11-13-2015, 06:12 PM
6) That doesn't mean that I agree with their proposed remedies. As WIM is, I am a practical person, and I am not sure that forcing the resignation of the University President will accomplish much. To be honest, here I bring little to the table. I'm not sure what will work, or how you remedy it. Fixing legally enforced racism is as "easy" as winning a Supreme Court case. Societal norms can address overtly racist incidents. But how do you address unconscious bias, let alone the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, etc? On the other hand, bringing attention to the situation, and engendering a discussion like the one on this message board is a positive. Even if nobody is going to be convinced, hopefully it will engender a more open mind and a broader perspective.
7) To that issue, that is where I lean towards disagreement with the protesters. I'm a firm believer in free speech and that the best way to deal with offensive or disagreeable speech is with more speech. It may be less gratifying than "shutting the other side up", but in the long run, I do believe it is more effective. That's not to say that I am completely unsympathetic. It seems to me that it is easier to argue for more free speech when you aren't the one who has to endure hurtful speech or offensive Halloween costumes (and it is easier to dismiss that sort of offense if you don't otherwise have to endure the everyday slights and the occasional racist outbursts that I outlined above). Imagine you are an African American and see someone dress up in blackface for Halloween. You are in the unenviable position of trying to decide whether to ignore the offense and allow it to fester or confront it (and risk being labeled as the "angry Black man who is overly sensitive to offense") or worse, provoke a fight with a drunk racist idiot. In that view it is easy to see the appeal of an institutional directive that avoids the conflict by setting out expectations of what is not acceptable in advance. I agree that the reaction to the Yale situation was likely excessive (after all, the letter did not excuse or endorse racially or culturally insensitive costumes; it merely made the argument that Yale students ought to be trusted to make the right choice themselves and work out conflict, if it happens, between students rather than have directives imposed from above).
8. I don't know where this leads, or if anyone has read this far, and like WIM, I don't expect anyone's mind to have been changed. But I do hope that it at least provokes some thought.
BC
7) To that issue, that is where I lean towards disagreement with the protesters. I'm a firm believer in free speech and that the best way to deal with offensive or disagreeable speech is with more speech. It may be less gratifying than "shutting the other side up", but in the long run, I do believe it is more effective. That's not to say that I am completely unsympathetic. It seems to me that it is easier to argue for more free speech when you aren't the one who has to endure hurtful speech or offensive Halloween costumes (and it is easier to dismiss that sort of offense if you don't otherwise have to endure the everyday slights and the occasional racist outbursts that I outlined above). Imagine you are an African American and see someone dress up in blackface for Halloween. You are in the unenviable position of trying to decide whether to ignore the offense and allow it to fester or confront it (and risk being labeled as the "angry Black man who is overly sensitive to offense") or worse, provoke a fight with a drunk racist idiot. In that view it is easy to see the appeal of an institutional directive that avoids the conflict by setting out expectations of what is not acceptable in advance. I agree that the reaction to the Yale situation was likely excessive (after all, the letter did not excuse or endorse racially or culturally insensitive costumes; it merely made the argument that Yale students ought to be trusted to make the right choice themselves and work out conflict, if it happens, between students rather than have directives imposed from above).
8. I don't know where this leads, or if anyone has read this far, and like WIM, I don't expect anyone's mind to have been changed. But I do hope that it at least provokes some thought.
BC