I'm sick and currently focused on teaching 64 12 year olds how to read and write. But the buzz about Yale and Missouri was enough to get me to write this blogpost. Specifically, the pure stupidity I'm reading from many people who are claiming "political correctness is getting out of hand." They throw their hands in the air and pull the fire alarm, claiming that their first amendment rights are under fire. Ironically enough these first amendment hawks are the ones who encourage censorship of the very free speech they disagree with. Typically if the issue was contained to just subreddit pages filled with entitled white men I'd just ignore it as business as usual. The real fiasco comes when people in a position of power, whose responsibility is to represent all students, favor a dominant narrative over a minority one. That is exactly what happened at Yale.
The furor at Yale was precipitated by a bunch of emails sent by multi-cultural organizations urging people to be culturally conscientious when choosing their costumes. It basically amounted to a "don't be a dick" message that any reasonably decent person would take in good stride. Unfortunately Yale is full of the churlish and entitled, so students began to whine to the Dean about the emails'seemingly condescending messages. How dare they be told to care about other cultures! Of course instead of just acknowledging that they want the ability to be jerks without facing any repercussions, they fell back to the classic "freedom of speech" scare, arguing that if Sally Preston could not wear her skimpy American indian outfit, then she would be distraught with how her freedom has been severely limited.
Before we talk about how Erika Christakis' response was a disgusting affirmation of an oppressive narrative that says minority culture does not matter when it inconveniences whites, we must interrogate whether these students were actually being censored. By all stretch of the imagination they were not being censored. Students were merely urged to be mindful of other cultures when choosing costumes. Bias incidents and other culturally responsive policies were not even brought up in the emails. Compared to Yale, the University of Michigan sends out emails that are far more punitive when encouraging people not to wear racially insensitive costumes. So these students really did not like the judgmental tone of the emails. Which is fine. I mean I personally think they all secretly want a carte blanche to be assholes, but there are deluded individuals out there who believe that if they want to dress up as a mariachi performer, then that's well within their right and the close to 34 million Mexicans in the United States just have to deal with it. The point is no one is forcing the students to not to be assholes. They're merely pointing out that if they act like insensitive jerks, then people may very well respond in a not so pleasant way.
Professors, students and other faculty are allowed to have opinions on this. However, headmasters and other elements of University leadership have a job to protect and support all their students. That is why Erika Christakis' response was so inappropriate. It clearly affirms the argument that there is some justification behind wearing culturally reprehensible costumes. The email caricatures the very serious concerns minority students and other diversity organizations have over recent examples of black face and culturally insensitive costumes that had occurred on Yale's campus in previous years. Instead of the cautionary emails being a response to a prevalent and serious issue on campus, the emails were portrayed as a politically correct overreaction. The message comes loud and clear: your concerns are not that important to us, stop whining. And that's exactly the kind of position a headmaster needs to avoid. If anything it would have been far better for the headmaster and his wife to remain quiet. Instead she decided to affirm a consistent dominant narrative that undermines the concerns of minorities by reducing them to hyperbolic over sensitivity.
First amendment rights are rarely threatened by the oppressed. When people take displeasure with your opinion they are not limiting your first amendment rights, they are merely utilizing their own. Often it's people with power who take immense displeasure with being questioned. People who cry that their first amendment rights are being denied often just want their opinions to be the only one respected. Minorities are allowed to complain just as long as it doesn't ruin anyone's fun.
The furor at Yale was precipitated by a bunch of emails sent by multi-cultural organizations urging people to be culturally conscientious when choosing their costumes. It basically amounted to a "don't be a dick" message that any reasonably decent person would take in good stride. Unfortunately Yale is full of the churlish and entitled, so students began to whine to the Dean about the emails'seemingly condescending messages. How dare they be told to care about other cultures! Of course instead of just acknowledging that they want the ability to be jerks without facing any repercussions, they fell back to the classic "freedom of speech" scare, arguing that if Sally Preston could not wear her skimpy American indian outfit, then she would be distraught with how her freedom has been severely limited.
Before we talk about how Erika Christakis' response was a disgusting affirmation of an oppressive narrative that says minority culture does not matter when it inconveniences whites, we must interrogate whether these students were actually being censored. By all stretch of the imagination they were not being censored. Students were merely urged to be mindful of other cultures when choosing costumes. Bias incidents and other culturally responsive policies were not even brought up in the emails. Compared to Yale, the University of Michigan sends out emails that are far more punitive when encouraging people not to wear racially insensitive costumes. So these students really did not like the judgmental tone of the emails. Which is fine. I mean I personally think they all secretly want a carte blanche to be assholes, but there are deluded individuals out there who believe that if they want to dress up as a mariachi performer, then that's well within their right and the close to 34 million Mexicans in the United States just have to deal with it. The point is no one is forcing the students to not to be assholes. They're merely pointing out that if they act like insensitive jerks, then people may very well respond in a not so pleasant way.
Professors, students and other faculty are allowed to have opinions on this. However, headmasters and other elements of University leadership have a job to protect and support all their students. That is why Erika Christakis' response was so inappropriate. It clearly affirms the argument that there is some justification behind wearing culturally reprehensible costumes. The email caricatures the very serious concerns minority students and other diversity organizations have over recent examples of black face and culturally insensitive costumes that had occurred on Yale's campus in previous years. Instead of the cautionary emails being a response to a prevalent and serious issue on campus, the emails were portrayed as a politically correct overreaction. The message comes loud and clear: your concerns are not that important to us, stop whining. And that's exactly the kind of position a headmaster needs to avoid. If anything it would have been far better for the headmaster and his wife to remain quiet. Instead she decided to affirm a consistent dominant narrative that undermines the concerns of minorities by reducing them to hyperbolic over sensitivity.
First amendment rights are rarely threatened by the oppressed. When people take displeasure with your opinion they are not limiting your first amendment rights, they are merely utilizing their own. Often it's people with power who take immense displeasure with being questioned. People who cry that their first amendment rights are being denied often just want their opinions to be the only one respected. Minorities are allowed to complain just as long as it doesn't ruin anyone's fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment