are, quite literally, the threats of consequences, not consequences.
  - rhino369 5y ago
    Of course they are.
  - david38 5y ago
    Literally they are treated equivalent. Ever hear “through the use of force or threat of force”?

shadowgovt 5y ago

Honestly, Yale's administration is trying to help. This individual's major risk surface isn't what Yale will do to him... It's that his peers have filed his name away in their personal Rolodex-analog as "Someone very, very clueless about tone and reading a room." i.e. "Someone I don't want as partner in my law firm." And the legal profession is (relatively speaking) a tiny community... But big enough that there's rarely only one choice of who to work with. He's severely curtailing his potential future options if he doesn't recognize the value of keeping contacts smooth with relative strangers.

rhino369 5y ago
Maybe they did think they were helping. But their threats and denouncement of him were likely harmful. IMO, an apology just looks like an admission of guilt in this case.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  The denouncement clearly wasn't helping him, but since it's Yale, it's not unexpected. Yale itself has a bad racism reputation (https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/05/10/yale-responds-after-black-student-reported-for-napping-in-common-room/ https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/05/10/yale-responds-afte...), so the administration can be expected to respond by covering their own asses via declaring their lack of condonement or concurrence with his speech. The letter they proposed is an acknowledgement that his actions were harmful and a specific declaration of lack of intent. It'd have been a good tack for him to take. Doubling down, instead, that the word choice should not be considered hurtful is risky; definitions are semi-subjective, and the history of the term he chose was clear (reference to a controversial left-wing blog isn't really an excuse; it's basically an argument "Well if shock jocks can use it, why can't I?" Because your profession of choice is lawyer, friend, not audio entertainer).