Sir Isaiah Berlin was so obviously wrong. "The plurality of values" is our dead end which those who are paying attention can see we are quickly approaching. If it is not already too late, our only hope of survival is to accept the " One Great Truth" http://thelastwhy.ca/poems/2006/11/5/truth.html
"Yes, universities should work harder to be inclusive."
No, universities should work harder to be EXCELLENT. They are not jobs programs, or refuges for kids who haven't got it together yet. They are a place for the fewer than 10% of the population that can absorb advanced education. Everybody else needs to be out there supporting the economy by working in meaningful jobs.
No, universities should work harder to be EXCELLENT. They are not jobs programs, or refuges for kids who haven't got it together yet. They are a place for the fewer than 10% of the population that can absorb advanced education. Everybody else needs to be out there supporting the economy by working in meaningful jobs.
51
First time I have agreed with a Kristof opinion. Keep it up Nick.
12
Why is everyone saying Mizzou now? People who never heard of the school, who have no connection to it whatsoever. Ridiculous!
9
Life is tough. Always has been, always will be. I remember college 40 years ago. Campus life wasn't to inviting for the ugly girl or the fat guy who got laughed at or shunned either. Color is merely another item on the list of things that thoughtless people will use against you. Fortunately, it is a small minority that treat you that way and you come away with an experience you wanted. One thing is for sure. If you are constantly told that you are a victim and you believe it, you will be a victim. We have too much of that in this day and age. We have a culture of being offended. The people who offend you aren't worth your time or knowing. instead of doing the equivalent of laying down, kicking your legs, flailing your arms and throwing a tantrum, prove your naysayers wrong. Rise above those who would hold you back or call you a name. Also, you chose to be part of a community and have a college experience. That isn't white or black, it is what it is. Embrace it instead of demanding to be catered to. Education is often offensive to everyone. You aren't special, no matter what your mom told you. Open your mind instead of closing it and demanding to only hear what makes you comfortable. In short, grow the hell up. You can thank me later.
64
Cannot fathom what Prof. Click thought she was doing at Missouri. Is "communications" an exercise in orchestrating a demonstration? At high pitch? And what, putting women in the front line of a picket so that gender bcomes involved, as well as race?
I hear she has "apologized." To Mr. Tai, perhaps. But surely not to her profession. Or perhaps the rest of us need to apologize for not giving her a medal.
I hear she has "apologized." To Mr. Tai, perhaps. But surely not to her profession. Or perhaps the rest of us need to apologize for not giving her a medal.
23
When Gary Pinkel became the football coach at Missouri, his first priority was to improve his recruiting in St. Louis because many black St. Louis prospects would not consider Mizzou because Boone County had a reputation for tolerating racially abusive behavior. For much of Missouri, it is possible for a young white person to grow to college age with almost no contact with African Americans because in the early twentieth century, there was a deliberate and successful effort to uproot numerous black communities that had existed throughout the state going back to the antebellum period. That history of racial hostility is never far from the surface in places like the Dixie region of Missouri along the Missouri River (which includes Columbia, Missouri,) or the southwest region of the state which borders Arkansas and Oklahoma. Today, the only rural region of Missouri which a substantial black population is the Bootheel in the far southeast, which is the northern end of the Mississippi Delta. Outside of the Bootheel, black populations are largely restricted to the St. Louis and Kansas City areas. No discussion of racial hostility at the University of Missouri should overlook Missouri's problematic history of ethnic cleansing.
36
OK, but Rice is a war criminal. Why should anyone give her, Bush, Cheney (that's chew-nee as Chris Matthews will insist) or Rumsfeld be given a podium, except to confess, which none them is prepared to do.
These kids feel like victims because they are.
If you want to know why Tim Wolf had to go, watch this: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/k4vgqz/the-nightly-show-with-larry-wilmore...
These kids feel like victims because they are.
If you want to know why Tim Wolf had to go, watch this: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/k4vgqz/the-nightly-show-with-larry-wilmore...
5
The problems at Mizzou were underscored on Tuesday when watching football became more important than education. Stop whining. Not everybody likes YOU. Get used to it and stop being violent.
26
Quote from this aricle.
At the University of Missouri, a black professor, Cynthia Frisby, wrote, “I have been called the N-word too many times to count.”
I do not believe her.
Definitely not on campus.
Am I calling her a liar? You bet I am!
At the University of Missouri, a black professor, Cynthia Frisby, wrote, “I have been called the N-word too many times to count.”
I do not believe her.
Definitely not on campus.
Am I calling her a liar? You bet I am!
48
I'm shocked that the New York Times ran this article. The typical NYT op-ed piece is left of left.
21
The actions of intolerant liberal college students trivialize legitimate liberal positions and make them easier to dismiss by those on the right.
53
It's getting really scary. That's where we're going:
"Officials in Providence, Rhode Island, are investigating whether they can revoke the pension of a white police sergeant fired after he had a black officer handle a suspicious package and said it wouldn't be a big deal if the officer got sick.
The city dismissed Sgt. David Marchant (a 21-year veteran of the police force), over the incident that involved a package found at Brown University with a white powdery substance on it.
When Marchant was asked if he followed proper protocols he said he had a black patrolman, Khari Bass, handle the package and if Bass got sick it wouldn't be a problem because "he's a black guy anyway."
Marchant insisted he was joking."
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Nov 12, 2015
"Officials in Providence, Rhode Island, are investigating whether they can revoke the pension of a white police sergeant fired after he had a black officer handle a suspicious package and said it wouldn't be a big deal if the officer got sick.
The city dismissed Sgt. David Marchant (a 21-year veteran of the police force), over the incident that involved a package found at Brown University with a white powdery substance on it.
When Marchant was asked if he followed proper protocols he said he had a black patrolman, Khari Bass, handle the package and if Bass got sick it wouldn't be a problem because "he's a black guy anyway."
Marchant insisted he was joking."
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Nov 12, 2015
2
This is a direct result of parents making their children feel that they are "so very special" and they never have to face adversity. Wrapping their children in bubble wrap does not prepare them for the real world. So you are called a derogatory term, so you may have to listen to someone who has a different point of view. Grow up, it is a real world out there and these spoiled brats are not going to be ready for it.
42
I am pleasantly surprised to read this piece. Mr. kristof is a liberal to the core, and many progressives of his stripe have abandoned one principle that makes us better than many others in the world. Students should be physically safe on all campuses but they shouldn't be pampered intelactually. Let's hope this shall pass like KKK and Natzis.
17
I often feel that, getting the bulk of my news from the NYT and NPR, I am in a liberal "echoed chamber" not unlike Fox News consumers.
35
So now the nebulous "seemed to acquiesce" to racism on the part of third parties is grounds to be run out of a job? How does one overcome the perception that one seems to acquiesce to raaaaacism? Impossible. Now just go and lose your job and support your family as best you can, sucker.
23
There's a difference between free speech, hate speech, and inciting speech.
The first one we all have to live with, the second is horrible but you need to come up with a better argument than "make it go away." The third is prosecutable.
I guess we now have to post a sign over every college campus gate: "Caution, you may be exposed to words and ideas that make you uncomfortable."
We should also post a sign that says: "Hey, idiots, posting a picture of a lynching on a black student's door room door and dressing up as Nazis for Halloween is stupid, hateful, obnoxious and could get you expelled or jailed, depending on how far you take it."
Final sign: "Let's all try to get along."
The first one we all have to live with, the second is horrible but you need to come up with a better argument than "make it go away." The third is prosecutable.
I guess we now have to post a sign over every college campus gate: "Caution, you may be exposed to words and ideas that make you uncomfortable."
We should also post a sign that says: "Hey, idiots, posting a picture of a lynching on a black student's door room door and dressing up as Nazis for Halloween is stupid, hateful, obnoxious and could get you expelled or jailed, depending on how far you take it."
Final sign: "Let's all try to get along."
17
Apparently today's universities have become young adult daycares or "safe spaces" further continuing the "zero tolerance"policies of the public schools. I think the voting age should be raised to 35, because these folks will be totally unprepared for the exigencies of life known to me as: "the tsunami that has become my life" Good luck kids you'll need it.
37
I just watched the Yale-student tirade video. Students like this make it clear how intellectually inferior they are, and how they really don't deserve to be on topflight campuses. To college admission administrators: “You reap what you sow.”
49
As someone who cut his professional teeth in the university system: six in all, including Ivy League, with a Ph.D., I can tell you that the last place you will find academic freedom is in academia-from all sides of the Ivy tower. For those with advanced degrees just think what would have happened if you had disputed the work of your dissertation adviser.
Case in point. When I was at U Pen as a post doc there was a well known incident where some kids, who just happened to be minorities, were making a racket outside of a dorm. Some other kid was studying in the dorm and yelled out that the "water buffalos" should shut up. The next thing you know this kid was in deep doo doo, and it was a great big deal, with this fellow accused of racism. That is all the kid said. Make up your own mind about it.
My son is in a major university and it seems what the students are against is more than what they are for. I am not a conservative or Republican in any way shape or form. However, the "you can say this, you can't say that' has become out of control.
The "N Word" and racial abuse cannot be tolerated, and those who use it on campus should be disciplined. All I am saying it "wrong is wrong," but not everything is "wrong," The wisdom to know the difference is crucial. However, in the current heated atmosphere this distinction often gets lost.
Case in point. When I was at U Pen as a post doc there was a well known incident where some kids, who just happened to be minorities, were making a racket outside of a dorm. Some other kid was studying in the dorm and yelled out that the "water buffalos" should shut up. The next thing you know this kid was in deep doo doo, and it was a great big deal, with this fellow accused of racism. That is all the kid said. Make up your own mind about it.
My son is in a major university and it seems what the students are against is more than what they are for. I am not a conservative or Republican in any way shape or form. However, the "you can say this, you can't say that' has become out of control.
The "N Word" and racial abuse cannot be tolerated, and those who use it on campus should be disciplined. All I am saying it "wrong is wrong," but not everything is "wrong," The wisdom to know the difference is crucial. However, in the current heated atmosphere this distinction often gets lost.
29
It's sad to see what's happened to places of higher learning. Instead of being exposed to diverse thinking, these babies are learning how to demand that everyone shuts up or is punished for disagreeing with them.
This is a terrible waste of time and money.
This is a terrible waste of time and money.
37
I am less offended by the academic tilt to the left than I am of the tyranny of the denial of both freedom of expression and robust debate...
...As should all Americans be.
...As should all Americans be.
23
I would hope that bad and repulsive ideas - like racism, hate and bigotry - would be destroyed by better ideas. The problem is, as Kristof points out, that college campuses are in danger of becoming sanitized places where no idea that could possibly offend can be uttered. Which means, of course, that NO idea can EVER be uttered since something is always going to offend someone. Most people would agree that racial harassment is completely unacceptable. However, banning a commencement speaker because they may say something that does not comport with a segment of the student body’s world view is an assault on the very tenets on which liberal institutions like Yale were founded.
Furthermore, while I am pretty sure that I would rather set myself on fire than go see the “Vagina Monologues”, the notion that it should be banned for any reason is tantamount to book-burning.
I consider myself a pretty left-leaning person, but incidents like these and like the communications professor trying to stop a journalist from doing his job makes me very sad and very unlikely to carry the banner for what is an increasingly shrill cohort of left-wing crybabies.
Furthermore, while I am pretty sure that I would rather set myself on fire than go see the “Vagina Monologues”, the notion that it should be banned for any reason is tantamount to book-burning.
I consider myself a pretty left-leaning person, but incidents like these and like the communications professor trying to stop a journalist from doing his job makes me very sad and very unlikely to carry the banner for what is an increasingly shrill cohort of left-wing crybabies.
47
I read the opposing view today and the author suggested the events at Yale and the University of Missouri are good reasons to move the minimum voting age to 25. The thought being, living in the real world away from academia would give young people time to mature and develop some common sense before participating in such an important role. Nicholas Kristof is proof that 25 may still be too young.
11
Geez Louise! So many non sequitur responses, questions and assumptions. I didn't say that any speech should be banned. I only said that speech as intimidation has nothing to do with a dialogue of ideas. What does left, right, liberal, or conservative have to do with it?
Spitting on someone whether it's for their political ideas or the color of their skin is simply an assault.
Yes, I am a liberal and a First Amendment absolutist. When I had my book store, I had boycotts called on it for selling white supremacist literature among other controversial items. I know first hand what censorship looks like. What a self righteous mob looks like.
Spitting on someone whether it's for their political ideas or the color of their skin is simply an assault.
Yes, I am a liberal and a First Amendment absolutist. When I had my book store, I had boycotts called on it for selling white supremacist literature among other controversial items. I know first hand what censorship looks like. What a self righteous mob looks like.
22
The Ivies were founded by White Anglo Saxon Protestants but had they restricted their coursework to the achievements of this same group, they could have graduated students in about 6 months. The foundations of all higher education, as we understand it in the modern world, is multi-cultural and yet we demand that minority students “get over it” and bend to a majority ethos. We insist that students read Fredrick Douglas because of his articulate authenticity, but dismiss a testimony of pain from a fellow student as the talk of an 8 year old. The original participants at Yale, as divinity students, would have been familiar with the parable about regarding the log in your own eye.
4
I would have liked to have seen the notion of hostile environment earlier in your article. We no longer accept aggressive, demeaning, and threatening words or behavior in the workplace. Why not even more so in our schools. Hostile epithets and images directed at individuals are not free speech; they are acts of aggression. And they can never be "jokes".
5
I remember similar debates when I was at law school twenty-five years ago and people being outraged at anything that did not mirror their opinions. That word, outrage, was so overused that it lost any meaning. Many people seemed to be using political actions to work out personal issues. It is about creating an intellectual space and debate. Universities are supposed to be the ultimate marketplace of ideas. If you want to talk about your pain, go to a psychiatrist and get therapy. Free speech demands that ideas you don't like are discussed. Hate speech is not anything you disagree with. That is the price of living in a free society. There may well be legitimate issues regarding minority students on campus, but they are not entitled to silence free expression.
22
The oft repeated comment here is that liberals have taken the moral high ground and therefore speech that challenges that position can reasonably be suppressed.
7
Conservatives have been getting this treatment on campuses for decades with gutless administrators kowtowing to screeching liberals to cancel conservative speakers and defund conservative clubs. Now the liberals are getting a taste of their own medicine. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
21
Perhaps universities should offer a required course in "how to express yourself". The Constitution gives us the right, but how we use that right depends upon our goals. If we just want to vent, the response is bound to be unpredictable. If we want change, then we must persuade the opposition of the need.
6
Hate speech is a form of propaganda which is used to dehumanize another group or individual. It can lead, as it did in Germany, to the mass killing of the dehumanized group. Free speech was protected, in my mind, so that ideas could be discussed in the public forum. Hate speech is not an idea. It is an emotional rant and has no pace in the public forum..
5
There is racism on college campuses, implicit and explicit. There is racism in everyday life. We need a better way to deal with it then becoming an oversensitive over every little detail. Kristof is right that we need to challenge ourselves and your viewpoints. Education and empathy are key.
8
This is an outcome of the natural evolution of progressive thought and debate. A contrarian view has no place in their universe, and therefore, you have no right to debate it. The sad state of affairs at Yale and other U.S. campuses is exemplified in the two videos.
25
Who would have ever thought that the Civil Rights Movement would com to this. The animosity has increased and Diversity is not the answer as familiarity has bred contempt. Some degree of separation is necessary.
13
as a child and student of the 60s is very disturbing to see the lack of freedom of speech and expression that permeates our campuses now. As much as it disturbs me as Jew to see not sees watching through Jewish communities it is much more important to permit the freedom of speech. Things that are now labeled is at 8 speech while obtajectionable must be permitted to maintain the basic right of freedom of speech.
11
Universities have long since stopped becoming centers of free speech. As a taxpayer I no longer support funding them or their students.
8
I thank you for your article. As a lawyer I couldn't help but think about my own first amendment issues, specifically its relationship to factual accuracy. In a court situation knowingly giving false testimony is a serious felony. The speaker is punished for what she says. Likewise is a governmental official free to say things that might endanger, say, the economic well being of citizens.? Are Donald Trump and Marco Rubio free to often get the facts
wrong repeatedly and not be sent to the "children's table"?
Facts matter a lot in this discussion.
wrong repeatedly and not be sent to the "children's table"?
Facts matter a lot in this discussion.
5
Somewhere along the way, might it be too much to point out that the principal purpose of universities is foster research and education, not to provide comfort blankets or explore the limits of speech speech that is deliberately outrageous and provocative for the sake of being outrageous and provocative?
13
More examples of the dangers of certainty, whether on the right or the left, and the desirability of doubt, skepticism, "listening" and patience in dealing with matters of public importance. Rushing to position-taking, especially when the position is being pushed by an interest group, can end up in just the kinds of unhappiness and ruction described in this column. But taking the time needed to calmly examine the issues, avoid Manichean answers, and determine one's own insights, and then to act (or not act) on them, does greater service to self and fellow humans.
4
I doubt very much that a hunger strike by straight white male students would even be given notice. I don't want anyone's concerns marginalized. But I am tired to death of the BLM mantra that somehow every single person is racist and that it is their job to attack any and all regardless of one's history. That the president of Mizzou's student body is not just male and black, but the son of a millionaire speaks volumes as to his own mindset. He's part of an entire generation raised on the "everyone gets a trophy" and "don't judge" mantras. As a result, he and his minions accept everything they are told, providing that the source is the "correct' source-meaning a source that has the street cred as liberal to provide gravitas to the message. Never mind the many students who weren't protesting at Mizzou or at Yale, their fates are held by egotists who have been raised to believe they are the bellybuttons of the Universe and that their way is the only "right" way. Talk about experiencing hostility, try being a kid from a middle class family who has traditional values. Who's going to champion their cause?
26
My problem with these protests, especially on college campuses, is the hypocrisy of shutting out opposing voices that may lend a differing perspective (valuable when you are too close to a cause to see beyond your own situation) and the sanctimony that it breeds when there is groupthink. It's a college, for goodness sake--all opinions and experiences should be at the center of every debate. Isn't that the point of college? But perhaps saddest of all is the lack of adult leadership missing from this all. Even the legitimate, middle-aged adults were floundering.
16
The appropriateness of outrage toward injustice and its "free expression" must be given place. Outrage can not be calmly inclusive, that's just the reality of it. It either shows some kind of "muscle" or its spirit is lost. Strong, in-your-face" confrontation is key to its repertoire. Jostling may be too. Reference to "constitutional rights" is too remote and abstracted to compete in that context, or should be. Not that they can be violated. But they should sure take a nudging, a NYC give-and-taking.
Our society is living in an unprecedented time of insulation. Each of us are now able to select our sources of information or confirming viewpoints, cocooning ourselves away from the discomfort of thoughts and ideas that do not match our own. These are symptoms of an underlying disease of societal disconnection and othering.
6
At the age of 57, I met and began a friendship with a black educator. She was the newest and only black member of our group of professional women who vacation together and spend holidays together. In the last 3 years she has gradually introduced another black woman, an engineer, into the group. Talking with them about racism reminds me of the shock and disbelief I felt as a 19 year old learning about the Vietnam war. We white Americans have a lot to learn about our so called "post-racial" society. I applaud the efforts of young black students to open our eyes to the festering sore of racism in our society. I mourn the sadness and frustration of our President who also faces it every day.
45
As a Yale alum (Class of '62) the issue of race and racism goes deeper than just a Halloween costume and "free speech" to the historic racist symbols that pervade the campus. The one now in the spotlight concerns Calhoun College named for the famous South Carolina virulent, pro-slavery politician and Yale graduate. I've recently written the following to Yale President Peter Salovey, "As an alum who was admitted under a quota for Jewish students in the 1950s, I urge you to consider renaming Calhoun College as Martin Luther King Jr. college. If South Carolina can furl the Confederate battle flag, Yale can and must remove its flag of segregation as well. We may not be able to change the past, but we do not and should not continue to honor the offensive symbols it has bequeathed to us."
43
As a conservative, I'm often frustrated by the refusal of other conservatives to acknowledge the ways in which it's not fair to say that both sides contribute equally to the deterioration of public debate. For example, when speaking about military matters, it's conservative, and not liberals, who repeatedly question the patriotism of the other side; it's conservatives, and not liberals, who repeatedly question the courage of the other side. It is disproportionately the right who poisons the debate this way, and liberals shouldn't be forced to offer up bland utterances that "Politicians just can't be civilized."
Kudos to Kristof for observing that civility in public discourse on university campuses is also not an area where the two sides are equally responsible for the sad state of affairs - it's mostly progressives who are to blame. I say this as a graduate student.
Ironically, the problem is perpetuated by a sort of political correctness in both cases, but not at all in the sense in which think. In both cases, people insist on saying the politically correct thing, which is that "everybody is equally responsible" for shutting down substantive discussion. But in order to solve the problem, we have to recognize its cause, and this has to mean calling out the side of the isle that's the root of the problem in the given context.
Kudos to Kristof for observing that civility in public discourse on university campuses is also not an area where the two sides are equally responsible for the sad state of affairs - it's mostly progressives who are to blame. I say this as a graduate student.
Ironically, the problem is perpetuated by a sort of political correctness in both cases, but not at all in the sense in which think. In both cases, people insist on saying the politically correct thing, which is that "everybody is equally responsible" for shutting down substantive discussion. But in order to solve the problem, we have to recognize its cause, and this has to mean calling out the side of the isle that's the root of the problem in the given context.
3
How do you define race?
I am a married white male heterosexual atheist who earns in the top 2% annually. I vote 60% Republican 40% Democrat. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Last year my mother and I sent DNA samples to get analyzed. My ancestry revealed 3% from the Guinea-Bissau region, however I still have blond hair (a touch of gray now) and blue eyes (clouding up though with time), you would think I'm 100% Swedish.
A legitimate example of systematic oppression was the " One Drop Test" One drop of "undesirable" blood in your veins made your a full member of that despised group. Horrible. Repressive. Offensive. I think we all agree.
In light of individuals demanding that others must adhere to their personal definition of what is offensive or unsafe, I'd like to invoke the "Reverse One Drop Rule". This is my right, as I am 1/32rd disadvantaged, according to these students.
I am offended by the concept of White Privilege (which I acknowledge and have benefited from in a systematic sense), I am offended by the cries to "tax the rich", I am offended by stereotypes that people in the South are all racists (grew up in California, college in the NE).
Effectively I am offended by everything. You need to deal with it!
Sounds ludicrous? Yes!
Am I being ludicrous? Yes!
I am a married white male heterosexual atheist who earns in the top 2% annually. I vote 60% Republican 40% Democrat. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Last year my mother and I sent DNA samples to get analyzed. My ancestry revealed 3% from the Guinea-Bissau region, however I still have blond hair (a touch of gray now) and blue eyes (clouding up though with time), you would think I'm 100% Swedish.
A legitimate example of systematic oppression was the " One Drop Test" One drop of "undesirable" blood in your veins made your a full member of that despised group. Horrible. Repressive. Offensive. I think we all agree.
In light of individuals demanding that others must adhere to their personal definition of what is offensive or unsafe, I'd like to invoke the "Reverse One Drop Rule". This is my right, as I am 1/32rd disadvantaged, according to these students.
I am offended by the concept of White Privilege (which I acknowledge and have benefited from in a systematic sense), I am offended by the cries to "tax the rich", I am offended by stereotypes that people in the South are all racists (grew up in California, college in the NE).
Effectively I am offended by everything. You need to deal with it!
Sounds ludicrous? Yes!
Am I being ludicrous? Yes!
2
Nicholas -
Can I toss some healthy skepticism on the fire? Can we go back to the spark that started this fire as Missouri State? And by way of preface, I am not saying what the student president says happened about being called the N-word, I only offer that for all adults it is good to save 10% of certainty for serious doubt versus wholehearted, embrace without proof or verifiation.
When I was at University of Maryland, we had a dorm-mate down the hall who was a freshman and fancied himself an up and comer. He was very active in the Jewish Student Union. During his 1st year, he was featured on the front page picture in the Diamondback, the school newspaper, page 1, pictured next to his hallway phone with a Swastika next to it one the wall. It created a fury on campus.
Jewish community organizations across Maryland were thrown into a fury and massive upset and concern was caused by this unspeakable display of racism and hatred. This akin to what accompanied the Missouri State university student president's lone experience.
A number of months later as the year was ending, the person in question went out to the local Rendevous Inn and embibbed tons of drinks. My dorm mate and I got into a conversation with him about the incident. He admitted, he had done it. He enjoyed the attention and found it a way to draw attention.
Before we saddle-up the anti-racism forces, is there a 10% chance of that being the case in this current brouhaha ? I would offer, yes, maybe.
Can I toss some healthy skepticism on the fire? Can we go back to the spark that started this fire as Missouri State? And by way of preface, I am not saying what the student president says happened about being called the N-word, I only offer that for all adults it is good to save 10% of certainty for serious doubt versus wholehearted, embrace without proof or verifiation.
When I was at University of Maryland, we had a dorm-mate down the hall who was a freshman and fancied himself an up and comer. He was very active in the Jewish Student Union. During his 1st year, he was featured on the front page picture in the Diamondback, the school newspaper, page 1, pictured next to his hallway phone with a Swastika next to it one the wall. It created a fury on campus.
Jewish community organizations across Maryland were thrown into a fury and massive upset and concern was caused by this unspeakable display of racism and hatred. This akin to what accompanied the Missouri State university student president's lone experience.
A number of months later as the year was ending, the person in question went out to the local Rendevous Inn and embibbed tons of drinks. My dorm mate and I got into a conversation with him about the incident. He admitted, he had done it. He enjoyed the attention and found it a way to draw attention.
Before we saddle-up the anti-racism forces, is there a 10% chance of that being the case in this current brouhaha ? I would offer, yes, maybe.
4
Interesting that most comments seem to condemn the institutions and their leaders for racial epithets and that free speech is only for ideas, while less is said about the rejection - at the demand of liberal protesters - of speakers who ask merely to express their ideas. We've come a long way but there are still and will always be offensive people among us, ambiguously or explicitly so. How do we deal with them? By confronting, discussing, shaming, as the circumstance warrants, and bad behavior will recede as it always has in history. But is it the fault of institutions and their leaders that bad behavior exists? I for one would like Mr. Kristof to point out any case where a college has "acquiesced" in racism. I'm not aware of it and highly doubt it. Or, is it enough that it "seems" to someone that it is acquiescing, and is that "seeming" and the demands that come from it always excused? We might as well demand that Obama resign because our society still has racists.
2
While I'd point out that it was guys like old Tailgunner Joe and Joe Pyne, all the way through to Reed Irvine and Accuracy in Academia who pretty much inventd this kind of politicall-correct witch-hunting, the recent behavior by morons who style themselves "progressive," has been absolutely disgraceful.
And cowardly, too: tenure is there so a prof can tell a student who wants them to pledge allegicance to whatever to get stuffed.
I am especially disgusted to read that that idiot at the U. of Mississippi was actually a faculty member. Sorry, but Dr. Click needs hauling up before the University's Professional Relations committee, and having her face slapped by that Academic Senate.
What she did wasn't just irresponsible, and it wasn't just a trashing of AAUP guidelines on free speech: it's a primary violation of the liberal principles that allow colleges and universities to exist at all.
Shameful, really.
And cowardly, too: tenure is there so a prof can tell a student who wants them to pledge allegicance to whatever to get stuffed.
I am especially disgusted to read that that idiot at the U. of Mississippi was actually a faculty member. Sorry, but Dr. Click needs hauling up before the University's Professional Relations committee, and having her face slapped by that Academic Senate.
What she did wasn't just irresponsible, and it wasn't just a trashing of AAUP guidelines on free speech: it's a primary violation of the liberal principles that allow colleges and universities to exist at all.
Shameful, really.
7
The Yale students are not acting like children, they are acting like exactly what they are: high maintenance customers of a luxury resort, one which they are paying tens of thousands of dollars per year to attend. The guest services manager at the Ritz Carlton doesn't respond to customer complaints with a lecture about coping skills, and university administrators have no standing to ignore even the most specious claims of emotional turmoil.
Over the past 20 years the all-in, inflation-adjusted costs of private and public colleges have increased 60% and 80%, respectively, with the lion's share of new revenue underwriting administration and student services.
If students want to pay or borrow $40k/year to live in a civic engagement fantasy camp, then that's their prerogative.
Is it prudent public policy for the government to facilitate students' access to six figure lines of credit by indemnifying lenders against default? Probably not.
Are these students in for a rude awakening when they find employers and colleagues markedly less nurturing than college administrators? Almost certainly.
Do these students have the right to demand coddling and special treatment while spending exorbitant amounts of money for a curated college experience? Absolutely! The customer is always right.
Over the past 20 years the all-in, inflation-adjusted costs of private and public colleges have increased 60% and 80%, respectively, with the lion's share of new revenue underwriting administration and student services.
If students want to pay or borrow $40k/year to live in a civic engagement fantasy camp, then that's their prerogative.
Is it prudent public policy for the government to facilitate students' access to six figure lines of credit by indemnifying lenders against default? Probably not.
Are these students in for a rude awakening when they find employers and colleagues markedly less nurturing than college administrators? Almost certainly.
Do these students have the right to demand coddling and special treatment while spending exorbitant amounts of money for a curated college experience? Absolutely! The customer is always right.
13
I think many people today believe they have a constitutional right never to be offended by anyone else. Their emotional response to something is all the proof they need that it must be stopped. However, free speech all but guarantees that we all will, some time or other and maybe even daily, be offended. Free speech is a completely empty concept if it only embraces that speech we agree with or find inoffensive. Censorship is an essential element of fascism, and the most dangerous practices that take root in communities (be it a university or an entire country) often grow from within as an understandable but wrongheaded reaction to a specific event. Just look at the police state we now find ourselves living in, which was largely a reaction to 9/11 after which the feds helped militarize local police departments. If people thought in terms of principles rather than using principles (such as free speech) only to leverage their own interests (dropping the principle or even contradicting it when censorship suited them), we would all avoid a lot of grief and injustice.
10
Thank you so much for writing this column.
I try my best to impress upon my students the need to be open to opposing viewpoints, to confront them (rationally), and to be confronted by them. It's even part of my syllabus that they will be taken outside of their comfort zone. That is the point of a university: to broaden the intellectual experience.
The world is not a "safe space". Education is about comprehending and coping with the realities that make it an "unsafe" one, in a *reasonably* controlled environment of peers and equals.
Students should feel welcomed. They should feel they belong. And they should leave their authoritarianism at the door.
I try my best to impress upon my students the need to be open to opposing viewpoints, to confront them (rationally), and to be confronted by them. It's even part of my syllabus that they will be taken outside of their comfort zone. That is the point of a university: to broaden the intellectual experience.
The world is not a "safe space". Education is about comprehending and coping with the realities that make it an "unsafe" one, in a *reasonably* controlled environment of peers and equals.
Students should feel welcomed. They should feel they belong. And they should leave their authoritarianism at the door.
6
On a simplistic level this conflict rids us of the very catalyst that gave us the enlightenment era and our founding governments—debating. A lot has changed in how these debates take place, and debates these days are basically a shouting match, but debating is how we as humans have evolved the societies we live in. And the universities are the crucible for our intellectual thought.
And here we are now, at what could be a crucial moment in civil rights history and what we need more now that anything is debate to prove the right of the direction we need to take as a society. For most of our social evolution, many haven’t been allowed into that debate. But its time to change that, its time to let everyone participate and let the arguments yield the voice of whats right for our society.
Debating might not be the most comfortable experience for young minds but its the most beneficial means of proving your argument, nothing is automatic especially in civil politics.
And here we are now, at what could be a crucial moment in civil rights history and what we need more now that anything is debate to prove the right of the direction we need to take as a society. For most of our social evolution, many haven’t been allowed into that debate. But its time to change that, its time to let everyone participate and let the arguments yield the voice of whats right for our society.
Debating might not be the most comfortable experience for young minds but its the most beneficial means of proving your argument, nothing is automatic especially in civil politics.
3
Free speech is obviously a constitutional right, but I don't think that that is the issue. Nobody (honestly) is going after white Evangelical students on college campuses. White students don't have to face the same dangers that students of color do. Many of the students who are arguing against students of color for protecting themselves use the First Amendment as a pass to say whatever they want - and nobody wants to infringe on that right. However, having the right to speak your mind does not equate to being immune to the consequences of your speech and actions. Not believing in Christianity does not constitute oppression. Silencing students of color, transgender students, and LGB-identified students does constitute oppression, though - just because those voices have never truly been given their due by society. White Christian voices have been heard loud and clear for centuries. It is not 'intolerance' to want to be heard, to want to be prioritized for ONCE over the steady stream of mostly white, mostly male, and again, mostly Christian voices that are respected by society at large. The difference is that although Christian students may be uncomfortable when their religion is challenged and Conservative viewpoints are not always accepted or respected, the comfort of those who are not truly oppressed in this country must come second. People of color, transgender people, LGB individuals and women are victims of hate-based violence. They are killing us. This must stop.
4
RE: "Members of minorities — whether black or transgender or (on many campuses) evangelical conservatives — should be able to feel a part of campus, not feel mocked in their own community."
How is it possible that groups for whom numerous departments and entire fields of studies (and subcategories of other fields) are devoted to their experience not to feel like they are part of the campus? As for mocking, those objectionable Halloween costumes tend to be the work of typical boors and tasteless frat boys being being typical boors, not authentic expressions of Yale policy. The whiners on this Yale campus were offended because someone dared to doubt the urgency (or even necessity) of a 13-signatory Good Taste Notice concerning Halloween. At Mizzou, systemic racism was not in play in that quad where students and faculty physically rolled over a journalist's right to cover an event in a public setting. It was the mob manifestation of special pleading. In nay philosophy or forensics class, special pleading costs you points. Violence can get you expelled.
How is it possible that groups for whom numerous departments and entire fields of studies (and subcategories of other fields) are devoted to their experience not to feel like they are part of the campus? As for mocking, those objectionable Halloween costumes tend to be the work of typical boors and tasteless frat boys being being typical boors, not authentic expressions of Yale policy. The whiners on this Yale campus were offended because someone dared to doubt the urgency (or even necessity) of a 13-signatory Good Taste Notice concerning Halloween. At Mizzou, systemic racism was not in play in that quad where students and faculty physically rolled over a journalist's right to cover an event in a public setting. It was the mob manifestation of special pleading. In nay philosophy or forensics class, special pleading costs you points. Violence can get you expelled.
8
We are all guilty of surrounding ourselves with communities of like minded individuals. Tolerating racist behavior is ineffective leadership as well as possibly acquiessence to illegal acts. This has nothing to do the craziness of our PC culture. Free speech is a moving target and if PC culture goes too far, then challenge the legality. This is very different from institutional racism-
Sure, we all need to expose ourselves to different ideas, ways of thinking but that doesn't mean repeated exposure to toxic bizarre irrational thought processes. I am afraid this is more a quality than quantity issue e.g. no one should have to listen to vapid slogans devoid of any reasoning or facts- whether from the right or left
Sure, we all need to expose ourselves to different ideas, ways of thinking but that doesn't mean repeated exposure to toxic bizarre irrational thought processes. I am afraid this is more a quality than quantity issue e.g. no one should have to listen to vapid slogans devoid of any reasoning or facts- whether from the right or left
3
Political correctness, free speech, and acceptable personal behavior to each other in a public forum are three different but related concepts. It seems increasingly difficult to articulate a discussion concerning racial and class issues (unlawful behavior, police action, fear of being victimized, for example) that is well rounded and includes differing points of view. An expectation that people will behave civilly towards each other is too often lost in the heat of the moment.
5
I am a marginally left of center retired insurance exec, who grew up on the east coast, lived in Iowa for 15 years and, because we retired to the mountains, now lives in one of the most politically conservative counties in Colorado(Top10 per capita counties in US for gun ownership). I was educated by the Jesuits and went to U of M graduate school. And I am still marginally left of center. Yet, I listen respectfully to my friends in our new community, many of whom have very different points of view. Would I be more intellectually comfortable in Boulder? Probably. But, what fun is it to be around all the time people with whom you agree? I have come to relish diversity of opinion throughout my life, a foundation which was created during my college years. There will always be folks who offend one's views, heritage, sexuality etc etc. That tension will never go away. It's an imperfect world and sometimes all we can do is listen, learn and smile. The result of these current incidents will be that more administrators will be hired, more rules of conduct created, more cost passed on to families and the result will be zilch. No behavior will be changed.
Instead try this:
O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled as to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love;
For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
It is in dying to self that we are born to eternal life.
Instead try this:
O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled as to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love;
For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
It is in dying to self that we are born to eternal life.
8
Desegregation became a dirty word in the 1970's and 1980's. The effort to desegregate schools was highly unpopular and help accelerate the white flight to the suburbs. In the 1990's it even became a bad word to African Americans as they embraced "black culture" and rejected what was now being called assimilation into "white culture". Along came the culture warriors brandishing their political correctness and multiculturalism. The problem with the multicultural model is that it is not built on the idea of tolerance. Instead it is a new type of intolerance, where society is to be scrubbed of any "offensive" word, idea or action. It is a utopian ideal that like other utopian ideals is essentially impossible to achieve and ultimately totalitarian in practice. Desegregation and yes even assimilation (which not only changes the minority culture, but also the majority culture) is the only way to solve the problem of intolerance and hate and their ultimately reactionary responses.
10
Not so fast. Kristof offers undeniable facts supporting attacks on free speech and then equates those incidents with the unsupported allegation that universities need to be more inclusive...or perhaps supported by one professor's allegation that she has been called the "n" word (shouldn't such a terrible accusation include identifying when and by whom?), and a single nut job posting death threats after the fact. Let's stick to the facts. Let's prosecute the person posting death threats, investigate any claims of intimidation, be they drawing swastikas or pushing a photographer, and make the necessary changes. Universities might need to be more inclusive but yelling about it doesn't prove it. And for those who excuse bad behavior (on one side or both sides) due to youth, remember being bullied by a 21 year old is no less dangerous or unacceptable than being bullied by a 40 year old.
14
While it is a given that universities must ensure that their students feel safe, we need a definition of "safe" that has some basis in reality. They must be "safe" from physical attack, from physical harm, from emotional cruelty. But if they are ever to grow into adults who function in the cold, cruel world, they absolutely must not be "safe" from exposure to thoughts that make them uncomfortable, from speech with which they disagree, or, for the love of God, from the possibility of Halloween costumes they don't approve of.
In the long-ago era I grew up in, the guiding principle was "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." That was a much healthier world. Political correctness has moved well past the threshold of insanity, and we will either reverse course or end up wishing for a world as "safe" as Mad Max After Thunderdome.
In the long-ago era I grew up in, the guiding principle was "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." That was a much healthier world. Political correctness has moved well past the threshold of insanity, and we will either reverse course or end up wishing for a world as "safe" as Mad Max After Thunderdome.
11
Hahaha: "... But often, to some degree, it’s right colliding with right...."
Mr. Kristoff would do well to read Frederich Hayak. "The Road to Serfdom" accurately describes and predicts the results of clashing utopias under overall "Utopian" statism.
"Every one of the many things which, considered in isolation, it would be possible to achieve in a planned society creates enthusiasts for planning who feel confident that they will be able to install into the directors of such a society their sense of the value of the particular objective; and the hopes of some of them would undoubtedly be fulfilled, since a planned society would certainly further some objectives more than is the case at present."
He goes on "The movement for planning owes its present strength largely to the fact that while planning is in the main still an ambition, it unites almost all the single-minded idealists, all the men and women who have devoted their lives to a single task. The hopes they place in planning, however, are a result NOT of a comprehensive view of society but rather of a very limited view and often the result of a GREAT EXAGGERATION of the importance of the ends they place foremost."
Once the eggs have been broken to make the omelet, it becomes a food fight in the kitchen when the various chefs disagree on the question of WHICH omelet is the best. This is only to be answered by the AUTHORITY that claims to have access to the knowledge of the Platonic ideal of the "best omelet".
Mr. Kristoff would do well to read Frederich Hayak. "The Road to Serfdom" accurately describes and predicts the results of clashing utopias under overall "Utopian" statism.
"Every one of the many things which, considered in isolation, it would be possible to achieve in a planned society creates enthusiasts for planning who feel confident that they will be able to install into the directors of such a society their sense of the value of the particular objective; and the hopes of some of them would undoubtedly be fulfilled, since a planned society would certainly further some objectives more than is the case at present."
He goes on "The movement for planning owes its present strength largely to the fact that while planning is in the main still an ambition, it unites almost all the single-minded idealists, all the men and women who have devoted their lives to a single task. The hopes they place in planning, however, are a result NOT of a comprehensive view of society but rather of a very limited view and often the result of a GREAT EXAGGERATION of the importance of the ends they place foremost."
Once the eggs have been broken to make the omelet, it becomes a food fight in the kitchen when the various chefs disagree on the question of WHICH omelet is the best. This is only to be answered by the AUTHORITY that claims to have access to the knowledge of the Platonic ideal of the "best omelet".
A Yale statement says, "the P.C. mind-set “threatens to undermine or destroy universities as a place of learning.” No, ladies and gentlemen, YOUR sell-out to BIG democracy-destroying money, exorbitant student loans, sense of "entitlement" and arrogance are what is destroying universities as a place of learning. The press is responsible for not reporting widely enough when graduate students at UM threatened to walk out and/or sue when the then-president tried to pay them slave wages and cut health care benefits. The press is also responsible for not reporting that the same president cancelled a long-standing contract UM had with Planned Parenthood to fulfill his radical religious/money-hungry backers reasons for installing him. Freedom of speech and freedom of information should also carry the responsibility to report fully and free of political "positions". Unfortunately, since all the major media in America is owned by 6 or 7 BIG-MONEY democracy-destroying masters WE have lost the right to be fully informed. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-me...
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-me...
2
To Parents: SEE what you've created by coddling and protecting your children from the mean world around us!
This supersedes race and religion. Your child feels no one can say anything bad or mean to them. You've held them in the womb for so long, when something happens upsetting to them they have no choice but to pout and cry until they get what they want. Unfortunately universities don't have the ability to call time out and put them in the corner. Their forced to deal with your horribly over-protective child rearing problems. Basically the transfer of your insecurities to your children. And, unfortunately, its like a mating call amongst other "self-important" children where they flock together, use whatever rally cry works to their advantage and uses it befuddle rationale adults in dealing with a situation.
Your parents should be held responsible but that ain't happening in our quest for solutions centered around, "I'm not responsible, lets blame someone else" era and "we can create a solution so no one has to be responsible for, particularly us."
This supersedes race and religion. Your child feels no one can say anything bad or mean to them. You've held them in the womb for so long, when something happens upsetting to them they have no choice but to pout and cry until they get what they want. Unfortunately universities don't have the ability to call time out and put them in the corner. Their forced to deal with your horribly over-protective child rearing problems. Basically the transfer of your insecurities to your children. And, unfortunately, its like a mating call amongst other "self-important" children where they flock together, use whatever rally cry works to their advantage and uses it befuddle rationale adults in dealing with a situation.
Your parents should be held responsible but that ain't happening in our quest for solutions centered around, "I'm not responsible, lets blame someone else" era and "we can create a solution so no one has to be responsible for, particularly us."
8
When, as a U.S. Prosecutor (now U.S. AG) in her speech to law (!) school students said that a proof that inner city communities are "desperate in seeking better relationship with police" supposedly lies in the fact that they "don't burn the entire city down", when rioters in Ferguson, Baltimore, etc. are still called protesters exercising their right to protest, when Yale student can, without any negative consequences to her, brutally and publicly shout down her professor and she and others believing that she too is just excercising her rights and vents her grievances in still acceptable ways ... we have a problem.
And those "safe spaces" which became oh-so-popular on our college campuses now, with hot chocolate, PlayDough, herbal tea and comfort for those who are "offended" and clearly can't handle academic soil's freedom of speech, might rather soon turn into safety space against raging, supposedly leftist, but in reality very extreamist mob instead.
And those "safe spaces" which became oh-so-popular on our college campuses now, with hot chocolate, PlayDough, herbal tea and comfort for those who are "offended" and clearly can't handle academic soil's freedom of speech, might rather soon turn into safety space against raging, supposedly leftist, but in reality very extreamist mob instead.
14
How I wish that well-meaning journalists would stop saying that the First Amendment guarantees your right to express yourself; it does no such thing. The First Amendment guarantees that the government will not suppress speech, and even that comes with lots of exceptions and caveats.
But when private citizens shut down the expression of other private citizens, the First Amendment is not violated.
Whether and how hard universities should strive to ensure free expression by some students against the wishes of other students is entirely a matter of policy for universities; it is not a First Amendment issue.
Similarly, however laudable it is for students to be receptive to points of view other than their own, their own unreceptiveness is their personal business, not a First Amendment issue.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
But when private citizens shut down the expression of other private citizens, the First Amendment is not violated.
Whether and how hard universities should strive to ensure free expression by some students against the wishes of other students is entirely a matter of policy for universities; it is not a First Amendment issue.
Similarly, however laudable it is for students to be receptive to points of view other than their own, their own unreceptiveness is their personal business, not a First Amendment issue.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
4
The fact that African American youth is awake and deciding they are tired of the status quo which has existed since the Civil Rights era should be applauded, full stop. I don't think they are "little Robespierres", they are making demands which should have been made years ago.
Second, you, Mr. Kristoff, have dedicated your life to fairness, to justice, to honesty. It doesn't surprise me that you have been invited to speak at Universities with a conservative bent. But I don't see that as being a justification for someone like Condelezza Rice being allowed to bring her faulty judgement and dishonestly to a university setting. She helped bring about the destruction of Iraq where the suffering continues. Christine LeGarde is likewise part of the .01% who represent the bankers above the rest of us. She too has not much to say to our youth who are struggling to make it through school by incurring enormous debts. If she wants to come and talk about how higher education should be free, that's another issue but that's not her point. She wants to push the interests of the wealthy.
As a Jew I'd love to hear Pope Francis speak or Bishop Desmond Tutu because they have a message of inclusion and love and spirituality which transcends religious identity. I think it matters who is being disinvited to speak and each instance judged separately on the merits.
Second, you, Mr. Kristoff, have dedicated your life to fairness, to justice, to honesty. It doesn't surprise me that you have been invited to speak at Universities with a conservative bent. But I don't see that as being a justification for someone like Condelezza Rice being allowed to bring her faulty judgement and dishonestly to a university setting. She helped bring about the destruction of Iraq where the suffering continues. Christine LeGarde is likewise part of the .01% who represent the bankers above the rest of us. She too has not much to say to our youth who are struggling to make it through school by incurring enormous debts. If she wants to come and talk about how higher education should be free, that's another issue but that's not her point. She wants to push the interests of the wealthy.
As a Jew I'd love to hear Pope Francis speak or Bishop Desmond Tutu because they have a message of inclusion and love and spirituality which transcends religious identity. I think it matters who is being disinvited to speak and each instance judged separately on the merits.
3
letting opposing view points to speak will allow you the chance to question them in the Q and A following their lecture. . Wouldn't you like the opportunity to call them on their positions?
2
No one asks to be born, but everyone is expected to be grateful.
You obliviously missed professor Melissa Click's "I need some muscle over here" to physically eject a photographer. Yale & Missouri have lost any message they seek to disseminate. Screaming your views are heard by no one. You can never empower the obnoxious.
22
What has not been acknowledged in this conversation, including in Mr. Kristof's article, is that these recent collegiate protests represent a seismic shift in the racial justice movement.
Up until now, the main targets of protest were areas of entrenched institutional racism, i.e. racism expressed and endorsed by people in positions of institutional power. These protests were right and appropriate because they helped root out entrenched prejudice in the the institutional structures themselves.
But the recent incidents on the Mizzou and Yale campuses are not about institutional racism. No administrator or faculty made racist comments, no classes were assigned questionable research projects, and no students were marked down for not fitting in to the dominant cultural narrative. Individual students, often outside of the campus, were the ones who expressed racist attitudes. University administrators can do much, but changing the hearts of individual students is beyond their capabilities or jurisdiction.
The fact is there will always be racist individuals as there always have been. No amount of cultural sensitivity training will change that fundamental fact.
Up until now, the main targets of protest were areas of entrenched institutional racism, i.e. racism expressed and endorsed by people in positions of institutional power. These protests were right and appropriate because they helped root out entrenched prejudice in the the institutional structures themselves.
But the recent incidents on the Mizzou and Yale campuses are not about institutional racism. No administrator or faculty made racist comments, no classes were assigned questionable research projects, and no students were marked down for not fitting in to the dominant cultural narrative. Individual students, often outside of the campus, were the ones who expressed racist attitudes. University administrators can do much, but changing the hearts of individual students is beyond their capabilities or jurisdiction.
The fact is there will always be racist individuals as there always have been. No amount of cultural sensitivity training will change that fundamental fact.
20
Who is calling a university professor the N word so many times she has lost count? Is her claim credible? It looks over and over that a few people are responsible for virtually all the anti-social behavior. The backlash seems worse than the offense. Maybe all uncomfortable speech can be banned from campus but not the world. Who will decide what is said and what isn't? This is the road to both ignorance and totalitarianism.
35
Do white students regularly hurl racial slurs at minority students and make nazi symbols on walls? Seems totally bizarre and a random act by a few sick individuals and I cannot imagine a college or fellow students of any color tolerating that: it is totally uncool, sick behavior. Does that sickness in a few individuals make it a rampant problem worthy of condemning an entire community and conflating it into a crisis? Having attended an ivory tower in the 70's, this stuff is really lame. Let's all love each other- seriously. It's in your hearts and minds and is a matter of choice that we conscious make each and every moment. That is higher learning.
19
A college is exactly about creating an intellectual space. If you aren't comfortable with being in college, or with freedom of speech, stop spending your parents' money and get out!
26
I can only imagine the impatience of those knocked down by society for so long. Progress seems to be at a glacial pace, but the recent spate of activist behaviors is setting race relations back, not forward. Those who applaud these behaviors were already tolerant and accepting. Wouldn’t actions effective in reaching the intolerant be more effective? Surely the great Dr. King wouldn’t approve of Black Lives Matter or destructive, violent rioting, especially by those who destroy the town they live in. This leads to more distrust and racial tensions. Instead of melting away baseless perceptions that peoples of color act like animals, these behaviors only solidifies it for the bigoted.
For people old enough to remember, it is amazing how far we have progressed since enacting the first Civil Rights legislation. We see each new generation is more accepting and tolerant and that needs to continue with frequent peaceful, organized events designed to keep reminding society of its obligations to their fellow man. However, use of violence and allowing the students on campus to overtake our colleges has to be the wrong direction to go. My daughter is turning 30 and, until recently she never exhibited any bias, only acceptance because it was encouraged at home and in school. Now, that has changed because of the horrible behaviors this year seen on TV and the dramatic rise in hurtful, overt and now pervasive racism towards her personally, the white community and the police. Shameful!
For people old enough to remember, it is amazing how far we have progressed since enacting the first Civil Rights legislation. We see each new generation is more accepting and tolerant and that needs to continue with frequent peaceful, organized events designed to keep reminding society of its obligations to their fellow man. However, use of violence and allowing the students on campus to overtake our colleges has to be the wrong direction to go. My daughter is turning 30 and, until recently she never exhibited any bias, only acceptance because it was encouraged at home and in school. Now, that has changed because of the horrible behaviors this year seen on TV and the dramatic rise in hurtful, overt and now pervasive racism towards her personally, the white community and the police. Shameful!
7
Many years ago, Temple University instituted a course in race and racism as a requirement. Perhaps all schools should do this. Racism is a psychosis, and students ought to be aware of this. The university ought to be a place where students learn to participate in the contestation of ideas that leads to the moral evolution of humankind.
3
As a moderate Republican who is currently attending graduate school at a liberal University, I find this article to be very true. Often, I am afraid to voice my opinions on topics, as I often get called names (racist, bigot, idiot among other, less-printable ones) in return. I am a thoughtful person who has not come to my views lightly. The fact that I disagree with many of my peers (and professors) conclusions does not render my ideas in any way, shape or form invalid or unworthy.
25
In light of the overwhelming statistics that unequivocally show the race based: bias in the criminal justice system; and, lack of economic opportunity; I think it is safe to say that a minority's world here is a "...hostile work environment...", to use Mr. Kristof's words. In this context its hard to see any justification for supporting the maintainer of the "hostile work environment"! The racial slurs and costumes are just symptoms. And yes the maintainer of the "hostile work environment" has NO RIGHT to continue the "hostility"!
3
Thanks for writing this. Things need to change, but we do all need to take a deep breath.
To those who don't understand the reaction of some whites to this, please allow me to elaborate. I've never, ever, used the N-word in my life, but I now have to live in fear that all someone would have to do would be to accuse me of doing that, for me to be tattooed with the R-word and at risk of losing a job, friends, etc. I know that at least some of the non-verbal slights are mere coincidences, but are interpreted as otherwise by those who think they can read minds, because this has happened to me. At a neighborhood gathering, an African-American woman approached to shake my hand, but saw my hesitation, that she could not have known was because I had been clearing the tables, putting things into the garbage, and thus wondered if my hand was clean enough to touch her hand. Another time, I was at a restaurant with my husband and daughter, and we were seated next to a black party, who were to our left, with no one on the right. My husband, who had been shown to a seat on my left, traded places with me, as he is left-handed and didn't want to jab me with his elbows, but we could tell from the tone of the mumuring or those at the other table that someone had been offended. Offering explanations for situations like these does no good, as it seems like protesting too much, and, in any case, the other party's mind has been made up. We have a long way to go toward being a post-racial country
To those who don't understand the reaction of some whites to this, please allow me to elaborate. I've never, ever, used the N-word in my life, but I now have to live in fear that all someone would have to do would be to accuse me of doing that, for me to be tattooed with the R-word and at risk of losing a job, friends, etc. I know that at least some of the non-verbal slights are mere coincidences, but are interpreted as otherwise by those who think they can read minds, because this has happened to me. At a neighborhood gathering, an African-American woman approached to shake my hand, but saw my hesitation, that she could not have known was because I had been clearing the tables, putting things into the garbage, and thus wondered if my hand was clean enough to touch her hand. Another time, I was at a restaurant with my husband and daughter, and we were seated next to a black party, who were to our left, with no one on the right. My husband, who had been shown to a seat on my left, traded places with me, as he is left-handed and didn't want to jab me with his elbows, but we could tell from the tone of the mumuring or those at the other table that someone had been offended. Offering explanations for situations like these does no good, as it seems like protesting too much, and, in any case, the other party's mind has been made up. We have a long way to go toward being a post-racial country
11
94% of Ivy league professors vote Democrat. Only 7% of mainstream reporters consider themselves conservative. The system is so biased. Mr. Kristoff is being so "considerate" when he suggests "we should ALL take a deep breath." So magnanimous! Sorry, but it is too late for freedom of speech. Get over it.
8
Most of your so-called "liberal professors" are as shocked and disheartened as you are that silencing other ideas is becoming the new "radical" trend.
We try to teach our students HOW to think, not WHAT to think, and we want them to interact with the world, not hide from it. We want them to protest injustice while letting all voices be heard.
Your comment feels paranoid about educators - we're not mere indoctrinators - and it doesn't do justice to our efforts to open our students' minds to a variety of ideas and possibilities.
Trust me, we are also feeling the blunt end of the "sensitivity stick" these days. We are nervous to teach certain things because we might step on someone's toes.
We try to teach our students HOW to think, not WHAT to think, and we want them to interact with the world, not hide from it. We want them to protest injustice while letting all voices be heard.
Your comment feels paranoid about educators - we're not mere indoctrinators - and it doesn't do justice to our efforts to open our students' minds to a variety of ideas and possibilities.
Trust me, we are also feeling the blunt end of the "sensitivity stick" these days. We are nervous to teach certain things because we might step on someone's toes.
2
Over the last few days I have been thinking about THE OX-BOW INCIDENT, a novel by Walter Van Tilberg Clark widely read in schools when I was growing up. It was also made into an excellent movie. When the dust settles, will there be occasion for second thoughts? Do we no longer distinguish between rumor, allegation and verifiable fact? How many lives have been damaged? There is more at stake than the First Amendment.
5
The correct course of action is to end "affirmative action."
Without race-based admissions preferences, there would be fewer underprepared, unready, unqualifed students making ignorant statements and irrational demands.
Without race-based admissions preferences, there would be fewer underprepared, unready, unqualifed students making ignorant statements and irrational demands.
13
As a conservative, I really enjoyed your article. Too rare do I see people on either side of the political spectrum encourage viewpoints to be heard and respected. Open discussion is the very base of free speech, and is essential in the higher education of this country, liberal and conservative alike. Shutting out these arguments breeds only ignorance, which effectively renders debate meaningless. I often speak with people who challenge and undermine my faith and views simply because my own views are challenged and, in turn, strengthened because I encouraged a voice to be heard, not suppressed.
6
Kristof leaves us in a quandary here. He is right to draw a distinction between (1) being receptive to challenging viewpoints that make us uncomfortable and (2) allowing the kind of hate speech that creates hostile environments and discourages diversity of viewpoints. However, who is allowed to draw that distinction?
At Stanford, when Bloomberg gave a commencement address, a small segment of students protested his presence. In my opinion, nobody has the right to not hear a viewpoint just because they do not agree with it. When someone (not a student) drew a swastika on a Stanford frat house, however, I would argue that students had a right to feel violated and threatened. But there are others who would draw the line in different places - and I cannot say that I trust anybody to define what is acceptable for all of us. So I would err on the side of freedom, if only because there is no one qualified to have absolute say on what should be party to censorship.
At Stanford, when Bloomberg gave a commencement address, a small segment of students protested his presence. In my opinion, nobody has the right to not hear a viewpoint just because they do not agree with it. When someone (not a student) drew a swastika on a Stanford frat house, however, I would argue that students had a right to feel violated and threatened. But there are others who would draw the line in different places - and I cannot say that I trust anybody to define what is acceptable for all of us. So I would err on the side of freedom, if only because there is no one qualified to have absolute say on what should be party to censorship.
6
Ah, where is S.I. Hayakawa when we need him?
THE answer is certainly elusive.
THE answer is certainly elusive.
1
No it's not time to take a breather. We've seen the real face of the left, they went too far, now they want to cover their tracks and edit what happened. The original "Hurt at Home" letter to Yale Herald has been written over for example -- the letter that objects to the House Master's commitment to free speech even when it makes some students feel bad. We should have this discussion now before more stuff is edited and disappears down the memory hole, to be brought up again later, sanitized. We should onsider all aspects, even uncomfortably why these kids complain so much and accomplish so little, and whether they really are the future of our nation. We're told to have a conversation about race, now we're having it, let it roll.
10
The left cannot listen to dissenting voices, it's very existence depends upon the demonization of others. So it has always been. These college kids begin to remind one very much of Mao's Red Guard.
12
Only now you realize that left wing thought fascism exists.
Way too late.
This nation is heading for full anarchy in 10 years.
Enjoy the whirlwind.
Way too late.
This nation is heading for full anarchy in 10 years.
Enjoy the whirlwind.
10
"More broadly, academia — especially the social sciences — undermines itself by a tilt to the left."
It's probably difficult to be a very conservative or even a moderately conservative professor and vote for a republican if so many republicans from state to state threaten or actually cut funding to educational institutions every year. It'd be like asking for a pay cut. Oh by the way, it seems like the leading republican candidate thinks that's a good idea because "wages are too high."
Also, just looking at the economic policy landscape in Congress...if their philosophies on economics are any indication of what conservatives would teach at the university level, the country is better off with left-leaning academics.
It's probably difficult to be a very conservative or even a moderately conservative professor and vote for a republican if so many republicans from state to state threaten or actually cut funding to educational institutions every year. It'd be like asking for a pay cut. Oh by the way, it seems like the leading republican candidate thinks that's a good idea because "wages are too high."
Also, just looking at the economic policy landscape in Congress...if their philosophies on economics are any indication of what conservatives would teach at the university level, the country is better off with left-leaning academics.
4
To bad you missed that part about the Black student body President Payton Head, ( He should be arrested for this crime.) tweeting out that KKK was coming resulting in a campus lock down and scores of kids leaving campus or having their parent get them Tuesday night, or that that same President was the one person citing being called the N word, or that the KKK smeared on walls story was NEVER proved on a campus with 40k cell phone cameras, or that the hunger strike "victim" was the son of a railroad Exec making 8.5 million a year and he was striking because grad students lost out on free health because of the Liberals favorite plan-Obamacare. In short, the whole episode is an out and out fabrication. As a result any legit complaints blacks might have now will be brushed off.
14
It is much too easy to be intolerant of intolerant people.
1
Hard to see the line between inclusiveness and intrusiveness. Hard to live on the razor's edge. The world shrinks and tensions grow.
2
While I am certainly in any way that far left as Mr. Kristof - as his life-long record and production consistently indicates - I see this one his - in a long-term a commentary of historic significance as it seems to eloquently and at last minute, save the very foundation our country has been founded and overall have done so well for us and so many nations around the world.
He is absolutely right in his very timely assertions that:
1) This sensitivity is also intolerance and it is an INSTINCT disproportionally present on the left
2) Academia - especially social sciences - undermine itself by its tilt to the left.
Deeply troubling, aggressive, extremely derogatory, and disgraceful public shouting and yelling down of a Yale professor by a student and Melisa Click - on top of everything an (assistant) professor of journalism(!) hysterical screaming and call for "some muscles" to push out a calm, professional, polite student/freelance reporter for ESPN who "dared" do document public protest of students at very public space are - I hope forever - exclamation marks and warning signals for the left and its ardent supporters that the left clearly is not free of some deeply flawed deficiencies which are also not compatible with democratic freedom and some very fundamental rights our society and country must preserve in order to exist.
Sadly, for every Melisa Click which had to resign, there are tens of thousands similarly extremely left faculty members at our colleges. Not good.
He is absolutely right in his very timely assertions that:
1) This sensitivity is also intolerance and it is an INSTINCT disproportionally present on the left
2) Academia - especially social sciences - undermine itself by its tilt to the left.
Deeply troubling, aggressive, extremely derogatory, and disgraceful public shouting and yelling down of a Yale professor by a student and Melisa Click - on top of everything an (assistant) professor of journalism(!) hysterical screaming and call for "some muscles" to push out a calm, professional, polite student/freelance reporter for ESPN who "dared" do document public protest of students at very public space are - I hope forever - exclamation marks and warning signals for the left and its ardent supporters that the left clearly is not free of some deeply flawed deficiencies which are also not compatible with democratic freedom and some very fundamental rights our society and country must preserve in order to exist.
Sadly, for every Melisa Click which had to resign, there are tens of thousands similarly extremely left faculty members at our colleges. Not good.
11
As a social democrat, I want to see a society of tolerance and inclusiveness, but I also want free speech to remain a fundamental right, so it's alarming that in places of higher education there is intolerance to freedom of speech — political correctness out of control. The mania regarding perceived microaggression in speech is antithetical to the very purpose of colleges and universities — to be places where all ideas are available for consideration. Intolerance toward free speech is no better than intolerance toward others.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
10
Great article. Thank you.
3
How interesting that we’ve bridged freedom of speech and thought control into one amalgam of – The Politically Correct Response. Being free to voice an opinion has morphed into extreme caution in verbal articulation. You can certainly think what you want, but by god don’t you dare say it out loud.
Here’s another of our freedoms stretched to the breaking point by minority factions demanding their rights at the cost of others. College is the perfect forum in which to learn leadership and the power of unity, but along with that must come the understanding of responsibility for our actions and statements. This is the part we most often ignore.
Where is the case for reverse discrimination? The president of the college and several professors are resigning under pressure from the student body – who insist these people are prejudice. This is a sharp two-edged sword. It cuts both ways, but we don’t see that while we’re hacking away from the “moral” high-ground.
Here’s another of our freedoms stretched to the breaking point by minority factions demanding their rights at the cost of others. College is the perfect forum in which to learn leadership and the power of unity, but along with that must come the understanding of responsibility for our actions and statements. This is the part we most often ignore.
Where is the case for reverse discrimination? The president of the college and several professors are resigning under pressure from the student body – who insist these people are prejudice. This is a sharp two-edged sword. It cuts both ways, but we don’t see that while we’re hacking away from the “moral” high-ground.
5
Some of the things I have to remind myself:
- Remain teachable
- And can I tolerate the ambiguities? (can't remember the philosopher here)
I try to be of service, and sometimes that's just a smile and a listening heart.
Thanks for your piece.
- Remain teachable
- And can I tolerate the ambiguities? (can't remember the philosopher here)
I try to be of service, and sometimes that's just a smile and a listening heart.
Thanks for your piece.
4
I have two daughters in Rutgers. They have endlessly complained about this very issue. Even as liberal minded individuals, they are afraid to open their mouths. The social justice warriors attack with a vengeance at the slightest perceived trespass. When my daughter - a lifelong supporter of civil rights - was unable to attend a Ferguson protest because she was STUDYING, she was called a racist. Humor is nonexistent (many comedians no longer perform at colleges) and she was publicly bashed for using a "her" pronoun for a male to female transgender, and informed she had to say "they" and in another case "it". It's so sad, really, because these individuals have truly become "sanctimonious bullies". Unfortunately, rather than changing anyone's minds, they are driving people away and creating MORE intolerance.
17
Agreed but as University Professor I think we need to think carefully about when free speech threatens and intimidates those with less power. I don't think those of us in academia truly can know what it feels like to be a minority student population, even if a minority faculty. I liked the recent New Yorker article on this issue by Jelani Cobb... I think this quote in the article in on point
"The freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered. The enlightenment principles that undergird free speech also prescribed that the natural limits of one’s liberty lie at the precise point at which it begins to impose upon the liberty of another."
"The freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered. The enlightenment principles that undergird free speech also prescribed that the natural limits of one’s liberty lie at the precise point at which it begins to impose upon the liberty of another."
3
I don't see the removal of "The Vagina Monologues" from the Mt. Holyoke student theatre as intolerance -- the group is looking for theatre that speaks to their sudience, and to themselves, and this (they felt and others certainly disagree) wasn't now the case. I wonder if you would have, or did at some point, call the removal of the "Rape Ballet" from revivals of The Fantastics as intolerance.
You cannot mention Condoleezza Rice and Christine Lagarde in the same sentence as equals. Condoleezza Rice played active role in deception of the public regarding WMD in Iraq and starting a war based on this deception. Christine Lagarde has done none of those.
I often come on here to see the views of the left and try to understand them. As a conservative white Christian with a doctorate, I used to be surprised with how many NYT reader stereotypically see me as stupid, a religious wacky zealots, and a racist simply because of who I am by general description. I think my gay brother, who I love very much, my best friend growing up, who is black, my best friend in graduate school, who is Hispanic, my favorite graduate professor, who was a liberal Jew, and my wife, who is a woman, would all disagree. A little bit of tolerance on both sides of the political spectrum could go a long ways. Being in higher institutions of learning has helped me understand liberals; however, I am still conservative, and yes, intellectually understand why I am conservative. Surprise, it has nothing to do with being a male pig, a religious zealot, or racist. While I often disagree with what Mr. Kristoff says, thank you for your article.
15
As a professor at Rutgers who opposed giving Condoleeza Rice an honorary degree and a commencement platform, I'd like to clarify this issue. Rice would have been free to give a talk at Rutgers, but selecting someone to give a commencement address is not a matter of free speech but of validating their worthiness to receive such an honor.
10
Imagine the hopes and dreams of the young Yale woman, an idealist, who wishes to discover how she fits in the world. She is betrayed at birth by an entire planet, all the populations of which own a cultural bias favouring light skin and northern European features. She is betrayed by the first black President, who like her is bi-racial, but who long ago capitulated to individual re-definition on the basis of the pigment of his skin. This same President has a wife who is conflicted in that she perpetually covers her natural hair with wigs of straight hair (a self-hate exhibited by virtually all black elites in the U.S.). And then, wishing for nothing more than a sense of belonging, of community, she discovers that Yale is actually not an experiment in idealism. She is informed by rude, white frat boys that black girls are unwelcome at their drunken gathering.
None of this is complicated. Moreover, at base it is not about free speech or the Constitution. It is, instead, about the wish of one human being to belong. Regrettably, in the U.S., nearly all discourse, politics, commerce, and engagement are framed in silos of anger and exclusion. As clearly intemperate and as emotionally raw as it may have been, the cri de coeur issued by the young woman is as elegant an expression of human pain as you will ever find. For it establishes that she holds hope and expectations of other human beings. Where these are surrendered in the young, we all lose.
None of this is complicated. Moreover, at base it is not about free speech or the Constitution. It is, instead, about the wish of one human being to belong. Regrettably, in the U.S., nearly all discourse, politics, commerce, and engagement are framed in silos of anger and exclusion. As clearly intemperate and as emotionally raw as it may have been, the cri de coeur issued by the young woman is as elegant an expression of human pain as you will ever find. For it establishes that she holds hope and expectations of other human beings. Where these are surrendered in the young, we all lose.
5
I'm not sure the intolerance for other's points of view "is disproportionately an instinct on the left." If we focus on college campuses, we might get that impression. (People with more education do tend to be more liberal, and they're doing lots of things, good and bad, on college campuses.) But shouldn't we also consider things like the Republican Party's attack on voting rights? Or the intolerance Republican presidential candidates have expressed for immigrants?
I understand that intolerance on a college campus has a special kind of hypocrisy. But should we be giving GOP politicians and their followers a free pass when they gloat about disenfranchising communities of color, or insult Mexican Americans as a group? Very often, I think complaints about "political correctness" (of which we have heard many from Republican candidates lately) are just of an attempt to reinforce the false narrative that white male conservatives are the real victims of discrimination.
I understand that intolerance on a college campus has a special kind of hypocrisy. But should we be giving GOP politicians and their followers a free pass when they gloat about disenfranchising communities of color, or insult Mexican Americans as a group? Very often, I think complaints about "political correctness" (of which we have heard many from Republican candidates lately) are just of an attempt to reinforce the false narrative that white male conservatives are the real victims of discrimination.
6
The intolerance expressed by Republican candidates is for ILLEGAL immigration. Are you not aware of that by now? Every country on earth has immigration laws and there is no right to free movement across the globe. The debate is about the non-enforcement of U.S. immigration laws and the fact that there are millions of people in the U.S. illegally. People here in Singapore understand why the Singaporean government cannot allow tens of millions of Indonesians in to Singapore unhindered by immigration laws.
It would be insanity.
It would be insanity.
4
I'm glad I finished the university before fascism fully arrived on campus in America, both in the faculty and the student body. The ignorant, juvenile tactics demonstrate why the voting age needs to be raised to 25 years old.
15
While I agree most wholeheartedly with Mr. Kristoff, who I hold dear as one of the heroes in the world, I would like to point out that there seems to be a difference between his reception in conservative strongholds (which I attribute to his humanistic values and rational presentation of his message) and the rancor and which many right-wing extremists bring with them when addressing anyone.
As an example....ask a Pro-Choice person what it is they represent, and they will tell you that they are NOT Pro-Abortion necessarily (myself included), but don't want someone else deciding choices about their bodies that should be theirs. Ask a Pro-Life person what their goal is, and you get pure condemnation of anyone who doesn't believe the same thing they do, labels them murderers and often support the violent acts against pro-choice advocates.
I do agree that free speech has to be a right that is protected for everyone...but I also believe that when it encourages violence it is not longer free speech, but tool for hatred.
As an example....ask a Pro-Choice person what it is they represent, and they will tell you that they are NOT Pro-Abortion necessarily (myself included), but don't want someone else deciding choices about their bodies that should be theirs. Ask a Pro-Life person what their goal is, and you get pure condemnation of anyone who doesn't believe the same thing they do, labels them murderers and often support the violent acts against pro-choice advocates.
I do agree that free speech has to be a right that is protected for everyone...but I also believe that when it encourages violence it is not longer free speech, but tool for hatred.
3
I am a white female who attended an elite, private college (similar to Yale) in the 1990s. I am deeply sympathetic with the students who talk of a hostile environment (if not always with their tactics). It is not just people of color who feel discomfort on these campuses. A specific culture is privileged on these campuses. The culture is very comfortable for (male) students with certain backgrounds: grew up in the northeast (or in the case of my campus, the southeast too), attended private prep schools, raised by wealthy/professional parents. Any distance one has from that culture means living with a certain amount of discomfort. As a white female who grew up in a lower middle class family, graduated from a public high school, and spent formative years on the west coast, I everyday had to face that small but discomfiting disconnect between who I was and the type of person who the campus culture asserted as having the most value. This meant extra stress in the already stressful context of an intense academic environment. From what I understand from these news accounts, for students of color, whatever their background, this disconnect is much greater and thus the stress much higher. There is something to be gained from learning to patiently listen and civilly respond to discourses that devalue you, but at some point one has to do more. Too often, endless calm airing of disagreements just serves the dominant culture in the end.
5
A very thoughtful and timely piece from a liberal with the honesty to recognize the problem comes overwhelmingly from the left where a particular kind of self-righteousness flourishes. There are too many leftists who love humanity but despise flesh-and-blood people, especially if they disagree. But Kristof pays insufficient attention to the manner in which having an identity as a "victim" makes life easier. It's the same impulse that drives fierce nationalists or racial supremacists: it simplifies life to have one loyalty, one truth, to avoid dealing with the ambiguities and multiplicity of choices that life brings. In some cases, and I've encountered first hand as a leftist undergraduate and later in life as a debater on campus who challenges some of the left's sacred cows -- that hidden behind the veneer of liberalism among many campus leftists there is a full-fledged totalitarian screaming to emerge. That's why Kristof's point is so important about seeing to it that scholars truly debate and that speakers come to discomfit the herd and remind them there are many truths -- perhaps life's hardest lesson -- and, for Hegel, the essence of tragedy.
12
Safe spaces are not to be found in the physical world. (Except maybe in cradles and playpens). The only truly safe space is a disciplined and open mind. If a person fears being insulted even before it happens they have already lost to their tormentor. Racism is a scourge but so is the 'victim' mentality. They are two sides of the same coin. Our schools do a terrible job of strengthening peoples' spirits as well as their intellect. Life in the 21st century will be a tough slog for everyone but only those with a strong will and who are not attached to their fears and prejudices will prosper. The rest will nurture their fears and hatreds and forever be without the freedom to live without a feeling of resentment or shame.
4
"Universities should work harder to make all students feel they are safe and belong."
I respectfully disagree: universities should work harder to make all students feel [intellectually] unsafe and uncomfortable. They should challenge all students to explain and verbally defend their long-held beliefs against others who hold opposing views. Only from such vigorous debate - with challenges to all beliefs and views, and the introduction of countervailing or different perspectives - can universities produce intellectually mature graduates with the analytical and leadership skills to lead this country in future decades. Otherwise, we'll have a bunch of sheep whose sheepskins (i.e. diplomas) are not worth the paper they're printed on.
I respectfully disagree: universities should work harder to make all students feel [intellectually] unsafe and uncomfortable. They should challenge all students to explain and verbally defend their long-held beliefs against others who hold opposing views. Only from such vigorous debate - with challenges to all beliefs and views, and the introduction of countervailing or different perspectives - can universities produce intellectually mature graduates with the analytical and leadership skills to lead this country in future decades. Otherwise, we'll have a bunch of sheep whose sheepskins (i.e. diplomas) are not worth the paper they're printed on.
9
It strikes me that what my public university does to honor diversity may actually promote segregation and the fragmentation of the student body along the lines of race, sex, ethnicity and national origin.
To kick off the fall term, the university had a fair where scores of student organizations were represented. As I strolled along the rows of booths, I was struck by how few of the groups were based on common interests and activities and how many relied on national origin, race, sex, or religion as the common denominator.
My initial reaction was frustration at not finding any organization that catered to ME, a 60-year old "nontraditional" male student. Where was my tribe?
In hindsight, however, I realize that I was witnessing the institutionalization of self-segregation within the student body. Alas, this is human nature: we have an innate desire to associate most closely with people who are most like ourselves. The school, which funds multiple "cultural resource centers," is doing its student a terrible disservice in the name of diversity.
To kick off the fall term, the university had a fair where scores of student organizations were represented. As I strolled along the rows of booths, I was struck by how few of the groups were based on common interests and activities and how many relied on national origin, race, sex, or religion as the common denominator.
My initial reaction was frustration at not finding any organization that catered to ME, a 60-year old "nontraditional" male student. Where was my tribe?
In hindsight, however, I realize that I was witnessing the institutionalization of self-segregation within the student body. Alas, this is human nature: we have an innate desire to associate most closely with people who are most like ourselves. The school, which funds multiple "cultural resource centers," is doing its student a terrible disservice in the name of diversity.
13
I'm a conservative and I don't need people to make me feel welcome. I just want the law and constitutional rights to apply to all.
8
The "heckler's veto" should never be allowed to overcome the legitimate free exchange of ideas.
The press should never be excluded from public places to report the activities of the citizenry.
The press should never be excluded from public places to report the activities of the citizenry.
13
I am still not sure what you can do to change racism on campus. People don't generally change their opinion on these issues very readily. If someone is threatening someone else, that's an issue, but someone saying something racist in passing, I'm not sure how a university can stop this. Instead there seems to be the idea that hiring another top level administrator (watch your tuition rise) to head a unit to deal with diversity will solve all ills. You can include a discussion of the evils of racism as part of the introductory sessions with freshmen, but I suspect that isn't going to change much, no more than I think that it's going to solve the issues with rape on campus. We don't seem to have purged racism or sexism or any other bias from this country, and I don't see it happening in my lifetime. Universities are not special, magical places that can be sanitized of the human condition especially when you have a population of people who don't have fully formed prefrontal cortices and not infrequently have a problem with drinking past the point of reason.
8
In this time of instant messages, rapid responses to stimuli, and the freedom our fingers have to exercise them, I think it is easier by far to say 'let's all just take a breath' than to take it. However, like listening to opposing views, it is no less important that we do so.
2
I graduated from UC Davis in 1999. After being raised in the SF Bay Area, I marveled at the self segregation of the sororities, fraternities and clubs. I observed such groups as the Korean Christian club. I had a hard time understanding why Christians would need to further segregate themselves by race. I was friends with Chinese and Indians and Irish who had parents who strictly forbade them from marrying outside their race. They kept their boyfriends and girlfriends secret, even ones they had been with for years and called fiances! They feared their parents and ostricism from their families if they stepped outside their cultures. Now that I live in Utah, my 9 and 7 year old children frequently come home from school complaing that the Mormon kids are chastizing them for not going to church. These values are nurtured at home folks.
7
So mob rule is okay, if its for liberal causes. I see...
12
If I had been a Rutgers student, I would have strongly protested Condoleezza Rice as a commencement speaker. She wasn't as bad as Rumsfeld and Cheny, but she wasn't much better. People need to stand up against insane administrations like that of GW.
1
Here's a suggestion, Tyrell. Let's let history decide which administrations are insane or not. I'm betting you will come down on the side of liberal democratic administrations being the most sane, each and every time.
Of course you would have, we wouldn't want you to be intellectually challenged by people far more accomplished than you can ever hope to be. Much better to stay in your "safe zone" where no thinking is required. I suppose I suppose I should have prefaced my comment with a trigger warning, I'll include the definition here since it most certainly applies.
Trigger warning:
"A phrase posted at the beginning of various posts, articles, or blogs. Its purpose is to warn weak minded people who are easily offended."
Trigger warning:
"A phrase posted at the beginning of various posts, articles, or blogs. Its purpose is to warn weak minded people who are easily offended."
1
No, this is not "two noble causes colliding", nor is it "often, to some degree, it’s right colliding with right." This is right colliding with left and left is wrong.
This is the end product of years of corrupting higher ed into a partisan, bastion of entitlement, self-indulgence, and "advocacy." As ye sow.....
This is the end product of years of corrupting higher ed into a partisan, bastion of entitlement, self-indulgence, and "advocacy." As ye sow.....
5
Mr. Kristoff - I'd like to know where you find offices "where bosses shrug as some men hang nude centerfolds and leeringly speculate about the sexual proclivities of female colleagues"?
'Mad Men' took place in the 60's and 70s.
'Mad Men' took place in the 60's and 70s.
4
Some view the first amendment as creating a marketplace for ideas that compete with one another out of which the best ideas come forward. This only works when there is, with very limited exception, equal access for all ideas regardless of whether they are perceived as good or bad, worthy or unworthy. It also only works well when there is appropriate respect for others. It is this latter point where things are breaking down, which defeats the purpose of the marketplace.
The first amendment marketplace has reasonable standards that are designed to allow the broadest freedoms in the hope that the best ideas will ultimately prevail. Accordingly, while no one has the right to advance an idea that is patently offensive, obscene, untrue, or of a similar nature, unpopular ideas that are not such are clearly welcome and must be allowed in. Also, it is clear that, even though an idea may be welcome, no one has the right to compel others to accept an idea.
Unfortunately, all too often people insist that their ideas must be accepted when it would be more consistent with first amendment notions to argue that the idea is of such a quality that it merits acceptance. This is a longer, harder road, but it produces a more enduring result.
Recent developments clearly show that we need more education and understanding about what the first amendment is (and is not) and what it is meant to accomplish. It is clearly not a formula for anarchy.
The first amendment marketplace has reasonable standards that are designed to allow the broadest freedoms in the hope that the best ideas will ultimately prevail. Accordingly, while no one has the right to advance an idea that is patently offensive, obscene, untrue, or of a similar nature, unpopular ideas that are not such are clearly welcome and must be allowed in. Also, it is clear that, even though an idea may be welcome, no one has the right to compel others to accept an idea.
Unfortunately, all too often people insist that their ideas must be accepted when it would be more consistent with first amendment notions to argue that the idea is of such a quality that it merits acceptance. This is a longer, harder road, but it produces a more enduring result.
Recent developments clearly show that we need more education and understanding about what the first amendment is (and is not) and what it is meant to accomplish. It is clearly not a formula for anarchy.
2
I am immensely offended by the disgusting display of fascism from the Liberal Education System indoctrinated assholes at Missouri State. Especially on this day when we show appreciation of those who fought against just such fascism.
10
We know that the First Amendment is not an absolute right to speech of any sort. It is always circumscribed, either by law or by society. So, everyone gets in a lather when minorities try to draw that line. So uppity!
It is obnoxious to say that limiting Halloween costumes is a culture war gone awry. Are we protecting some college kid's right to wear blackface because of Halloween all in the name of the first amendment? I have as much right to defend or debate pro-life positions or any other beliefs, but not a right to offend others simply because, "hey, it's Halloween. Lighten up!" That's like saying, "you can get on the bus, but you gotta go to the back -- at least you're on the bus! We'll give that to you!"
Nope. Sorry. When somebody dresses derogatorily (e.g., blackface/brownface/ asian face/ headress/ whatever) that is not okay because of history. When in doubt, always do the Hitler test. If you can't wear that as a costume somewhere, don't wear the other types. Because, we know about the history of the Jews and we honor that tragedy. It's just that some people care not to remember all the other atrocities of our history or at least are willing to trivialize them. Nope, can't do that. That's not a law on the books, but surely you can understand another person's pain!
It is obnoxious to say that limiting Halloween costumes is a culture war gone awry. Are we protecting some college kid's right to wear blackface because of Halloween all in the name of the first amendment? I have as much right to defend or debate pro-life positions or any other beliefs, but not a right to offend others simply because, "hey, it's Halloween. Lighten up!" That's like saying, "you can get on the bus, but you gotta go to the back -- at least you're on the bus! We'll give that to you!"
Nope. Sorry. When somebody dresses derogatorily (e.g., blackface/brownface/ asian face/ headress/ whatever) that is not okay because of history. When in doubt, always do the Hitler test. If you can't wear that as a costume somewhere, don't wear the other types. Because, we know about the history of the Jews and we honor that tragedy. It's just that some people care not to remember all the other atrocities of our history or at least are willing to trivialize them. Nope, can't do that. That's not a law on the books, but surely you can understand another person's pain!
1
In the 1960s I was an early participant in the civil rights movement. I marched, protested, lobbied and was vice-chair of a CORE chapter. Over the years I watched this highly principled movement for a free and equal color blind America degenerate into a jingoistic lobby advocating racial preferences, affirmative action and suppression of all skeptics, critics and opponents.
During that same period I also served as a board member of the local ACLU chapter in a liberal college community. What few free speech cases we had were usually concerning leftist students and their demonstrations. However, as the years went by the ACLU shifted its emphasis away from First Amendment cases toward race and gender. By the 1980's there were a growing number of free speech violations involving conservatives trying to speak out on campus. Conservative journals were stolen, speakers shouted down, meetings disrupted, activists called "racist" and accused of "hate speech" and, of course, the growth of the notorious "free speech zones."
Under the new campus regime of liberalism, tolerance and freedom to be who you really are it turned into the exact opposite of those values. Only leftist ideas were tolerated, liberalism proved to be very illiberal and you better keep your mouth shut about your values, opinions and beliefs unless they were congenial to prevailing prejudices. Thanks to groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education we are seeing hope for a return to sanity.
During that same period I also served as a board member of the local ACLU chapter in a liberal college community. What few free speech cases we had were usually concerning leftist students and their demonstrations. However, as the years went by the ACLU shifted its emphasis away from First Amendment cases toward race and gender. By the 1980's there were a growing number of free speech violations involving conservatives trying to speak out on campus. Conservative journals were stolen, speakers shouted down, meetings disrupted, activists called "racist" and accused of "hate speech" and, of course, the growth of the notorious "free speech zones."
Under the new campus regime of liberalism, tolerance and freedom to be who you really are it turned into the exact opposite of those values. Only leftist ideas were tolerated, liberalism proved to be very illiberal and you better keep your mouth shut about your values, opinions and beliefs unless they were congenial to prevailing prejudices. Thanks to groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education we are seeing hope for a return to sanity.
9
Mr. Kristof- I find myself in the unlikely position of saying the following- "You are confused." We do not have two noble positions colliding. We have a group at our universities who are commendably addressing the problem of racism in America. We also have a group, which includes many members of the first group, who are launching a vile and misguided attack on our precious first amendment rights, and these folks need to be condemned without any qualification. There is no inherent conflict or collision between defending the first amendment and attacking racism. It doesn't matter that the anti-free speech crowd is anti-racist any more than it matters that they have good dental hygiene. Their anti-freedom views need to be condemned without any mitigation for other unrelated reasons.
7
There are colleges outside of the Ivy League, the Big Ten, and the Seven Sisters. The Times, however, always writes as if students at elite universities represent an entire generation. At best, they represent the children of the "comfortable class." Faculty at state colleges lament the fact that the average student seems to be working 20-30 hours a week, but after reading this I think the students at Yale and Smith need to spend some time behind a fast food or retail counter. My students read the Times articles as if they are about a different country.
Professor, California State University, Stanislaus
Professor, California State University, Stanislaus
13
there's nothing complicated about it, on the free speech side. you and your ilk have poisoned the minds of a generation, leading them to believe that their "feelings" restrict the free speech rights of others. shame on you, kristof, and everyone like you.
2
I'm not astonished about the problems these students have with free speech. We only need to look at television 'discussions', where only one opinion is accepted and participants with different views get interrupted and belittled to realize, where young students get that behavior. In a culture based on winning and losing there is only one truth and only one side can be right. What's at stake is critical thinking and with it a civilized, respectful discourse.
2
The use of the term "political correctness" as a pejorative is merely an attempt to maintain the status quo. It's important to recognize that no one's free speech is threatened by the actions of the students mentioned in this column. In fact, the protesters are also exercising their free speech. What's at issue is the speech of certain people at certain times and places. And why is it hard to understand that speech that is acceptable in one forum is not acceptable in another? No one would act the same way or say the same things in a ball park as in a church. Speech that is acceptable in a private home may not be acceptable on a college campus. It's difficult for some people to understand that the lines are always shifting.
1
It is most difficult for people to understand! Of course I am referring to the difference between self-censure and coercion.
Well, Mr. Kristof, having accepted an invitation to speak to evangelical Christian universities I'm questioning why you are allowed to continue working for the NY Times. Clearly, you are not fit for human friendship among the Progressives.
(This is exactly the same sort of talk that Progressives give when Republicans consider electing a person who has spoken to a group more outre' than he.)
(This is exactly the same sort of talk that Progressives give when Republicans consider electing a person who has spoken to a group more outre' than he.)
I've read several articles about the recent developments at the University of Missouri, though I wouldn't say I've followed the story closely. One item I keep looking for seems to go unaddressed: what, precisely, did the University president do which warranted his forced resignation? After learning of issues at the school, he created a mandatory, three hour, diversity training program for all students. He tried to work with students to create a more inclusive environment.
It sounds like there was concern that he didn't adequately condemn the (off-campus) events in Ferguson. Given the physical evidence, reasonable people can disagree over whether or not the shooting was justified. But shouldn't he be entitled to his opinion? What ever happened to freedom of speech?
I'm open to hearing evidence otherwise, but it seems to me the left rushed to judgement here without a clear view of the 'offenses' committed by Missouri's President. Joe Scarborough had a segment in which he asked each member of his morning panel to tell him what the Missouri President had done (or not done) to earn his dismissal. No one could answer the question, but each supported the student protesters. It would have been amusing if it weren't so tragic. Free speech and due process are the ultimate victims here.
-JB
It sounds like there was concern that he didn't adequately condemn the (off-campus) events in Ferguson. Given the physical evidence, reasonable people can disagree over whether or not the shooting was justified. But shouldn't he be entitled to his opinion? What ever happened to freedom of speech?
I'm open to hearing evidence otherwise, but it seems to me the left rushed to judgement here without a clear view of the 'offenses' committed by Missouri's President. Joe Scarborough had a segment in which he asked each member of his morning panel to tell him what the Missouri President had done (or not done) to earn his dismissal. No one could answer the question, but each supported the student protesters. It would have been amusing if it weren't so tragic. Free speech and due process are the ultimate victims here.
-JB
6
Liberals, how do you feel when you begin to see the REAL results of your beliefs, standards, values and efforts metastasizing into all too real flesh and blood?
5
I feel fine. The "two noble forces" NK's describes as "colliding with explosive force" are true liberal values: non-violent protest and free speech. So what if a few protestors became "sanctimonious bullies" and confused liberal values on the playing field -- college campuses -- of human activity? They are young. When the left leans too far, as in calling for the press to get out of public spaces, canceling productions and speakers, and cutting funding, then it behooves other liberals to stand up and expand the conversation and urge everyone to examine the situation in all its complexity. And evolve.
Ironically, this is something -- expanding the conversation and evolving -- that the right is generally terrible at doing. Conservatives are always calling liberals a bad name. They love it when the left leans too far and chokes on its own beliefs. Choking victims can be saved. It's the rock-hard, life-long, single-minded beliefs about the way the world works, or ought to work -- generally a metastasized sickness of the right -- which must be checked. But I feel fine.
Ironically, this is something -- expanding the conversation and evolving -- that the right is generally terrible at doing. Conservatives are always calling liberals a bad name. They love it when the left leans too far and chokes on its own beliefs. Choking victims can be saved. It's the rock-hard, life-long, single-minded beliefs about the way the world works, or ought to work -- generally a metastasized sickness of the right -- which must be checked. But I feel fine.
NK has written a wishy washy editorial coming down on both sides of the equation. No wonder: He does not want to be banished from the college lecture circuit. Can't blame him. Thus, he is saying,"0n the one hand this, and on the other hand that." But what NK does not write, but probably knows, is that once free expression is attacked, and even if it is successfully defended, it becomes weaker, and more uncomfortable for those who exercise their First Amendment right. I recall that when Nixon tried but failed to block publication of the ELLSBERG PAPERS critical of our role in Vietnam, many said that the Constitutional right to free speech was stronger rather than weaker. It took the great constitutional lawyer, FLOYD ABRAMS to point out that the contrary was true. Can anyone name one professor, at Yale,,,Mizzou or Ithaca College inter alia who would not feel uneasy giving a low grade or even flunking a minority student at any of the abovementioned educational emporiums? Objectivity, that is to say, grading students on the basis of merit, rather than on subjective factors is a beau ideal that was once adhered to, but is now superannuated in today's politically correct environment on college campuses. If l'oncle Raoul, with whom I shared many a glace in a café opposite his residence at 41 Boulevard Raspail, were here today, he would say,"C'est ainsi!"
3
Will you people please grow a pair. Oh no, did i make someone feel "excluded"? You lefties are such a joke if you weren't so dangerous.
6
I enjoy observing the experience of liberals being hoisted on the sword of political correctness.
Oh woe are you!!!
Oh woe are you!!!
4
"At the University of Missouri, a black professor, Cynthia Frisby, wrote, “I have been called the N-word too many times to count.”"
Odd as it may seem, how many of those times was she called the N-word by other blacks? I say that because in my entire college career (through grad school), I never once heard the N-word said by anyone. And I'll guess many readers here can say the same, even the liberals if they were honest.
So, forgive me, but I don't believe any black has been called the N-word more times than she can count, unless she can't count. If anything else, we all know anyone bandying that word about would be thrown out of any campus in the country. People aren't stupid, so self serving comments as this one should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
Odd as it may seem, how many of those times was she called the N-word by other blacks? I say that because in my entire college career (through grad school), I never once heard the N-word said by anyone. And I'll guess many readers here can say the same, even the liberals if they were honest.
So, forgive me, but I don't believe any black has been called the N-word more times than she can count, unless she can't count. If anything else, we all know anyone bandying that word about would be thrown out of any campus in the country. People aren't stupid, so self serving comments as this one should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
10
Nicholas - as a conservative - I rarely agree with you, but I have always respected your integrity and compassion. Sometimes, however, you admirable intentions and your soft heart can lead you in foolish directions.
In THIS case, you are mostly correct. However, I think you take the allegations of "racism" at face value. They may be a hoax.
In THIS case, you are mostly correct. However, I think you take the allegations of "racism" at face value. They may be a hoax.
3
It's an incredibly slippery slope when university campuses start banning anything that offends someone. There's 7 billion of us, there won't be anything left...
4
Whatever happened to plain old RESPECT?
3
Exactly. My Texas parents raised me to respect ALL PEOPLE. Derogatory language was not allowed. I had friends of all varieties. I went to other people's churches and sat respectfully without feeling my rights had been minimized. It can be done. It's something called Manners and it goes along with Consideration. When I hold open the doors for anyone, I'm doing it to help. But a thank you would be nice. I have to say I seldom get them from the young of any color.
2
Talk on the op-Ed page of the Times about free speech and respecting the opinions of others on campus ignores the fact that the Times censors free speech when it comes to the comments of its readers. Does the Times employ people whose job it is to go through blog posts and eliminate those the censor doesn't like? Yes. Then how can you or any of the other Op-Ed columnists lecture your readers about free speech when right under your nose censorship is being aggressively practiced?
7
Excellent point. The Daily Beast has also suspended comments because they can't control the content. What are they afraid of? Maybe the truth.
2
With all due respect: you are full of it. Those protesting for "free speech" at both institutes of higher learning made a point of screaming down anyone who tried to exercise that very freedom. Like so many others demanding "justice" and "equality," the students at both Yale and U of M demonstrate clearly that their real agenda is "I, me, mine, and those like me - the rest of you don't deserve anything but to be called names and bullied."
9
From today's article that didn't allow for comments:
"...When Mr. Paris complained to a friend about the activists, one of the demonstrators overheard him and told them to “take their white privilege and leave,” Mr. Paris said. A loud argument ensued. ..."
There is enough 'blame' to go around if need be, but on balance in the way it's being dealt with, who is the real problem here? If you wear a chip on your shoulder it's likely to show and someone is likely to knock it off. Now, a black person reading this will say, see that's what the white people are doing and vice versa for the white people. But look at the facts. Who's acting peaceably to make a point and who is always, and I mean always, the victim, and violently loudly complaining? I'm at the point where I see so called activists as pretty much just a step below terrorists in their methods, but the press has to take credit for inciting some of this, too.
In the Missouri matter, the primary instigator, Mr. Williams, claims to have offered solutions to improve matters on campus. Really, like what? The point being the complaining parties never offer anything constructive beyond running their mouths. I'm tired of it. You live in a world where there will always be a degree of injustice and in which you have to grow a spine.
I see these examples that are constantly represented as 'hostile' to someone or something. There is always going to be some pecking, but guess what, we all endure such things.
"...When Mr. Paris complained to a friend about the activists, one of the demonstrators overheard him and told them to “take their white privilege and leave,” Mr. Paris said. A loud argument ensued. ..."
There is enough 'blame' to go around if need be, but on balance in the way it's being dealt with, who is the real problem here? If you wear a chip on your shoulder it's likely to show and someone is likely to knock it off. Now, a black person reading this will say, see that's what the white people are doing and vice versa for the white people. But look at the facts. Who's acting peaceably to make a point and who is always, and I mean always, the victim, and violently loudly complaining? I'm at the point where I see so called activists as pretty much just a step below terrorists in their methods, but the press has to take credit for inciting some of this, too.
In the Missouri matter, the primary instigator, Mr. Williams, claims to have offered solutions to improve matters on campus. Really, like what? The point being the complaining parties never offer anything constructive beyond running their mouths. I'm tired of it. You live in a world where there will always be a degree of injustice and in which you have to grow a spine.
I see these examples that are constantly represented as 'hostile' to someone or something. There is always going to be some pecking, but guess what, we all endure such things.
6
Today's College Day Care students are pathetic.
They have been coddled and praised all their lives by people in authority and when they finally reach a point where they are on their own and face differing opinions, they collapse in a heap of whiny hysterics.
The best thing for them is to be told to buck up and deal with it. if they refuse, expel them and let them learn it the hard way.
They have been coddled and praised all their lives by people in authority and when they finally reach a point where they are on their own and face differing opinions, they collapse in a heap of whiny hysterics.
The best thing for them is to be told to buck up and deal with it. if they refuse, expel them and let them learn it the hard way.
12
Funny thing about liberal institutions is that they are always clamoring for more diversity. But their idea of diversity is a black liberal, a gay liberal, an Asian liberal, a white liberal, an Hispanic liberal, etc.
They love "diversity' but can't stand "diversity of thought", as they will quickly try to shut down freedom of speech for conservative viewpoints. Sad that our leading Universities have become like this.
They love "diversity' but can't stand "diversity of thought", as they will quickly try to shut down freedom of speech for conservative viewpoints. Sad that our leading Universities have become like this.
11
It seems to me that those who are most confident in their beliefs and values are the most willing to hear from those who disagree.
7
Kristof is wrong to think we can adjudicate every sleight and hurt feeling one person might cause another. Minority students are being overly sensitive when they complain about Halloween costumes and people disagreeing with them politically. As a Times article today shows most of what is being decried as racism is simple cultural misunderstandings and political disagreements. Banning things that people find offensive is a slippery slope we shouldn’t even go near in a free society.
Now posting photo's of a lynching on someone's door and using the N-word is something different and is already banned by campus rules of conduct. Those rules should be strictly enforced on campus.
When did we promise the millennial generation a rose garden? Life is full of petty grievances, perceived sleights and disagreements and yes even nasty offensive people that we can do nothing about. We should be teaching our children to navigate the real world instead of expecting a fairy tale land where they will only see and hear what they want to see and hear. College is a place where they should be learning to talk and listen to others. And, when you listen, you have to be prepared to hear plenty of things you don’t want to hear, too many people today, young and old, only talk past each other without bothering to listen, often assuming without knowing.
Whites should be more sensitive and Blacks a little less. That is what it is all about in the end, give and take, talking and listening.
Now posting photo's of a lynching on someone's door and using the N-word is something different and is already banned by campus rules of conduct. Those rules should be strictly enforced on campus.
When did we promise the millennial generation a rose garden? Life is full of petty grievances, perceived sleights and disagreements and yes even nasty offensive people that we can do nothing about. We should be teaching our children to navigate the real world instead of expecting a fairy tale land where they will only see and hear what they want to see and hear. College is a place where they should be learning to talk and listen to others. And, when you listen, you have to be prepared to hear plenty of things you don’t want to hear, too many people today, young and old, only talk past each other without bothering to listen, often assuming without knowing.
Whites should be more sensitive and Blacks a little less. That is what it is all about in the end, give and take, talking and listening.
5
I strongly disagree that it is "disproportionately an instinct on the left." When you have Christian pastors calling for death to gays at conferences attended by presidential candidates and others upset by the design of a Starbucks cup, I don't think a little political correctness on the left even compares. The extremism on the right far exceeds any on the left in its consequences. I do, however agree that it is time to take a breath.
First of all the Starbucks cup controversy is almost entirely created by the media. Seriously, Christians don't care what Starbucks puts on their cups.
And I challenge you to show me any Christian pastor calling for "death to gays" at any conference. Honestly it doesn't happen.
The bullying tactics of the left on college campuses, however, are well documented and widespread.
And I challenge you to show me any Christian pastor calling for "death to gays" at any conference. Honestly it doesn't happen.
The bullying tactics of the left on college campuses, however, are well documented and widespread.
1
What I enjoyed about teaching, mainly Shakespeare and writing, was the diversity of perspectives. No matter what the opinion expressed, my response was often twofold: first, why do you think so; second, what would you say to someone who argued against you [as I would as a Devil's advocate]. In short, the answer was always subject to questioning, and I like to think that my students become more capable of discussing differences of opinion without feeling attacked or becoming aggrieved, and more respectful of people who had different opinions. The teaching which has, in the desire not to wound students' self-esteem, ratified any opinion at all has also made adults less tolerance of different ideas and prone to take criticisms of their views as personal attacks.
3
I've stopped doing critiques in my AP Studio class after having a conference with a parent who said their student shouldn't be expected to diversify their talents in order to reach more potential jobs. They told me their kids are raised to believe they will start at the top of their profession. No paying dues for this generation.
1
Colleges and university should be bastions of open thought, discussion and opionions. It should be a place where ideas and reasons meet to form better understanding not censorship and animosity. Likewise, discrimination should not be tolerated by the administration against any group no matter who is screaming the loudest and if a group does discriminate, there should be repercussions. When did universities lose their way and when did kids become so hard and unreasonable. In order to learn you have to open your brains to ideas, not shut them out. We do not live in China or Russia with monolithic ideas. Students are paying for an education, let them learn, in 4 years they leave and they do not have to belong to the system. No more so than they own the hospital if they purchase health services. Let's stop fostering student rights to a right they do not have, i.e. ownership in the bricks and mortar of the school
2
That is why human beings invented music, poetry, art, dance, mythology...these are "civilized" human ways to express our feelings and emotions, even the darkest ones. We just give them a form and a vent.
1
Great column. Those on the left are usually the most intolerant of opposing views.
4
The students at Yale and Mizzou sound unhinged at suggestions that there point of view may not always be the only valid one. I find it somewhat ironic that the student at Mizzou who went on a hunger strike had been at the school since 2008. So after paying to go there for 7 years he now finds it so hard to bear - but he couldn't leave before then? Wouldn't the best way to address this would be for black students to simply not go to these schools? That would use the market to fight back. The schools would lose valuable diversity, the boycott itself would be a stain on the institution.
Act like adults and you may get your point across, but right now, most of us don't see your point.
Act like adults and you may get your point across, but right now, most of us don't see your point.
9
Hardly anything new about intolerance of dissent by the Left (any more or less than by the Right) or the insistence on the right that freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses. What's new is the notion of universities as preschools where students have a right to "time outs" or some other form of "nurturing environment." From a distance this suggests that higher ed is no less vulnerable to collapse from within than any other institution, such as law enforcement to name one.
Neither is it a surprise that racism is rampant at Mizzou no less than in Ferguson, just over 100 miles away. As for Yale, well, which recent US president resided there for four years? Does anyone think these events are unrelated to the host of other changes in the American economy and society? Time for milk and cookies!
Neither is it a surprise that racism is rampant at Mizzou no less than in Ferguson, just over 100 miles away. As for Yale, well, which recent US president resided there for four years? Does anyone think these events are unrelated to the host of other changes in the American economy and society? Time for milk and cookies!
1
The photo topping the story tell a lot.We generally see crowds of people screaming and fists raised coming out of muslim countries, another feature of the Mizzou and Yale controversies is that no one is allowed to criticize BLM or anyone chanting for change in the tactics of BLM, remind you of anything?Reform and better tactics comes from open discussion and respect for others opinion.That is presently anathema in islam, lets hope not in our universities.
8
The point that is being missed is that the issue is free 'values, for that is what the speech is all about. You can have all the free speech you want as long as its content is only my 'values'. The college mind closed forty years ago. Wise up.
4
RICHARD SOSIS New Rochelle
Finally a voice of reason. Thank you for giving voice to my own view. College campuses are no places for P.C. I came out of the left-leading CCNY campus of the 1950's and '60's, and we would have defended the right of any of us to propound a point of view. In fact, the more the disagreement, the better the argument. But I do disagree with Mr. Kristof on the issue of Yale renaming Calhoun Hall. He shouldn't argue that universities should offer divergent views, even ones that make us uncomfortable, and then argue that the university (Yale) should rename a hall that is named for a proponent of slavery, but also a political thinker who offered us the 'Theory of Nullification"...about which we can have a wonderfully lively debate.
Finally a voice of reason. Thank you for giving voice to my own view. College campuses are no places for P.C. I came out of the left-leading CCNY campus of the 1950's and '60's, and we would have defended the right of any of us to propound a point of view. In fact, the more the disagreement, the better the argument. But I do disagree with Mr. Kristof on the issue of Yale renaming Calhoun Hall. He shouldn't argue that universities should offer divergent views, even ones that make us uncomfortable, and then argue that the university (Yale) should rename a hall that is named for a proponent of slavery, but also a political thinker who offered us the 'Theory of Nullification"...about which we can have a wonderfully lively debate.
1
But it's not racial epithets that are being screamed down by protesters at Yale. It's talking about Halloween costumes. Saying, "Let's talk about this," is grounds for being fired.
In the Yalies logic, your column is a basis for you being fired. How dare you make them unsafe with your white male privilege freedom of expression?
In the Yalies logic, your column is a basis for you being fired. How dare you make them unsafe with your white male privilege freedom of expression?
10
I've decided to join the Victim's Corp. As a member, I can claim biases against me and cry out for the "leadership" to be ousted and have everyone subjected to my pain. Yes, my pain. It pains me to read that life in the ugly world is, painful. So, stop invoking pain on me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
A Victim
Sincerely,
A Victim
9
Okay, I've taken a deep breath and concluded I agree with Glenn Reynolds at USA Today that they ought to raise the voting age to 25 in the university towns where this nonsense is going on.
6
It's a matter of degree--literally and figuratively. The philosopher doesn't feel the pain of the oppressed. Sadly, the ideal of accommodating all factions is never comfortable--and might not be doable. If you're a liberal, or a minority, chose a school where you will be comfortable. If you're a conservative, do likewise. Both cannot find a happy medium because they are mutually exclusive by definition. State schools should be bland--non controversial--that's the sweet spot for most students.
College is a special place where everyone tests out how tolerant and respectful they want to be. They Kum-by-ya their way to senior year.
Then Wall Street comes knocking. Students trade their birkenstocks for suits and they move into the real world.
I saw it happen when I went to Yale and kids today are no different.
Then Wall Street comes knocking. Students trade their birkenstocks for suits and they move into the real world.
I saw it happen when I went to Yale and kids today are no different.
4
Articles that fail to distinguish between evangelical conservatives and religious terrorism do a serious disservice to the country as a whole. To wit, Kevin Swanson at the National Religious Liberties Conference in Des Moines.
When such behavior is not challenged society has lost its mind.
When such behavior is not challenged society has lost its mind.
4
Why is it that when the right screams drill baby drill it is not PC, but when the left screams "frack is wack" it can be derided as some kind of mob enforced, socialist mind control?
For a few hundred years it was polite to talk about women, blacks, hispanics, etc. (at some points the Irish and Italians) as inferoir beings, subhumans, that had to be treated as children who could own nothing or make any decisions for themselves. If you went against these ideas you were ostracized by your neighbors and subject to tirades and death threats from the true believers.
This was a citizen enforcement of "politically correct" beliefs. If you go on, say, a Fox News Comment page or go into the right bar, you can still find many people who try to enforce these belief systems through verbal and sometimes physical assaults.
But no one ever derides this kind of speech as "politically correct." The phrase "politically correct" is only used by those who want to dismiss left leaning speech, especially that which condemns sexism, racism, genderism etc.
Of course the right loves to play with euphemisms, but why does the media, which should be aware of such uses of language, repeat these euphemisms, like "PC," as if they describe actual phenomena as opposed to hiding truth and subtly attacking arguments by delegitimizing the whole idea that people can create social norms (that they disagree with).
For a few hundred years it was polite to talk about women, blacks, hispanics, etc. (at some points the Irish and Italians) as inferoir beings, subhumans, that had to be treated as children who could own nothing or make any decisions for themselves. If you went against these ideas you were ostracized by your neighbors and subject to tirades and death threats from the true believers.
This was a citizen enforcement of "politically correct" beliefs. If you go on, say, a Fox News Comment page or go into the right bar, you can still find many people who try to enforce these belief systems through verbal and sometimes physical assaults.
But no one ever derides this kind of speech as "politically correct." The phrase "politically correct" is only used by those who want to dismiss left leaning speech, especially that which condemns sexism, racism, genderism etc.
Of course the right loves to play with euphemisms, but why does the media, which should be aware of such uses of language, repeat these euphemisms, like "PC," as if they describe actual phenomena as opposed to hiding truth and subtly attacking arguments by delegitimizing the whole idea that people can create social norms (that they disagree with).
2
Excellent report.
I sense a change is occurring here in the United States, a real grassroots change that is focusing on the engineered inequality and utter disregard for the well-being and welfare of the masses, by the .01%ters, the elites, the government/corporate/military alliance, that is hell bent on subjugation of the citizenry, and is also engaged in working with their partner alliances, throughout the planet, to complete the formation of a ruling Plutocracy, that no amount of resistance will bring down.
A bit extreme, maybe, but the signs are everywhere...
I sense a change is occurring here in the United States, a real grassroots change that is focusing on the engineered inequality and utter disregard for the well-being and welfare of the masses, by the .01%ters, the elites, the government/corporate/military alliance, that is hell bent on subjugation of the citizenry, and is also engaged in working with their partner alliances, throughout the planet, to complete the formation of a ruling Plutocracy, that no amount of resistance will bring down.
A bit extreme, maybe, but the signs are everywhere...
2
Where do Hispanics fit in terms of perceived racial animosity and exclusion at Mizzou and other colleges?
2
Amazing how fast self-righteous protesters demanding the right to be heard regarding perceived grievances become jack-booted fascists willing to deny anyone who disagrees. The hypocrisy makes for good theater: progressives consuming their own.
6
The 1st Amendment right to free speech can never be seen as equivalent to someone being offended by a Halloween costume. Never! America explicitly gives all people the right to offend others with their speech as the price we pay for our freedom. Dump the moral equivalency as a tool that might allow you to remain relevant to the intolerant.
3
"Nurturing?" Universities are places of learning, not mommies and daddies. I would havebeen laughed out of the roo As the 1% of physics majors whowere women, I would have been laughed out of the room had I admitted to" uirt feelings" Of course that was decades ago. As a Professor with some half century of teaching, I am sure I occasionalky hurt someone's feelngs but so what? grow up;
5
Does not the term "microaggressions" suggest comments and incidents that border on insignificant? What I am seeing is a new era of political correctness run amok. Can't wait for these dilettantes to get to an actual workplace where showing up and being unhappy is not going to produce a paycheck for very long. This new environment of self-pity will not get the public acceptance that the protesters assume will follow.
6
There are NOT two "noble" forces at work here. There is nothing noble about the mob of left-wing race-gender dogmatism. This is classic mania - It bears no resemblance to reality. These campuses are NOT awash in racism and bigotry - Isolated incidents of racist remarks or a swastika scrawled on a dorm room door do not a racist university make. To the contrary, these universities are places where the most innocuous and unintended utterance is rabidly attacked by the new American cultural revolutionaries. Professors, students and employees are expelled or driven from their careers to accommodate these frothing, indoctrinated lunatics. This state of affairs deserves full-throated and active condemnation and rejection. Alumni should pull their support, parents should bring their kids home, legislators should cut off government funds until freedom of speech and academic thought is restored at our universities. I urge readers here, if they have not done so, to get a copy of Nien Cheng's Life and Death in Shanghai. Read her chilling account of a society where unaccountable and indoctrinated youth are swept up in the Cultural Revolution in Mao's China. The similarities to today's illiberal college campus are chilling. Wake up. Our American university system was a national treasure, and it's being systematically destroyed by the new left, as surely as ISIS destroys antiquities in Syria. The media should stop playing the accomplice to this cultural war crime.
9
I saw and opposed Joe McCarthy in the 1950s. Neither this evil man nor his acolytes ever caused a tenth of the coercion and destruction of today’s political correctness - on and off campus.
4
Mr. Kristof in his essay on Isiah Berlin quotes him as writing. "Finding the boundary between what can be tolerated with gritted teeth and what is morally intolerable may not be easy, but that does not mean that such a boundary does not exist." While that boundary likely varies by context and type and time of the specific event, it would be wise to discuss where that boundary is whether it was crossed by students screeching invective at Dr. Cristakis, the Yale master at Silliman College. On the other hand, the football team at Mizzou by their peaceful resistance did not cross the boundary. The football team was more powerful and effective than the small mob of angry Yale students who confronted Dr. Cristakis.
3
Not that many years ago the ACLU, a pretty liberal group, defended the rights of neo nazis to march through Skokie, a Illinois suburb filled with Jewish Holocaust survivors. Does anyone think that it wasn't uncomfortable or hurtful for them to watch these jackboot idiots marching though their hometown? But the ACLU thought, correctly that the First Amendment is exactly about speech that we despise. Now much of the left ( though not the ACLU) seems more concerned about words hurting college students than the First Amendment. I don't see this as an issue where there can be compromise. Freedom of speech defines us a nation.
11
Liberals are only tolerant only when everyone agrees with them. The myth of liberal tolerance has been debunked time and time again especially in the main stream media.
4
About 90% of staff and administrators in our university system are liberal Democrats. This is their monster.
2
I am wondering why and why nobody mentioned about discrimination Asian students receive from both Whites and Blacks???
1
Freedom of speech includes freedom for jerk off racists.
1
As a college student in North Carolina, I see this sort of "sanctimonious" mentality on a regular basis.
Humans are imperfect beings. We do not inherently understand what is "right". The only way for us to tease out the best ideas from the worst is to vigorously debate, discuss, and chew on topics. Fundamentally, if you are so impassioned and certain in what you believe (which I believe many students are), it should be unnecessary to censor or ban people from speaking. Your ideas should easily be able to outshine the opposition.
Humans are imperfect beings. We do not inherently understand what is "right". The only way for us to tease out the best ideas from the worst is to vigorously debate, discuss, and chew on topics. Fundamentally, if you are so impassioned and certain in what you believe (which I believe many students are), it should be unnecessary to censor or ban people from speaking. Your ideas should easily be able to outshine the opposition.
3
Interesting that no faculty member or administrator would dare to speak to a student with the vitriol and harassing language used in the Yale video and hope to keep her job. But of course, privilege and entitlement reign when demeaning the "hired help".
5
All too often, these incidents remind me of the USS Maine, Sarajevo, or the Gulf of Tonkin. A pretext for the army of intolerant social justice warriors to attack. And when investigated, often the incident falls apart - a hoax or rumor. But since a crisis should never go to waste, the more crises the better.
3
With all do respect to progressives everywhere....
who are the bad guys here? At both Missouri and Yale it is the protestors who have engaged in mob rule and suppressed free speech. In response to what? At Mizzou a handful of alleged uses of the "N" word, anecdotes without any corroboration. At Yale, we have students upset because a faculty member and house master had the temerity to suggest that the guidelines for Halloween costumes issued by the school were over the top.
We should be concerned if students or employees aren't made to feel welcome where they go to school or work because of some personal characteristic. But where is the evidence of systemic racism at Mizzou or Yale? Or do we simply assume Blacks are always discriminated against and made to feel unwelcome by Whites?
I'm all for protest when people are treated unfairly or politicians take us down the wrong road. But I am not for mob rule and we have to be quite clear that was what was going on at both Yale and Mizzou. I'm also for free speech, regardless. The demands of the students at Mizzou did not specify any current injustices, only that the president benefited from white male privilege and must resign -- and more diversity programs throughout the school and hire more Black faculty.
How many of the football players at Mizzou met the entrance requirements? How many of the protesters? If things are so bad, withdraw, give up your scholarships. Or go back to class and work.
who are the bad guys here? At both Missouri and Yale it is the protestors who have engaged in mob rule and suppressed free speech. In response to what? At Mizzou a handful of alleged uses of the "N" word, anecdotes without any corroboration. At Yale, we have students upset because a faculty member and house master had the temerity to suggest that the guidelines for Halloween costumes issued by the school were over the top.
We should be concerned if students or employees aren't made to feel welcome where they go to school or work because of some personal characteristic. But where is the evidence of systemic racism at Mizzou or Yale? Or do we simply assume Blacks are always discriminated against and made to feel unwelcome by Whites?
I'm all for protest when people are treated unfairly or politicians take us down the wrong road. But I am not for mob rule and we have to be quite clear that was what was going on at both Yale and Mizzou. I'm also for free speech, regardless. The demands of the students at Mizzou did not specify any current injustices, only that the president benefited from white male privilege and must resign -- and more diversity programs throughout the school and hire more Black faculty.
How many of the football players at Mizzou met the entrance requirements? How many of the protesters? If things are so bad, withdraw, give up your scholarships. Or go back to class and work.
7
So, I applaud you Mr. Kristof, for raising this issue, but it is in fact more black and white than you think: these students are trying to conflate physica
Safety with emothionsl safety. It's really quite simply, they would in no way have let the bazis march in Skokie, amd that's why they are straight up completely wrong. Uf you don't protect your enemies speech you completely jeopordize your iwn- there is a lack of i telligemce here in these campuses, and it's getting scary
Safety with emothionsl safety. It's really quite simply, they would in no way have let the bazis march in Skokie, amd that's why they are straight up completely wrong. Uf you don't protect your enemies speech you completely jeopordize your iwn- there is a lack of i telligemce here in these campuses, and it's getting scary
2
Two of the many things I learned as a public school administrator are:
1- Some very real racism is invisible to white people.
2- People of color sometimes see racism where it does not exist.
And both groups are convinced the other group is wrong.
1- Some very real racism is invisible to white people.
2- People of color sometimes see racism where it does not exist.
And both groups are convinced the other group is wrong.
8
In an attempt to protect the sensitive feelings of the little darlings in it's care , Academia has created a world of intolerance . As such , it is only fair they have to live in it.
4
Probably 90% of the incidents that led to this debacle either never happened or were committed by the aggrieved.
14
I kind of wish you were right, but you're not, unfortunately.
Whoever can create an algorithm/process to identify racist 18 year-old students, especially those receiving scholarships, could make a lot of money selling it to college admissions offices.
4
I don't see any justification for the level of unrest that has erupted on college campuses. Where is the "intolerable racism" that they speak of?
Is it the fear of being harmed by a dis-tasteful Halloween costume? (Oh, the humanity!) The unspeakable onslaught of someone calling you a name? (Ouch!) Trust me guys, you have probably heard worse in your life and things will get better.
It seems to me that much of the ruckus is being caused by provocateurs who want to shake things up and make white people feel uneasy about themselves. They are provoking a fight just to see how far they can take it. They are challenging all aspects of authority and it is up to their parents and faculty to reign them in. The adults on these campuses need to protect the white kids from this kind of provocative hogwash. Everyone is paying a lot of money to be there and not everyone is conveniently studying sociology and journalism.
Is it the fear of being harmed by a dis-tasteful Halloween costume? (Oh, the humanity!) The unspeakable onslaught of someone calling you a name? (Ouch!) Trust me guys, you have probably heard worse in your life and things will get better.
It seems to me that much of the ruckus is being caused by provocateurs who want to shake things up and make white people feel uneasy about themselves. They are provoking a fight just to see how far they can take it. They are challenging all aspects of authority and it is up to their parents and faculty to reign them in. The adults on these campuses need to protect the white kids from this kind of provocative hogwash. Everyone is paying a lot of money to be there and not everyone is conveniently studying sociology and journalism.
5
White people SHOULD feel uneasy, at least a little. What with our lousy behavior on far too many occasions.
As for these campus protests, they're obnoxious some of the time. But compared to what's gone on in the past, they're playtime.
Seen anybody get hit? Anbody throwing rocks? Burning buildings? Blowing anything up?
As for these campus protests, they're obnoxious some of the time. But compared to what's gone on in the past, they're playtime.
Seen anybody get hit? Anbody throwing rocks? Burning buildings? Blowing anything up?
We can all thank Rush Limbaugh and his "ditto heads" for the current spate of shouting down of opposing views and beliefs. He and all the "talking heads" on TV, especially Bill O'Reilly, who believe that those that shout the loudest and refuse to allow their guests to have a word in edgewise are the correct point of view to be heard. The current reactionary movement by those who have been silently oppressed for far too long by the powers that be are only doing what the right wing media has doing to them for a long time, shouting back. Its about time. Black lives do matter and deserve the same respect that all Whites take for granted. Many of us never learned the Golden Rule we were taught in kindergarten and should have never been promoted to 1st grade till we learned how to play nice with others.
4
Civics classes should be mandatory, starting in middle school.
10
Starting at home. Middle school is too late. Kids learn and watch their parents', relatives' reactions to the world around them.
2
In the Mizzou case, I would like to know, outside of making a few speechs, just what the president was supposed to do that would actually curb the random, mostly off-campus, acts that got everybody's panties in a wad.
In the case of Yale, these students just need to grow up a bit.
In the case of Yale, these students just need to grow up a bit.
13
It seems that the students of today are coddled, hyper-sensitive, and unaware of the reality that no one has a right not to be offended. The "P.C." movement has overstepped the boundaries of reason and legitimacy.
11
"Free speech" is too easy to say. Sure, we all want the right of free speech. But what does that actually mean? There are differences of speech by the powerful and the powerless. There are differences of who gets heard -- who has the means to project their speech on others. Everyone has the freedom of speaking to themselves in private. That is not the issue. So now we have "free public speech." Then there are issues of lies, distortions, perspective, hyperbole, dangerous speech, abusive speech, and so on. We all protest governments that use the BIG LIE to manipulate their populations. And my or your little voice is not enough to combat that. Governments should not be given the freedom to say whatever they want. Should FOX NEWS? Should political candidates? "Free speech" is more complicated than some absolute right to vibrate the air. Nevertheless. these examples show how limits on and fears of speech have gotten carried away. To combat the filth of racism and the lies that hurt us all we need to be more selective and limited in what we ban or stifle. And if there is any doubt, let the speech proceed, but do your homework (everyone, but especially the media) to contest the lies and distortion.
1
In reply to JustThinkin- You are wrong. You are confusing the "right" to free speech and the "effects" and "efficacy" of different groups' free speech (along with a lot of other extraneous issues). In order to remain a free society we need to preserve EVERYONE'S right to essentially unfettered freedom of speech, including racists, neo-Nazis and college students
Actually, it's pretty darn simple.
Until somebody starts inciting to riot, we don't ban or suppress ANYTHING. Everybody gets to have a say, and everybody gets to stand up and explain why they're idiots.
Until somebody starts inciting to riot, we don't ban or suppress ANYTHING. Everybody gets to have a say, and everybody gets to stand up and explain why they're idiots.
I will nail a virtual plaque to my digital wall. On this day, I agreed 100% with Nicholas Kristof. Yes, a concern with the historically marginalized can exist with free speech.
5
When students talk about feeling "safe," what they really mean is "Don't you dare expose me to any ideas that I don't agree with."
10
We, as a nation, have isolated ourselves in echo chambers. I think the conservatives have been at it a little longer and now we have the Republican primaries as evidence to where that eventually leads us.
Unfortunately, the Democrats are working very hard to catch up with the Republicans.
Unfortunately, the Democrats are working very hard to catch up with the Republicans.
3
There's a reason you only see bumper stickers for liberal causes. Conservatives don't key cars!
5
What troubles me at Yale is that most protests apparently weren’t aimed at a fraternity’s intolerant act (their ‘white girls only’ party), but at someone questioning guidance on Halloween costumes (!) reasonably & as a matter of free speech ( not actual costumes worn), & at an unwise metaphor at a free speech symposium! Truly intolerant behavior is real, & should be dealt with when it really occurs, especially if it’s endemic on campus – but not with another type of intolerance!
As for a ‘safe place’ – my university was anything but! It & the people there were so different from everything I’d known until then. Ideas, attitudes, expectations, & behavior - of faculty & especially the students - much was so different from those of my family & community. Uncomfortable, yes; sometimes quite offensive.
But, I didn’t go there expecting the institution, atmosphere, & ideas to mirror those from which I’d come - had I wanted that, I would’ve stayed home & commuted to a local college & not worked & fought so hard to go there. I certainly didn’t insist that it transform itself to suit me. It was scary, painful at times, but thrilling, too. I emerged with a better sense of who I was & where I stood on just about everything & why; & how to articulate & defend it; & of which battles to fight (& how to do it to win some.) And with a broader, tougher, & more realistic view of the world into which I set off to work, manage, & lead. Educated. And with many happy memories, too.
As for a ‘safe place’ – my university was anything but! It & the people there were so different from everything I’d known until then. Ideas, attitudes, expectations, & behavior - of faculty & especially the students - much was so different from those of my family & community. Uncomfortable, yes; sometimes quite offensive.
But, I didn’t go there expecting the institution, atmosphere, & ideas to mirror those from which I’d come - had I wanted that, I would’ve stayed home & commuted to a local college & not worked & fought so hard to go there. I certainly didn’t insist that it transform itself to suit me. It was scary, painful at times, but thrilling, too. I emerged with a better sense of who I was & where I stood on just about everything & why; & how to articulate & defend it; & of which battles to fight (& how to do it to win some.) And with a broader, tougher, & more realistic view of the world into which I set off to work, manage, & lead. Educated. And with many happy memories, too.
5
Its ironic that the young woman from Yale and the hunger strike student at Missouri, come from very privileged backgrounds. The are are part of the 1 percent. Maybe they are just attention seeking entitled brats.
6
Why is it so difficult for people who have difference opinions (superficially), to sit down and talk "to" each other and not past each other? If it was so easy for people with varied opinions to not be open to different viewpoints, we would not have any conflict, no battles, no bullying, no victimizing etc. in our world. For some reason, just sitting down face to face and having a conversation is not possible in today's society and culture that only talks to each other through social media, texts, snapchats, instagrams, tweets...
Facing this difficult challenge, one brave woman, recently addressed an audience in Israel at the Mount of Beatitudes, which is unfortunately Exhibit A when it comes to depicting an example of conflict among human beings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cZoLwo3VO8. Have a listen, if you dare to open your hearts.
Facing this difficult challenge, one brave woman, recently addressed an audience in Israel at the Mount of Beatitudes, which is unfortunately Exhibit A when it comes to depicting an example of conflict among human beings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cZoLwo3VO8. Have a listen, if you dare to open your hearts.
1
The Yale video was appalling. The young woman yelling and cursing needs to be sent back to her parents until she learns to maintain just a modicum of self control. I am embarrassed for her. She will be haunted by that spectacle for the rest of her life. She is too immature to be away from direct adult supervision.
11
Liberal fascism is on the rise and it needs to be crushed decisively. Shut off taxpayer subsidies to these delicate little snowflakes and make them pay their own way. They'll be too busy for anarchy and chaos, or better yet, they'll starve.
7
What taxpayer subsidies?
I suppose that free speech is only a pure principle when journalists, Al Sharpton and McCarthy era communists are speaking.
How much suppression of free speech can be hidden behind the pretense of preventing a hostile environment? The principle of free speech exists to protect the unpopular and unpleasant expression, not simply those who agree with the editorial page of the NY Times.
How much suppression of free speech can be hidden behind the pretense of preventing a hostile environment? The principle of free speech exists to protect the unpopular and unpleasant expression, not simply those who agree with the editorial page of the NY Times.
9
It's not the Left that's been burning books, passing laws against teaching evolution, and shoving the Bible into classroms, you know.
1
The problem with free speech is we as a society are being suffocated by political correctness. No longer is a conservative/white/male/Republican entitled to his opinion. You may not like what he has to say, but you must respect his rights. Because, after all, he is expected to listen to yours.
10
Les Miserables of New Haven.
The most priveleged kids in the country should be in day care, getting their nappies changed, not at an elite University.
I do not feel their pain.
The most priveleged kids in the country should be in day care, getting their nappies changed, not at an elite University.
I do not feel their pain.
7
The good news is that Mr. Kristof has talked to Catholic and conservative schools about his liberal values, so freedom of speech still lives in academia. The bad news is that on the liberal side, many schools have 'jumped the shark' on prohibiting reasonable dialogue. It makes one wish we still had a military draft or equivalent service requirement to season and expose tender children to real-world challenges and help them grow up prior to college.
6
If Nicholas Kristoff thinks the question "Is Yale letting in 8-year-olds?" is an example of savage commentary, it's truly amazing that he musters the fortitude to get out of bed in the morning.
2
As a Yale alum (Class of '62) the issue of race and racism goes deeper than just a Halloween costume to the historic racist symbols that pervade the campus. The one now in the spotlight concerns Calhoun College named for the famous South Carolina segregationist. I've recently written the following to Yale President Peter Salovey, "As an alum who was admitted under a quota for Jewish students in the 1950s, I urge you to consider renaming Calhoun College as Martin Luther King Jr. college. If South Carolina can furl the Confederate battle flag, Yale can and must remove its flag of segregation as well. We may not be able to change the past, but we do not and should not continue to honor the offensive symbols it has bequeathed to us."
4
Safe yes, safe from physical harm, safe from bullying, safe from sexual assault. The problem now is that students want to be "safe" from anything and everything that is uncomfortable and that focus will inevitablely stunt their growth. Life after college is not free of intellectual and physical challenges and certainly few bosses are going to apologize for hurting one's feelings or acknowledge one's "pain". The attempt to make college like home is surely backfiring - it's not home, it's college, it's supposed to challenges one's beliefs, make one think, grow into a strong, critically thinking person.
10
Mizzou students lost any support I would extend to them the moment the harassed and intimidated a student reporter.
You can't claim you're 'oppressed' and then attack others in the same manner that you claim to be against.
You can't claim you're 'oppressed' and then attack others in the same manner that you claim to be against.
10
What exactly did the Mizzou protesters fear Tim Tai was going to see? If a free press isn't their ally, there must be something questionable about their cause.
8
Thanks Mr. Kristoff, when I was a liberal , before intolerant progressivism took over, it was because I would be aligned with sensible, open minded people like you. I'm not a NYT fan, but occasionally I read editorials, so because the sensible and mature way this subject is addressed, I thought this was the only non-liberal writer left at NYT. Then I realized I was confusing you with David Brooks. Anyway glad to know there are other authors here worth reading.
Said that, I knew of all those intolerant cases at colleges you mention, except the "conversation with the Vagina" one. I knew there was something going on with it that prevented it's showing, but never in my life could I guess that it was because it could be "offensive" to transgenders. Talk about we are way off the rails by now. It won't be long before visual arts exhibits and concerts will be also cancelled because they are offensive to blind and deaf people.
Liberal intolerance has gone to the point of surreal idiocy. Amazing.
Said that, I knew of all those intolerant cases at colleges you mention, except the "conversation with the Vagina" one. I knew there was something going on with it that prevented it's showing, but never in my life could I guess that it was because it could be "offensive" to transgenders. Talk about we are way off the rails by now. It won't be long before visual arts exhibits and concerts will be also cancelled because they are offensive to blind and deaf people.
Liberal intolerance has gone to the point of surreal idiocy. Amazing.
10
Free speech for me but not for thee.
Why do you fools coddle the mob? Do you see a part of yourself, from the 60's in these children with their opaque demands? Do you people secretly wish you were still 17 and smoking dope and on your way to ECON 101 again?
History teaches: the mob is never satiated. Much like the lead monster in an old drive in movie-they feed and grow stronger until all is destroyed.
It seems in order to "remake America" or "fundamentally transform" it, you first favor destroying it.
You are wrong. The children at these schools are imagining boogymen! And NOTHING good ever comes from the politics of "the mob".
Finally, there is nothing here to protest. So, in order to weild power-these fools simply make up grievances and get NTY op-eds and lead stories on MSNBC.
The leaders should be jailed. Because...
There is no there, there.
Why do you fools coddle the mob? Do you see a part of yourself, from the 60's in these children with their opaque demands? Do you people secretly wish you were still 17 and smoking dope and on your way to ECON 101 again?
History teaches: the mob is never satiated. Much like the lead monster in an old drive in movie-they feed and grow stronger until all is destroyed.
It seems in order to "remake America" or "fundamentally transform" it, you first favor destroying it.
You are wrong. The children at these schools are imagining boogymen! And NOTHING good ever comes from the politics of "the mob".
Finally, there is nothing here to protest. So, in order to weild power-these fools simply make up grievances and get NTY op-eds and lead stories on MSNBC.
The leaders should be jailed. Because...
There is no there, there.
7
Condoleezza Rice as commencement speaker at Rutgers University in no way applies here. That was an honor, something that, as a proud Rutgers alum, outraged me. I don't believe Dr. Rice would have been kept from speaking on campus in a public forum, but this NO!
1
I don't mind a tilt to the left. Or to the right for that matter. As long as opposing views that are respectfully and factually represented are welcomed and not censored, their speakers aren't "disinvited" and their publications quashed.
This long time liberal sometimes cannot fathom how younger citizens on the left keep shooting themselves in the foot with their sometimes infantile, nit-picky and counterproductive version of political correctness (the right has its edition as well). Safe rooms? Play Doh and cookies? Micro-aggression? C'mon, people, lighten up, learn to take some a little criticism and face your real opposition that is represented by the positions of the Tea Party.
When musician Chrissie Hynde and a liberal Northwestern female feminist professor are pilloried for incorrectness, you have a problem and need to burst through your bubble.
This long time liberal sometimes cannot fathom how younger citizens on the left keep shooting themselves in the foot with their sometimes infantile, nit-picky and counterproductive version of political correctness (the right has its edition as well). Safe rooms? Play Doh and cookies? Micro-aggression? C'mon, people, lighten up, learn to take some a little criticism and face your real opposition that is represented by the positions of the Tea Party.
When musician Chrissie Hynde and a liberal Northwestern female feminist professor are pilloried for incorrectness, you have a problem and need to burst through your bubble.
7
The below quote by the columnist says it all. The repression of free speech is all coming from the left, which hypocritically keeps calling all conservatives nasty names: "I’m a pro-choice liberal who has been invited to infect evangelical Christian universities with progressive thoughts, and to address Catholic universities where I’ve praised condoms and birth control programs. I’m sure I discomfited many students on these conservative campuses, but it’s a tribute to them that they were willing to be challenged."
5
Here is a parallel: you are an minority or marginalized employee of a large corporation. A party is planned and YOUR HOME is the site chosen. The top management sends out a memo asking people to wear costumes, but cautions them to choose something that would not be offensive to others. Your department manager then counters that memo saying that you should wear anything you want, including something offensive to others in your department, because people should be able to "handle it." This is the situation at Yale as I understand it, which doesn't really come through in Mr. Kristof's piece. In my view, the administration at Yale was helpfully proactive, without being proscriptive, in asking students to think about their choices. The residence hall master and his wife were out of line negating that very reasonable approach to the issue of free speech vs intimidation.
2
No, not really. Maybe you should read that woman's letter again. She was sympathetic to the students, but asked that the administration allow them to sort it out for themselves, instead of being dictated to by non-academic administrators. She thought that the administrators were being patronizing, which they were. But considering that Yale college students (and others) don't have the reading comprehension skills to understand her rather nuanced point, perhaps she would have been better off saying nothing.
Mr. Kristof is right to say that colleges and universities should seek out a variety of views, that "conservative" places should seek out pro-choice liberal speakers, and "liberal" places should seek out pro-life conservative speakers, just for one example. What I disagree with is the notion that these administrators at Missouri should have lost their positions for the actions of a few racists. Tim Wolfe didn't make a swastika or hurl racial epithets, and those who are caught doing so are punished. Wolfe tried to engage an activist in that "dialogue" everyone's always talking about and was shouted at in return. If activists are going to lump innocent non-racists in with guilty racists, then their activism is completely invalid.
2
Wolfe was shouted down because he gave a definition of oppression that was completely politically correct, but the student misunderstood what he was saying, probably due to poor English comprehension skills. The people who were upset at the "house mother" at Yale for her actually-sympathetic letter about Halloween costumes seemed equally comprehension-challenged. I think a large part of the problem is that some of these college students aren't really ready for college-level thought.
1
Bernie Sanders was invited to Liberty University to speak. There were not protests outside, the crowd was quiet inside, and he was applauded when he was introduced and when he finished his speech. I doubt Bernie Sanders will get more than a handful of votes from Liberty University students and faculty.
Imagine Ted Cruz or pick your favorite conservative speaking at the University of Missouri. Don't bother because he won't be invited. And if he were invited there would be angry demonstrations and he would be booed off the stage.
Imagine Ted Cruz or pick your favorite conservative speaking at the University of Missouri. Don't bother because he won't be invited. And if he were invited there would be angry demonstrations and he would be booed off the stage.
8
Search Engines have made it worse.
The ability of the web engines to know your inclinations and point your searches to one's own point of view, likes, preferences, areas of interests has diminished the true potential of the web to expand our intellectual horizons.
Even the news aggregator sites leverage this ability and constantly exposes a person only to SIMILAR view points.
The ability of the web engines to know your inclinations and point your searches to one's own point of view, likes, preferences, areas of interests has diminished the true potential of the web to expand our intellectual horizons.
Even the news aggregator sites leverage this ability and constantly exposes a person only to SIMILAR view points.
3
The most racist people that i have encountered are extreme leftists. To them, everything is about race. As a Mexican American, i have been to tea party rallies and other conservative functions, and never, ever encountered any racism.
I went to a very conservative University in Texas, and never felt slighted or discriminated against.
The ultra sensitive nature of the left, coupled with hypocritical intolerance of others, is what is driving this pc charade.
I went to a very conservative University in Texas, and never felt slighted or discriminated against.
The ultra sensitive nature of the left, coupled with hypocritical intolerance of others, is what is driving this pc charade.
24
As an slumna and one-rtime professor at Yale, I am deeply troubled by the behavior of the "protesters." The student who told the master of her college to "f..ck you" and shrieked at him to "be quiet" is violating every tenet of civilized duscourse. It is time to stop tolerating this behavior. I can't believe most minority students thonk this is the way to encourage "inclusivity". There should be no more tolerance for Black racism than for any other kind.
The fiasco at Mizzou was even worse. Allowing fiotball to be more important than academics, and tolerating the overtly antiwhite bigotry so openly expressed by Black students and FACULTY is bound to worsen rather than improve interracial attitudes.
The fiasco at Mizzou was even worse. Allowing fiotball to be more important than academics, and tolerating the overtly antiwhite bigotry so openly expressed by Black students and FACULTY is bound to worsen rather than improve interracial attitudes.
17
Unfortunately she must have seen her family or relatives respond this way. its a learned behavior.
3
Agree totally!! The univ pres should resign but no voices raised against that disgrace to the tchg ptofession Melissa Click. Political correctness going from bad to worse to right into the right- wingers hands!! Why are the administrators of these elite institutions standing up to these brats???
1
There's alot going on here. But here's a couple things. Melissa Click is an idiot. She should be shown the door. ( I think she left ). The fact that she is an assistant professor ( media studies or something like that ) is scary. That whole episode gives the people ( Bill O'Reilly etc ), that say colleges have gone crazy with intolerance, ammo for a long time.
It seems to me young people are dying to protest something. They want to have their 60's moment. They missed MLK and Malcom X and feel bad about it. They should be happy they don't have to go through that. And where were all the kids in the lead up to Iraq. That would have been something to protest. Even now how about some massive health care demonstrations for single payer. At Michigan one problem was administration folks losing health care benefits to cut costs. How about some massive demonstrations against the obscene amounts of money spent on the military. MLK was most likely killed because at that point he was starting to do just that. Equating war spending and it affects all of us, esp the poor. How about throwing all the weight behind Bernie Sanders instead of grabbing mikes from him. Anyway I think this Kristof writing is right....basically.
It seems to me young people are dying to protest something. They want to have their 60's moment. They missed MLK and Malcom X and feel bad about it. They should be happy they don't have to go through that. And where were all the kids in the lead up to Iraq. That would have been something to protest. Even now how about some massive health care demonstrations for single payer. At Michigan one problem was administration folks losing health care benefits to cut costs. How about some massive demonstrations against the obscene amounts of money spent on the military. MLK was most likely killed because at that point he was starting to do just that. Equating war spending and it affects all of us, esp the poor. How about throwing all the weight behind Bernie Sanders instead of grabbing mikes from him. Anyway I think this Kristof writing is right....basically.
4
Using fascist tactics to suppress "bad" ideas is a very bad idea and a very bad lesson to teach students.
5
Death threats against black students equated to allowing pro-life speakers on campus? You've lost your moral compass.
Admitting the validity of student claims at the end of the article is not sufficient.
Admitting the validity of student claims at the end of the article is not sufficient.
2
What next, a demand for an apology? SMH
Maybe we can apply the wisdom in this column to the legislators who want to strike all mention of climate change from scientific studies and reports.
2
"I don't want to debate, I want to talk about my pain!"
This student is obviously confusing education with therapy, and clearly has no understanding of the true purpose of a university.
Or rather what the true purpose of a university USED to be. The Mizzou students evidently get it: they could bring the university to a screeching halt by threatening to shut down... the football program.
This, sadly, is the state of US academia in 2015: Football and therapy.
Bread and circuses, anyone?
This student is obviously confusing education with therapy, and clearly has no understanding of the true purpose of a university.
Or rather what the true purpose of a university USED to be. The Mizzou students evidently get it: they could bring the university to a screeching halt by threatening to shut down... the football program.
This, sadly, is the state of US academia in 2015: Football and therapy.
Bread and circuses, anyone?
155
What purity of though is needed to create a "safe space" free of microagressions where "all" can belong? Would not everyone have to think the same way? How could free speach possibly survive if anything near to that goal is the target? Totalitarianism of the mind?
No wonder those who don't comply are shouted down and deomonized. There is no room for tolerance in that world.
No wonder those who don't comply are shouted down and deomonized. There is no room for tolerance in that world.
6
It's all about narcissists relishing their self-created victim-hood. I believe it actually undermines the cause of the people they're supposedly defending.
9
A good book on this very subject is Jonathan Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind, in which he, as an avowed liberal, points out that there are differences in the mindsets of liberals and conservatives. Understanding those differences helps to, at least, bridge the psychological gap between those 2 viewpoints. I believe it helps to promote real dialog.
3
Trigger Warning! This comment contains the common sense of a long dead white male.
“Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil. But for my part I have long perceived the nature of good and its nobility, the nature of evil and its meanness, and also the nature of the culprit himself, who is my brother (not in the physical sense, but as a fellow creature similarly endowed with reason and a share of the divine); therefore none of those things can injure me, for nobody can implicate me in what is degrading. Neither can I be angry with my brother or fall foul of him; for he and I were born to work together, like a man’s two hands, feet or eyelids, or the upper and lower rows of his teeth. To obstruct each other is against Nature’s law – and what is irritation or aversion but a form of obstruction.”
Yale once taught students about Marcus Aurelius and other ancients. Perhaps it should once more.
“Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil. But for my part I have long perceived the nature of good and its nobility, the nature of evil and its meanness, and also the nature of the culprit himself, who is my brother (not in the physical sense, but as a fellow creature similarly endowed with reason and a share of the divine); therefore none of those things can injure me, for nobody can implicate me in what is degrading. Neither can I be angry with my brother or fall foul of him; for he and I were born to work together, like a man’s two hands, feet or eyelids, or the upper and lower rows of his teeth. To obstruct each other is against Nature’s law – and what is irritation or aversion but a form of obstruction.”
Yale once taught students about Marcus Aurelius and other ancients. Perhaps it should once more.
7
Bravo, Mr. Kristof. There's an adage that sums this up: "the left supports free speech as long as it is speech that they agree with."
You can see by many of the comments here, that you make no friends by saying things people don't agree with. This is particularly demonstrable when a liberal, writing for a liberal media outlet is critical of liberals.
When conservatives are critical of other conservatives, the media tries to paint all conservatives as being in disarray, dysfunctional, and many other adjectives. Liberals cannot risk that perception of themselves. They've spent 6+ years branding conservatives that way.
You can see by many of the comments here, that you make no friends by saying things people don't agree with. This is particularly demonstrable when a liberal, writing for a liberal media outlet is critical of liberals.
When conservatives are critical of other conservatives, the media tries to paint all conservatives as being in disarray, dysfunctional, and many other adjectives. Liberals cannot risk that perception of themselves. They've spent 6+ years branding conservatives that way.
9
Free speech is a gift we were given as Americans. It doesn't mean it is an easy gift to employ. Whether in the adult world where they left the Nazis march in Skokie or where they let Louis Farrakhan spew his bile in NYC when Giuliani tried to shut him down, adults understand that there are times when this gift is misused by those that are evil. The question becomes for these children demanding the adults give into their tempertantrums who is the decider of "safe spaces?"
Did any of the groups that they belong too invite virulent antisemites to speak? Did they support antisemitism in the guise of Israel-apartheid week on their campus? Do they support the SJP and the MSO when they call for divestment from the only Jewish state on the planet or openly support the "knife intifada?" Are Jewish students not allowed to feel safe when their fellow classmates scream and yell at pro-Israel speakers or shut down dialogue on Israel-Palestine peace or even attack them as happened at Temple, UCLA, and USC? Remember President Obama said anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. There is no difference. So when do Jewish students become entitled to not go to school with fear?
Did any of the groups that they belong too invite virulent antisemites to speak? Did they support antisemitism in the guise of Israel-apartheid week on their campus? Do they support the SJP and the MSO when they call for divestment from the only Jewish state on the planet or openly support the "knife intifada?" Are Jewish students not allowed to feel safe when their fellow classmates scream and yell at pro-Israel speakers or shut down dialogue on Israel-Palestine peace or even attack them as happened at Temple, UCLA, and USC? Remember President Obama said anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. There is no difference. So when do Jewish students become entitled to not go to school with fear?
10
Val in Brooklyn, NY
Mr. Kristof, as a relatively new subscriber, I've read a few of your pieces lately from young women defending themselves in other parts of the world, to the doctor who's given others a chance to see. I believe I commented favorably on at least one (missed the cutoff for a few). But this one? I'm disappointed.
How can you be so accurate on those, almost heroically so, yet so misguided here? I'm as open minded as they come. I even found myself agreeing with Trump when he said to let Putin deal with ISIS & when Rand Paul said no more zillions for military spending. I say this as super progressive Sanders supporter.
And you support your position using Condi Rice as an example? A member of of W's administrations, one of the worst this country's ever known? I agree with the comments of A Southern Bro & Roy Koshy, among others. And like Mr. Koshy, I am a fellow person of color who finds this condescending.
Mr. Kristof, with respects, you've quite simply blown it on this one. Blown it full stop.
Submitted 11-12-15@7:16 a.m. EST
Mr. Kristof, as a relatively new subscriber, I've read a few of your pieces lately from young women defending themselves in other parts of the world, to the doctor who's given others a chance to see. I believe I commented favorably on at least one (missed the cutoff for a few). But this one? I'm disappointed.
How can you be so accurate on those, almost heroically so, yet so misguided here? I'm as open minded as they come. I even found myself agreeing with Trump when he said to let Putin deal with ISIS & when Rand Paul said no more zillions for military spending. I say this as super progressive Sanders supporter.
And you support your position using Condi Rice as an example? A member of of W's administrations, one of the worst this country's ever known? I agree with the comments of A Southern Bro & Roy Koshy, among others. And like Mr. Koshy, I am a fellow person of color who finds this condescending.
Mr. Kristof, with respects, you've quite simply blown it on this one. Blown it full stop.
Submitted 11-12-15@7:16 a.m. EST
2
I'm trying to figure out who you could be more wrong Nicky (can i call you Nicky?) but, honestly, I can't.
Or perhaps in the weird bizzaro world of the New York Times shouting down those with whom you agree is somehow "noble."
In DocDave world it ain't.
Or perhaps in the weird bizzaro world of the New York Times shouting down those with whom you agree is somehow "noble."
In DocDave world it ain't.
3
I respect Mr.Kristof's opinions, but, even as an old white guy, I have this problem:
There are limits to free speech, beyond the old " yelling Fire! in a crowded theater" thing. Calling out racial epithets is not putting forth a comment that should be protected by the First Amendment.
Values that place certain people in sub-human groups should not be part of our civil discourse. In other words, if the basis of your argument is that certain people are not part of the Human family, then you should be, forcibly if necessary, removed from the conversation - in a University or on the Street.
There are limits to free speech, beyond the old " yelling Fire! in a crowded theater" thing. Calling out racial epithets is not putting forth a comment that should be protected by the First Amendment.
Values that place certain people in sub-human groups should not be part of our civil discourse. In other words, if the basis of your argument is that certain people are not part of the Human family, then you should be, forcibly if necessary, removed from the conversation - in a University or on the Street.
1
Or....how about this for a behavioral guideline:
Manners maketh man.
Manners maketh man.
8
As my oldest grandson prepares to embark on the great journey of life, I hope he winds up on a campus where he has the opportunity to learn -- to listen to others, to understand what they have to say, to draw his own conclusions and to speak freely.
As I read about the events at Missouri, Yale and other schools, I am struck by how little effort both students and faculty put into listening to others and how little they understand about what they hear and observe.
As I read about the events at Missouri, Yale and other schools, I am struck by how little effort both students and faculty put into listening to others and how little they understand about what they hear and observe.
8
As individuals, protected by the Constitution, we have the right in this country to parody the rednecks as well as the gangbanger wannabes. Both cultures are inherently dysfunctional and worthy of ridicule. Yes, worthy of ridicule.
It seems incongruous that faculty, let alone students, must be reminded of this in college settings. Cultural nazis are just that, cultural nazis, be they liberal or conservative.
It seems incongruous that faculty, let alone students, must be reminded of this in college settings. Cultural nazis are just that, cultural nazis, be they liberal or conservative.
8
Bravo Kristof!!!! This op-ed offers a rare bit of intellectual honesty from a paper that too often falls far short. I would even go one step further however to say that the most suppressed and stifled voices on college campuses today are those from conservative voices, by a long shot.
21
Colleges where everyone is walking on eggshells trying to not hurt each others feelings. Groups all trying to jostle for a controversy to feel like they're doing something for their cause. Comedians saying they don't even play colleges anymore because of the inevitable outrage over every joke. Perhaps this story shouldn't be about hurt feeling and political correctness and be about how universities are no longer the places where no one speaks about anything out of fear where they should be the places that expression is open and anyone can say what they feel without being shamed by the majority- the thing that colleges are for. Colleges are becoming a very expensive joke that stifles freedom. And a professor 'apologized' for asking for 'muscle'? Why wasn't she fired for threatening a reporter?
19
I recall a time when J.S. Mill would have been a model for university discourse:
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. On Liberty (1859)
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. On Liberty (1859)
8
Kristof makes reference to a Wall Street Journal editorial "The Little Robespierres" that condemns the protestors against insensitivity toward minorities. This editorial was formulated by Roger Kimball. In addition to being a payed political hack and phony literary critic, he has a paid job wining and dining young Yale students and trying to bring them into the conservative cause. This job also puts him in a good position to spy on the campus and that rat on them in the national news. I have reason to believe, from personal experience, that he's a bigot.
4
I'm liberal, too, but this was predictable once we decided to allow "speech codes" on campuses. Once society says it's acceptable to draw a line about what kind of speech is allowed we are giving to oligarchs, corporations, klansmen and kings the ability to shut down the weak when they raise voices of complaint or demand.
It is only through an open public debate can society's problems and dirty linen be aired -- and addressed. Just like with problems not being communicated between you and your spouse, when society doesn't discuss issues like racism, sexism and homophobia they will fester and worsen.
It is only through an open public debate can society's problems and dirty linen be aired -- and addressed. Just like with problems not being communicated between you and your spouse, when society doesn't discuss issues like racism, sexism and homophobia they will fester and worsen.
5
Excellent editorial.
Thank you!
Thank you!
2
What doesn't that guy not understand about "don't take my photograph". First amendment has nothing to do with it.
1
Because he's a news photographer covering a news event. That is what the First Amendment is about.
2
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past." Wm Faulkner. Racism in the United States flourished for centuries. There were real consequences for African Americans, enslaved and treated horribly by slave holders. There were lynchings attended as entertainment. There was NO PUBLIC SAFETY for African Americans well into the l950's when I heard an official of the St. Louis City government speaking about "colored" neighborhoods: "We don't send the police in there. We don't care if they kill each other." I was about 12 years old and I remember it well.
Recent videos of shootings of black Americans by police have brought problems of public safety to our consciousness.
Free speech about religion is just fine: it's been millennia since Christians were martyred in Rome and centuries since Protestants were burned at the stake.
But racist history in the United States is very very recent. And African Americans have been terrified for most of their history here. We are dealing not with conflict of ideas but with the results of centuries of social and physical trauma. When African Americans are truly safe in their neighborhoods, in their homes, at the work place, and on campuses, then racist epithets can be calmly assessed as free speech. Black anger comes from Black fear. The best solution to these problems is to address the real problems of safety in America. Plenty of white folks are afraid too. They will benefit from better safety just like blacks.
Recent videos of shootings of black Americans by police have brought problems of public safety to our consciousness.
Free speech about religion is just fine: it's been millennia since Christians were martyred in Rome and centuries since Protestants were burned at the stake.
But racist history in the United States is very very recent. And African Americans have been terrified for most of their history here. We are dealing not with conflict of ideas but with the results of centuries of social and physical trauma. When African Americans are truly safe in their neighborhoods, in their homes, at the work place, and on campuses, then racist epithets can be calmly assessed as free speech. Black anger comes from Black fear. The best solution to these problems is to address the real problems of safety in America. Plenty of white folks are afraid too. They will benefit from better safety just like blacks.
3
I guess Kristoff missed the Breitbart News reports that the entire Mizzou mess was a complete scam....a total hoax. There was and is no evidence of racism. No poop swastika. Nothing. The hunger strike fraud is a child of monied privilege. The organiser has been in Mizzou for 8 years. Like the John Belushi character in "Animal House".
The leftist faculty started this. They were perturbed their hours were cut.
The leftist faculty started this. They were perturbed their hours were cut.
7
Right, because Breitbart is such an intrinsically reliable source...
What profound irony that a reader would claim "total hoax" and use as his supporting evidence a report from Breitbart News and that five readers would agree with his claim. The mind truly reels.
Bread, circuses and now, group hugs. What a world.
5
"sanctimonious bullies" Perfect description. There is nobody on earth as stomach churning as the self-righteous.
14
Nicholas Kristof writes that “The problems at Mizzou were underscored on Tuesday when there were death threats against black students.” But there have been no death threats made at the University of Missouri. The threats were made a student at another college on Yik Yak, a social media app notorious for bullying comments. Kristof notes that a Mizzou professor wrote, “I have been called the N-word too many times to count,” which is obviously hyperbole, but in her article she described a name-calling incident that took place off campus and had no apparent connection with the university. In an article headlined “Black Students See a Campus Riven by Race” that appears in today’s New York Times, a black Mizzou student lists a conversation in which he heard white students talking about the houseboats their families owned as an example of things that create racial tensions on campus, a comment that speak to the seriousness of the threat facing black students on the Mizzou campus. Like universities, Missouri files a triannual Clery Act report that list crimes committed on or near campus. The Mizzou Cleary reports shows only a single racial bias incident over the past six years. (The reports doesn’t state the race of the victim in the 2012 incident.) Meanwhile, no one is interested in finding out who scrawled the infamous “fecal swastika” on the wall of a Missouri University dorm because most people assume it is a faux hate crime like those frequently committed on other campuses.
100
On one point in the Mizzou discussion, I am uncomfortable. A student says a passing motorist shouted a racial epithet. Someone reports a feces swastika but no photo proves this allegation. In any court, these allegations would be barred for lack of evidence. Not to question their authenticity, but why aren't Jews protesting the swastika incident? how can we stop random drivers from crude racist remarks shouted from car windows? The protests would be better bolstered by sustantiated factsof institutionalized racism, denial of benefits, not actions by depraved individuals.
81
Many black students get prefential treatment by having lower eligibility requirements that are used to meet diversity percentage numbers. Some arrive with a chip on their shoulder and openly resent other students that are privileged. They support the riots in Ferguson and accept the looting and violence as justified. They protest and are catered to by the administration.
Then they they wander why they are shunned and ridiculed by the white students.
It is a two way street.
Then they they wander why they are shunned and ridiculed by the white students.
It is a two way street.
22
Many white students receive preferential treatment for being legacies. They provide nothing of value to the community, yet rarely face any suspicion or prejudice. Your post is a litany of conservative soundbites--try widening your view.
I am a left-leaning professor of political science, but I am concerned about the desire of too many people on the left to shut down views that they find offensive and/or conflict with their own. This has been going on for some time and it is an attitude which will have the effect of stifling dissent and freedom of speech, value at the heart of liberal democracy. Being challenged is part of education. Reasoned debate between people who disagree with each other is critical to university. The fact that so many people on the left which to silence other points of view does a disservice to the very concept of learning. Hearing someone else's views does not mean you have to agree with that person.
6
Small victory: even Nicholas Kristof recognizes campus activists are interfering with the Constitutional rights of others. But it is a wrong to imply this is mainly a side effect of seeking racial justice. In fact, most of the campus anti-Constitutionalism has nothing to do with race: for example, the railroading of sexual abuse suspects in campus tribunals lacking due process, and the "trigger warning" censorship demanded by activists to avoid offending so-called "survivors" of abuse.
And, for an example of race turned around on its head, please look at the current move at Vanderbilt University to oust tenured professor Carol Swaim, a black, Christian conservative. This is evidence that for all their talk of diversity, the real problem is the closed mind of the campus activists: some things are just TOO diverse for them to tolerate. See http://www.vanderbilthustler.com/news/article_be4af74a-88bd-11e5-94b6-7f...
And, for an example of race turned around on its head, please look at the current move at Vanderbilt University to oust tenured professor Carol Swaim, a black, Christian conservative. This is evidence that for all their talk of diversity, the real problem is the closed mind of the campus activists: some things are just TOO diverse for them to tolerate. See http://www.vanderbilthustler.com/news/article_be4af74a-88bd-11e5-94b6-7f...
5
Those protesters seem unaware that their misbehavior also creates and enforces stereotypes - and these are not very positive.
Being Dutch, I am well aware that the English language has a lot of expressions (Dutch treat, Dutch courage, etc.) that stereotype my nationality in a rather negative way. Yet that hasn't done much to hinder people from Dutch origin to advance in society.
So I don't think that similar stereotyping of colored people is doing major harm. One day racial discrimination may have ended and we will still occasionally make jokes about "savages". And as long as it is done with respect nobody will object. In my opinion what we see now is mostly a case of moralists profiling themselves and making themselves look better than other people.
Being Dutch, I am well aware that the English language has a lot of expressions (Dutch treat, Dutch courage, etc.) that stereotype my nationality in a rather negative way. Yet that hasn't done much to hinder people from Dutch origin to advance in society.
So I don't think that similar stereotyping of colored people is doing major harm. One day racial discrimination may have ended and we will still occasionally make jokes about "savages". And as long as it is done with respect nobody will object. In my opinion what we see now is mostly a case of moralists profiling themselves and making themselves look better than other people.
5
Racism is a cancer in the United States. The race hate and fear mongering sown by Nixon's Southern Strategy and by the Conservative values movement since the 1960s is coming to fruition. Leaders point the finger and scream "Other!" How can young people, told to fear and loathe the other, find respect and compassion in their hearts? It may not help to say "they started it," but it is nonetheless true.
1
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.” - Ronald Reagan.
4
"Conservatives", who by definition want to preserve the order they think should exist, discovered that 'free speech' was a convenient cover for racist taunts of president Obama. After it won them the 2010 and 2014 interim elections, it proved its usefulness and was even more tolerated by 'moderates' within the conservative movement. Now the beast has spread and it is hard to define, much less control. But modern racism is becoming institutionalized very aptly.
The students are protesting the "institutional" racism they are forced to endure at Yale and U missouri and others. I was under the impression that conservative thought had very little influence there.
3
We all have rights in this democracy, but the right to be offended is not among them. In fact we surrender it when we accept the benefits of a pluralist society. It is depressing and alarming to see how many so-called activist "voices" define themselves wholly as offended by whatever, particularly on the left, and particularly when the only remedies they can come up with for their self-imagined injuries are various forms of oppression.
Oppressing ideas to placate the implacably injured is a fool's game, if not a step toward thought police-style intellectual fascism, and when it occurs on college campuses it makes a literal mockery of the term "university."
Oppressing ideas to placate the implacably injured is a fool's game, if not a step toward thought police-style intellectual fascism, and when it occurs on college campuses it makes a literal mockery of the term "university."
10
Is this really that complicated? I think as a society in our laws and institutions we have already decided that Free Speech does not protect Hate Speech. Anything that falls into the latter category is not protected [I gather that's where the original Halloween costumes were argued to reside, under expression of Hate]. For that reason, the current controversy is only muddied by bringing in the topic of graduation speakers, which raises an entirely different problem [who gets to speak; representative voices].
You are incorrect. The Supreme Court long ago decided that shouting fire in a crowded theater isn't protected by the First Amendment but has never suggest that hateful speech isn't protected. In France an antisemitic comedian was recently convicted of hate speech but that could never happen in this country. Holocaust deniers speak freely in this country with no fear of criminal prosecution, unlike in Europe. The First Amendment is exactly about protecting hateful speech, speech we all agree on needs no protection. The writers of the Constitution understood that. Unfortunately people today seem to be forgetting it.
4
Does JD stand for Juris Doctor, i.e. you're an attorney? If it does, that's disturbing because when I went to law school we learned that free speech protects all speech, hateful or not, as long as that speech does not pose an imminent threat of physical harm to specific people. Thus, we have the famous you're not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater rule. A subjectively offensive Halloween costume, for example, doesn't come anywhere near the legal line for exemption from First Amendment protections. I wish we still heard "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
4
In the interest of taking Mr Kristof's advice and seeing things from the perspective of the other side, I would like to examine the motivations of the Missouri students who vehemently protested the media's presence. In particular, Melissa Click, the professor calling for "muscle."
The simple fact is, for 99% of Americans, Melissa Click will forever be the "muscle" chick. Her photo - truly the worst photo that could have been taken of an angry protester - was plastered all over the front page of the New York Times. This will affect her career opportunities possibly for the rest of her life. People who have never met the woman or reviewed her work already have an opinion of her.
Maybe this is what those throngs of students were so upset about. They were well aware that in a highly publicized event, the media would ignore the vast majority of reasonable complaints, because the one or two sensational and radical lines make for more interesting stories, or at least give people in the comments section something to flare up about.
I don't think the issue was ever about free speech, on either side. It's about respect.
The simple fact is, for 99% of Americans, Melissa Click will forever be the "muscle" chick. Her photo - truly the worst photo that could have been taken of an angry protester - was plastered all over the front page of the New York Times. This will affect her career opportunities possibly for the rest of her life. People who have never met the woman or reviewed her work already have an opinion of her.
Maybe this is what those throngs of students were so upset about. They were well aware that in a highly publicized event, the media would ignore the vast majority of reasonable complaints, because the one or two sensational and radical lines make for more interesting stories, or at least give people in the comments section something to flare up about.
I don't think the issue was ever about free speech, on either side. It's about respect.
1
Yes, Melissa Click will be the face of leftest intolerance for the foreseeable future. But why shouldn't she be? We reap what we sow.
6
I think there needs to be a little perspective here. I don't know anything about Mizzou. I do know a lot more about Yale. My daughter, who is minority, is a student there. She is having a fantastic experience at the school, taking advantage of all of the amazing academic, extracurricular, international travel experiences, etc. It truly is an amazing place, and she'll have lifelong benefits from having a Yale degree. Of course, there's racism there, as there is at every college, but the administration seems to be truly caring and concerned about students' well-being in all respects. Students need to weigh everything the school offers this against whatever racism they are experiencing. I'm not saying they should not stand up for themselves when they face it (which they certainly should), but they need to develop a thicker skin and respond proportionally. Students, enjoy your experience at Yale. There are many who would love to be in your place.
13
Mr. Kristof's angst is due to the fact that the progressive movement has reached its logical zenith, and has turned on itself. Those who demanded free speech for themselves during the war protests are now unwilling to allow others that same right. The products of decades of echo chamber PC have turned on their mentors, claiming a right not to be offended.
Of the two conflicting virtues mentioned in the article the right of Free Speech must be paramount, since without that right all others are meaningless. The end does not justify the means, and those who would use "muscle" to deny the First Amendment rights of others are fascists.
Of the two conflicting virtues mentioned in the article the right of Free Speech must be paramount, since without that right all others are meaningless. The end does not justify the means, and those who would use "muscle" to deny the First Amendment rights of others are fascists.
12
To respect a person as an adult is to view them as worthy of our honesty and our humor. Otherwise, we are treating the person as a child, or else as an intimidating threat we must hide our honesty and humor from. So the students who complain about Halloween costumes, are we to view them as children, or as intimidating threats? Or, refusing to do either, should we continue addressing them with honesty and humor, even if they whine like children, even if they scream in attempt to intimidate us?
7
Before I begin I would like to say that I love technology and what it brings to my life. That being said I believe that a good part of todays student's sensitivities stems from technology. For those of us who grew up without computers, if we felt different or exposed our thoughts or feelings to others, only those in our little world were there to agree or criticize us. Hateful comments had to be made in person or with a face behind it which tended to make people more likely to keep their "ugly" thoughts to themselves or to voice them to one or two others that they felt thought like they do. A code of civility existed in the sense that unless you were prepared for personal contact with someone you disagreed with -keep your mouth shut. Now we have trolling and people who personally attack others with the cloak of anonymity for simply having a different view then they do. Have you ever read the comments sent to other newspapers or to online stories written by angry and hateful people. This is the world that our children now grow up in. While I find it "ridiculous" to even think about banning The Vagina Monologues, I also find it a cry of help to try to make this world a more respectful and kinder place. The culture of technology while doing marvelous things for us has also bred a vicious and attacking anonymous space that has caused problems of alienation for many .
9
I think one of the problems on college campuses today is that the students are mostly only presented with ideas from the Liberal point of view. We know from stats that college professors are 90% Democrat. This gives students only one way to look at problems. The fact that they don't want to hear from people who do not agree with their point of view vindicates that very unfortunate trend in today colleges and universities
15
Oh my god. There is no place on this planet that bends over backwards more to accommodate the needs of minorities and aggrieved parties than the colleges and universities of this country. As they are largely run by the political left, continued complaints about what a horrible environment they are should be an indictment of the whole left agenda, and in turn, an indictment of the college complainers.
As to those who yap about safe spaces and feeling uncomfortable and microaggressions on the college campus all I can say is you have have no idea of what you are talking about. I have been under and returned fire in truly aggressive and unsafe conditions. I have no sympathy for these people who's emotional and intellectual growth stopped somewhere in the middle of elementary school.
As to those who yap about safe spaces and feeling uncomfortable and microaggressions on the college campus all I can say is you have have no idea of what you are talking about. I have been under and returned fire in truly aggressive and unsafe conditions. I have no sympathy for these people who's emotional and intellectual growth stopped somewhere in the middle of elementary school.
31
I agree that there needs to be more conservative viewpoints expressed on secular college campuses. However, as universities move to the adjunct model for the majority of their classes, as is becoming increasingly common, the liberal view will prevail. It is difficult for college instructors who work full time yet still qualify for SNAP to espouse conservative views, even as an academic exercise.
4
Expect to see a phenomenon called the "Mizzou effect" where colleges and university administrators are shamed and forced to resign by aggrieved students claiming to have been deprived of a "safe space", but who enlist the support of revenue generating athletic programs. Just as it's difficult to separate the truly homeless from good old fashioned bums, it will be difficult to distinguish those students with valid grievances from the Maoist paranoids whose life is a series of imagined "microaggressions" against them.
24
As a Yale alum (Class of '62) the issue of race and racism goes deeper than just a Halloween costume and "free speech" to the historic racist symbols that pervade the campus. The one now in the spotlight concerns Calhoun College named for the famous South Carolina virulent, pro-slavery politician and Yale graduate. I've recently written the following to Yale President Peter Salovey, "As an alum who was admitted under a quota for Jewish students in the 1950s, I urge you to consider renaming Calhoun College as Martin Luther King Jr. college. If South Carolina can furl the Confederate battle flag, Yale can and must remove its flag of segregation as well. We may not be able to change the past, but we do not and should not continue to honor the offensive symbols it has bequeathed to us."
5
Be careful what you wish for. In a few years the MLK name may well be erased as a symbol of an abusive misogynist by the women's movement. So why should one offensive symbol be substituted for another potentially offensive one.
1
I understand what the author is saying, and agree (generally) that “we like to caricature great moral debates as right confronting wrong. But often, to some degree, it’s right colliding with right.” But dismissing the severity of this latest incident upon the basis of how previous, semi-similar cases were mishandled (which the author does by citing cases at Wesleyan, Rutgers, and Mt. Holyoke) is neither logical nor productive for any side. Also, to compare threats facing students of color to being willing to listen to the other perspective of the contraception question is dangerous: the latter is being intellectually/emotionally challenged, the is feeling threatened. I think the author misapplies the difference between one's growth zone (contraception question) with danger zone (facing threats of violence on account of skin color).
While I agree with the author's concerns of sensitivity as inhibiting education (particularly a liberal arts one), this is neither a relevant nor morally appropriate question to raise in the midst of threats of physical retaliation. I'm also going to say - at risk of being accused of an ad hominem - that his skin color does not allow him to experience the world in the same way as those with darker skin tones; that experience is pivotal in how one approaches the question of uncensored education vs. creating safe spaces; to some degree this is a futile point to make, as we can't change anyone’s skin color, but it's too relevant to not mention.
While I agree with the author's concerns of sensitivity as inhibiting education (particularly a liberal arts one), this is neither a relevant nor morally appropriate question to raise in the midst of threats of physical retaliation. I'm also going to say - at risk of being accused of an ad hominem - that his skin color does not allow him to experience the world in the same way as those with darker skin tones; that experience is pivotal in how one approaches the question of uncensored education vs. creating safe spaces; to some degree this is a futile point to make, as we can't change anyone’s skin color, but it's too relevant to not mention.
1
ISRAEL, given after Jacob had a dream about wrestling with the Lord (literally), usually translated as "Wrestling with an Angel," shows clearly that there is an expectation that we will not have our beliefs handed pre-formed to follow. We must each find which angels we wrestle and how.
I've found, being Jewish, that the core belief that argument or debate are essential to understanding. Debating is such a revered style of discourse that young orthodox jews, when studying the Talmud in their Heders (religious schools) are paired up and told to argue different sides of the page of the Talmud they're studying on any given day. So the idea that universities, great centers of learning, should stifle debate is alien to me. Without debate, people who hold extremist, provocative views will have no social context in which to gauge the impact of their ideas upon others with a different set of beliefs. Yes, there have to be some ground rules to maintain civility and good will. But debate we must to define our beliefs. To me what is so distressing about the GOP hopefuls eliminate the possibility of debate when they demand being given questions that put their well known views on display to engage in debate. In essence they limit debate. So how can voters tell where they stand if they do not engage and defend their views? Absent debate, we're left with vital conflicts from Trump over holiday designs on coffee mugs and not being able to count accurately from 1 to 5 from Cruz.
I've found, being Jewish, that the core belief that argument or debate are essential to understanding. Debating is such a revered style of discourse that young orthodox jews, when studying the Talmud in their Heders (religious schools) are paired up and told to argue different sides of the page of the Talmud they're studying on any given day. So the idea that universities, great centers of learning, should stifle debate is alien to me. Without debate, people who hold extremist, provocative views will have no social context in which to gauge the impact of their ideas upon others with a different set of beliefs. Yes, there have to be some ground rules to maintain civility and good will. But debate we must to define our beliefs. To me what is so distressing about the GOP hopefuls eliminate the possibility of debate when they demand being given questions that put their well known views on display to engage in debate. In essence they limit debate. So how can voters tell where they stand if they do not engage and defend their views? Absent debate, we're left with vital conflicts from Trump over holiday designs on coffee mugs and not being able to count accurately from 1 to 5 from Cruz.
1
What's lost is the ability and opportunity for frank, open discussion. Blacks and whites are increasingly divided, physically and culturally, and this drives misperceptions and stereotypes. One of the few places where races (and classes) truly mix and where people are presumably thrust outside of their comfort bubbles, is college. So for a short time, before students move on and become consumed by the pressure of jobs and family, they are in an environment where they should be permitted to learn and broaden their perspective. They should absolutely be exposed to uncomfortable ideas, on all sides, because if not in college, where will it happen? Efforts to squelch opposing ideas, or even open forums, are really more about power than sensitivity. It is precisely the speech that encroaches on our ideological sensitivities that colleges should encourage.
3
The saddest part about this problem is what nobody on left or right seems to grasp: You have a conflict between apparently...just left and right on campuses. Which is to say left protesting against the right or what the left feels uncomfortable about and the solution, when it comes to discussing free speech, seems to be...add more right wing voices. That is all. Entire concept of free speech devolved to two broad groups operating with own committees, propaganda efforts, etc.
Which is to say why talk about any notion of free speech at all when it has devolved to just two broad groups warring? What other individual voice can be heard? The left wants to rule on campus with its thoughts and we are told the left has noble values but that free speech is noble too so to protect free speech...add some conservative voices. The entirety of this is so obviously programmatic, so anti any notion of free speech, plurality of idea, as to be an actual tragedy of unseen proportions.
We are all aware of the concept of poor people and/or homeless people or general unfortunates in society, but in all probability there are probably many unique voices, a number of geniuses even, who have committed suicide or just been crushed under and we never even see it because they have never been able to get past the left and right wing committee gauntlets to be seen...You cannot even calculate or see some of the people we destroy.
America probably both crushes the least and best intellects among us.
Which is to say why talk about any notion of free speech at all when it has devolved to just two broad groups warring? What other individual voice can be heard? The left wants to rule on campus with its thoughts and we are told the left has noble values but that free speech is noble too so to protect free speech...add some conservative voices. The entirety of this is so obviously programmatic, so anti any notion of free speech, plurality of idea, as to be an actual tragedy of unseen proportions.
We are all aware of the concept of poor people and/or homeless people or general unfortunates in society, but in all probability there are probably many unique voices, a number of geniuses even, who have committed suicide or just been crushed under and we never even see it because they have never been able to get past the left and right wing committee gauntlets to be seen...You cannot even calculate or see some of the people we destroy.
America probably both crushes the least and best intellects among us.
1
If you think the protests at UM are really about "feeling unsafe and unwanted" , I've got a bridge to sell you. This is all about the burgeoning power of victimhood in our country that flourishes in the fertile soil of political correctness gone mad (excuse me for being redundant). This of course does not mean that there are not racists on America's college campuses. There are, and they come in all sizes, shapes, and yes, colors.
What strikes me is the grossly distorted sense of proportionality in the responses of protesting students. After viewing the protests on TV I could not help but chuckle. From the fervor and rhetoric exhibited one would think these students were marching in Selma or demanding the admission of minority students at a state university. Oddly, George Wallace was nowhere to be found.
Clearly, recent events are mere pretenses for the expression of a much broader sentiment, one that I fear is the product of self-hatred and is aimed at tearing down what is left of our once great nation. That this should happen at time in our history when we are more open to diversity than ever before is more than ironic and underscores my contention that what we're seeing is more about power than grievance. The sharks smell the blood in the water. Let's hope cooler heads prevail so that America can get down to the business of addressing what really ails Her. Let's fight for what is right without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
What strikes me is the grossly distorted sense of proportionality in the responses of protesting students. After viewing the protests on TV I could not help but chuckle. From the fervor and rhetoric exhibited one would think these students were marching in Selma or demanding the admission of minority students at a state university. Oddly, George Wallace was nowhere to be found.
Clearly, recent events are mere pretenses for the expression of a much broader sentiment, one that I fear is the product of self-hatred and is aimed at tearing down what is left of our once great nation. That this should happen at time in our history when we are more open to diversity than ever before is more than ironic and underscores my contention that what we're seeing is more about power than grievance. The sharks smell the blood in the water. Let's hope cooler heads prevail so that America can get down to the business of addressing what really ails Her. Let's fight for what is right without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
4
One of the problems with some of the actions of the protesters is the assumption that their way is the only way. Those on the left ask for respect and dignity while denying free speech but they fail to see the irony in their stance. Melissa Click has a very muddled understanding of the constitution..
Liberal activists can be just as intolerant as conservative ones. as Kristof points out so eloquently. Free speech and the free exchange of ideas are our true treasures, especially in a university setting.
Liberal activists can be just as intolerant as conservative ones. as Kristof points out so eloquently. Free speech and the free exchange of ideas are our true treasures, especially in a university setting.
1
The biggest problem affecting free speech in America and the future of the University as a defense of ideas?
This is a very easy question to answer in at least one aspect: Free speech in America has devolved to a sad and startling extent to a battle between two major political parties, two groups who operate with all resources to get the better of each other, which means a smaller group of people not to mention an individual acting alone has less room if any to be heard.
Which is to say the big problem in America seems to be the unspoken theory that the future development of ideas themselves, progress of idea and further development of human society, operates by broad committee and that the concept of lone genius is dead as an idea for progress and success. So we have in American society the only way to step forward in ideas is by clumsy toddler steps of one broad political foot before the other: Left and right, left and right.
But the big question is can a genuine movement to brilliant idea and transcendence come from a committee, not to mention a transcendence of both left and right to a more integrated and clearly conceived human future come from the large committees of left and right going at each other? Should we not look back historically at the history of intellectual ideas to see how societies transcended internal conflict, how much transcendence and progress came from groups operating and how much from lone individuals proposing solution in flash of genius? Yes.
This is a very easy question to answer in at least one aspect: Free speech in America has devolved to a sad and startling extent to a battle between two major political parties, two groups who operate with all resources to get the better of each other, which means a smaller group of people not to mention an individual acting alone has less room if any to be heard.
Which is to say the big problem in America seems to be the unspoken theory that the future development of ideas themselves, progress of idea and further development of human society, operates by broad committee and that the concept of lone genius is dead as an idea for progress and success. So we have in American society the only way to step forward in ideas is by clumsy toddler steps of one broad political foot before the other: Left and right, left and right.
But the big question is can a genuine movement to brilliant idea and transcendence come from a committee, not to mention a transcendence of both left and right to a more integrated and clearly conceived human future come from the large committees of left and right going at each other? Should we not look back historically at the history of intellectual ideas to see how societies transcended internal conflict, how much transcendence and progress came from groups operating and how much from lone individuals proposing solution in flash of genius? Yes.
1
Raised to believe they have the answers, our children are playing at war. They fail to understand that they act out only by the forbearance of those they despise. Elders should not expect them to learn. We should completely withdraw from the fray while Lord of the Flies plays out. Let universities become their feral institutions. Administrators who kow-tow are to blame but less so than the faculty who preach civil disobedience at every turn. When civil disobedience becomes the norm, civilization ceases to exist.
A mandatory military draft might return us to reason. Else we need wait until the student limbic system is overtaken by a mature brain at age twenty-six or so. There is no hope for the sagging, pony-tailed faculty attempting to relive youth as they approach mortality and the secular abyss.
www.adjunctularnoodling.com
A mandatory military draft might return us to reason. Else we need wait until the student limbic system is overtaken by a mature brain at age twenty-six or so. There is no hope for the sagging, pony-tailed faculty attempting to relive youth as they approach mortality and the secular abyss.
www.adjunctularnoodling.com
1
It's all an attractive thought until you remember that many of the students go about their day and have nothing at all to do with this, on either side. Leaving it to become Lord of the Flies is irresponsible to them. They're trying to get an education.
My Mom, a single mother, said once that in the 60's she didn't have time to protest, whatever her views, because she was busy working and raising a child (with her family, but she paid the bills). It makes me remember that there are people who are not at all part of a "something" happening in a particular place.
My Mom, a single mother, said once that in the 60's she didn't have time to protest, whatever her views, because she was busy working and raising a child (with her family, but she paid the bills). It makes me remember that there are people who are not at all part of a "something" happening in a particular place.
What the campus censoring reminds me of most is the Morality Police in Iran. They go around enforcing the code of morality - making sure women are properly covered up, for instance - and punishing those who don't meet the required standard.
Protesting an ingrained atmosphere that tolerates bullying and threatening anyone - by race, or ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation - is not only a right but a responsibility.
We cannot confuse the responsibility to protest oppression with the desire to force everyone into lockstep on how to behave in a sensitive manner. Do we really need a campus policy on costumes? We can't just say "That's rude Kevin, grow up?" Do we really need to despair over "microagressions" rather than recognize that they are really thoughtlessness and unkindness, and we can rebuke them personally? Do we really need a formal policy and a sensitivity police to enforce the sensitivity code on campus?
Sometimes a costume is just a costume. Sometimes a red coffee cup is just a red coffee cup. If you don't think it is right, address it, one on one, and move on.
Protesting an ingrained atmosphere that tolerates bullying and threatening anyone - by race, or ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation - is not only a right but a responsibility.
We cannot confuse the responsibility to protest oppression with the desire to force everyone into lockstep on how to behave in a sensitive manner. Do we really need a campus policy on costumes? We can't just say "That's rude Kevin, grow up?" Do we really need to despair over "microagressions" rather than recognize that they are really thoughtlessness and unkindness, and we can rebuke them personally? Do we really need a formal policy and a sensitivity police to enforce the sensitivity code on campus?
Sometimes a costume is just a costume. Sometimes a red coffee cup is just a red coffee cup. If you don't think it is right, address it, one on one, and move on.
3
While I fully agree with Kristof's view that a college campus should never sanction restrictions on free speech, we also need to put this "issue" in perspective. The stories I've read and videos of recent events on Yale or at Missouri on one hand show frustrated students shouting at those they disagree with, usually outside at some rally. But on the other hand are campuses that have allowed racism to become so entrenched that it has become institutionalized.
To do "nothing about racial intolerance" is to support it. Racism is not simply a thought or idea. It affects behavior and in the minds of those who exercise authority over others its effects can be decisive to a host of opportunities lost by students of color. There are mounds of social research on this issue. University's that don't rely on that research have chosen not to.
The cases that Kristof mentions seem to fall in between free speech and institutional neglect. Official campus events, plays, invited speakers etc.all should be subject to clear guidelines and rules that establish free expression as a university enforced norm. But could it be that the disinvite, or the canceling of Vagina Monologues were student groups deciding on their own not to support an event they previously had scheduled? That's very different than university sanction.
Let's not equate an 18 year old shouting at a dorm master with the neglect of experienced, very well paid administrators who know the what and how of campus free speech.
To do "nothing about racial intolerance" is to support it. Racism is not simply a thought or idea. It affects behavior and in the minds of those who exercise authority over others its effects can be decisive to a host of opportunities lost by students of color. There are mounds of social research on this issue. University's that don't rely on that research have chosen not to.
The cases that Kristof mentions seem to fall in between free speech and institutional neglect. Official campus events, plays, invited speakers etc.all should be subject to clear guidelines and rules that establish free expression as a university enforced norm. But could it be that the disinvite, or the canceling of Vagina Monologues were student groups deciding on their own not to support an event they previously had scheduled? That's very different than university sanction.
Let's not equate an 18 year old shouting at a dorm master with the neglect of experienced, very well paid administrators who know the what and how of campus free speech.
The liberals/progressives have managed for decades to infect the academic curriculm in both high school and college with empty, nonsense studies. They have also pushed out the freedom of expression for anything that threatens their notion of what is correct. They have thus created the environment over time for these fragile little student snowflakes to be threatened and upset by virtually anything.
Now the fragile snowflakes expectations have been jarred by other views, attack they very creators of this liberral insanity for failing to maintain proper speech and thought control. And the liberal/progressive professors wilt and resign/apologize for their failure! You can't make this up.
Now we have them creating idiotic zones where speech and even thought is suppressed. Orwell's 1984 is alive and well at Yale and every other liberal bastion. And so we now have so-called liberals as the most intolerant faction of our society when it comes to divergent views.
Liberalism on parade for the mental illness it actually represents.
Now the fragile snowflakes expectations have been jarred by other views, attack they very creators of this liberral insanity for failing to maintain proper speech and thought control. And the liberal/progressive professors wilt and resign/apologize for their failure! You can't make this up.
Now we have them creating idiotic zones where speech and even thought is suppressed. Orwell's 1984 is alive and well at Yale and every other liberal bastion. And so we now have so-called liberals as the most intolerant faction of our society when it comes to divergent views.
Liberalism on parade for the mental illness it actually represents.
8
"A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.” so Oscar Wilde is alleged to have clarified.
Mr. Kristof calls out the significant complexity of navigating civil rights and civility, but has omitted an important consideration: whether behavior reflects an intent to exercise free speech rights.
Having experienced both tacit and intentional bigotry, I suggest that remedies like official guidance about diversity and sensitivity call on us to examine ourselves and our acts to understand their impact on others who may have been peripheral to our 'self-involvement.' No small task for some.
In this light, choosing not to engage in offensive behavior is not necessarily self-censorship or 'political correctness' as much as it is the realization that one didn't mean to be a jerk.
That said, there are those who deeply hold offensive beliefs and self-consciously wish to express them. History suggests that we can tolerate them -- until and unless they have sufficient power to extinguish the free expression of others.
Mr. Kristof calls out the significant complexity of navigating civil rights and civility, but has omitted an important consideration: whether behavior reflects an intent to exercise free speech rights.
Having experienced both tacit and intentional bigotry, I suggest that remedies like official guidance about diversity and sensitivity call on us to examine ourselves and our acts to understand their impact on others who may have been peripheral to our 'self-involvement.' No small task for some.
In this light, choosing not to engage in offensive behavior is not necessarily self-censorship or 'political correctness' as much as it is the realization that one didn't mean to be a jerk.
That said, there are those who deeply hold offensive beliefs and self-consciously wish to express them. History suggests that we can tolerate them -- until and unless they have sufficient power to extinguish the free expression of others.
4
With all Respect to Mr. Kristoff, he has made it half way.
The assorted protesters are free to demand whatever they wish.
Though they have directed their wrath in the wrong direction and as such are asking for the impossible.
There is no means to structure society to police the expression of those whose thoughts and words offend, much less do so without creating a totalitarian state.
If you do not like conditions in your workplace - regardless of what those conditions are - address it with your co-workers, your boss, protest, boycott, strike or go elsewhere.
It may seem easy to decide that naked pinups constitute a "hostile workplace", but there are infinite means of offending or taking offense, and the law is insufficiently fine a tool to address them.
We forget that with Free speech come a variety of other freedoms.
Including as Mr. Tia noted - the Free speech of others.
We are free to move to another town, we are free to change jobs, we are again free to protest, boycott, strike. What we are not is free to use force to censor others.
It would be nice if we all "felt a part of" our campuses, workplace, ....
It would be nice if those were "safe and nurturing",
But a sense of inclusion and nurturing are not rights.
And if they come through force at the expense of the rights of others - ev en the right to offensive speech, then they are both immoral and unsustainable.
The assorted protesters are free to demand whatever they wish.
Though they have directed their wrath in the wrong direction and as such are asking for the impossible.
There is no means to structure society to police the expression of those whose thoughts and words offend, much less do so without creating a totalitarian state.
If you do not like conditions in your workplace - regardless of what those conditions are - address it with your co-workers, your boss, protest, boycott, strike or go elsewhere.
It may seem easy to decide that naked pinups constitute a "hostile workplace", but there are infinite means of offending or taking offense, and the law is insufficiently fine a tool to address them.
We forget that with Free speech come a variety of other freedoms.
Including as Mr. Tia noted - the Free speech of others.
We are free to move to another town, we are free to change jobs, we are again free to protest, boycott, strike. What we are not is free to use force to censor others.
It would be nice if we all "felt a part of" our campuses, workplace, ....
It would be nice if those were "safe and nurturing",
But a sense of inclusion and nurturing are not rights.
And if they come through force at the expense of the rights of others - ev en the right to offensive speech, then they are both immoral and unsustainable.
4
Our university campuses are among the safest and inclusive places in the world, which makes me wonder what is causing so much over-sensitivity that a cowboy Halloween costume on the Yale campus can be deemed to be "offensive."
Less than 7% of our world's population has achieved a university degree. These protesting students are in an elite category in one of the freest, most egalitarian and most prosperous countries in the world. Most are there due to enormous support from their families, teachers, scholarships, grants, tax dollars and student loans.
Young people from all over the world clamor to enter our country and its universities and are grateful to have the kinds of opportunities that some of our own students apparently no longer fully appreciate. Perhaps having gratitude for the opportunities afforded to them rather than taking offense over minor slights will give them better preparation living in the real world.
Less than 7% of our world's population has achieved a university degree. These protesting students are in an elite category in one of the freest, most egalitarian and most prosperous countries in the world. Most are there due to enormous support from their families, teachers, scholarships, grants, tax dollars and student loans.
Young people from all over the world clamor to enter our country and its universities and are grateful to have the kinds of opportunities that some of our own students apparently no longer fully appreciate. Perhaps having gratitude for the opportunities afforded to them rather than taking offense over minor slights will give them better preparation living in the real world.
7
Kristof: "Sir Isaiah Berlin argued that there was a deep human yearning to find the One Great Truth. In fact, he said, that’s a dead end: Our fate is to struggle with a plurality of values, with competing truths, with trying to reconcile what may well be irreconcilable."
Berlin's observation is a fatal concept with respect to free speech in a society unless the society is mature, intelligent and patient. This is not to say the concept of One Great Truth is the antidote not to mention the savior of free speech. It seems rather the human race or individual operates in a quite predictable fashion: Either a single truth is fastened on, like the right wing often does with religion and norms, or multiple truths are embraced as the left proposes, with result of not really forward progress in truth made but rather expression of opinion (after all, each person has his or her own truth).
And ironically the left, and for all concept of multiple truth, finds its own center of gravity, One Great Truth, which it feels free to impose on others. Only a mature mind can grasp the problem of One Great Truth versus multiple truths. The idea of One Great Truth must be held as a goal, an ideal, and not something one already has, and one mustn't get discouraged before this fact and wallow in multiple truths and finally devolve society into becoming a war of mere opinion. Rather multiple truths must be entertained constantly but the hope of One Great Truth or understanding held as hope in future.
Berlin's observation is a fatal concept with respect to free speech in a society unless the society is mature, intelligent and patient. This is not to say the concept of One Great Truth is the antidote not to mention the savior of free speech. It seems rather the human race or individual operates in a quite predictable fashion: Either a single truth is fastened on, like the right wing often does with religion and norms, or multiple truths are embraced as the left proposes, with result of not really forward progress in truth made but rather expression of opinion (after all, each person has his or her own truth).
And ironically the left, and for all concept of multiple truth, finds its own center of gravity, One Great Truth, which it feels free to impose on others. Only a mature mind can grasp the problem of One Great Truth versus multiple truths. The idea of One Great Truth must be held as a goal, an ideal, and not something one already has, and one mustn't get discouraged before this fact and wallow in multiple truths and finally devolve society into becoming a war of mere opinion. Rather multiple truths must be entertained constantly but the hope of One Great Truth or understanding held as hope in future.
2
Well done, Mr Kristof. Take a breath, indeed. I am concerned as we glorify, practically canonize the actions of a football team that protested, using itself as leverage in this crisis. If it was their move that tipped the balance, then we have more problems than I thought. Free expression and the protection of it does not extend to those who hate and who express that hate in the most inappropriate of manners. Education has been the only antidote to that hatred that I have known, and it is incumbent upon the university community to find the best way forward in this "plurality of values." Firing people is the nuclear option and rarely solves the issues at hand. Sitting down in dialogue that promises to be uncomfortable is a healthy first step. Lest the inmates run the asylum, let's remember to listen carefully to the genuine concerns of every student, listening with the wisdom of experience and the openness needed to help those students help us grow.
3
Yes the left is often overzealous in the quest to fix all the "politically incorrect" issues we face today. I experienced the backlash of this ideology personally when at a teachers' meeting I openly complained at which terms were acceptable for addressing African Americans. I wasn't referring to pejorative terms - but the seemingly constant evolution of acceptable terms of reference. I'm sixty two and have seen many terms that were acceptable become obsolete or worse. It is confusing and at the same time understandable.
My frustration pales when compared to being on the receiving end of discrimination. The dog whistle of hatred doesn't only result in death threats and death; it results in subtle discrimination in social, political and economical contexts.
It's not only black people of color; it's Latinos (who are taking our jobs), Asians (the model citizens), Middle Easterners (who are suspect in very unflattering ways), women (who are considered bitchy rather than aggressively aspiring), and LGBTs (who dared to come out of the closet to demand their rights).
Real democracy is not comfortable but it's the best system we've seen yet that actually works.
My frustration pales when compared to being on the receiving end of discrimination. The dog whistle of hatred doesn't only result in death threats and death; it results in subtle discrimination in social, political and economical contexts.
It's not only black people of color; it's Latinos (who are taking our jobs), Asians (the model citizens), Middle Easterners (who are suspect in very unflattering ways), women (who are considered bitchy rather than aggressively aspiring), and LGBTs (who dared to come out of the closet to demand their rights).
Real democracy is not comfortable but it's the best system we've seen yet that actually works.
3
In America today, the N-word is most often heard among people of color, especially those in the hip-hop culture. Tell them to stop if they don't want white racists mimicking them. They are setting a bad example and giving racists a defense when they use the word themselves.
The Confederate Army was comprised mostly of young men who neither owned nor desired to own slaves. The out fought the Yankees at every turn until they ran out of bodies and supplies. The reason: they were fighting like people whose homeland was had been invaded by foreign intruders. By and large those invaders were not motivated by anything more noble than a draft notice and didn't give a damn about the plight of the slaves. That is why it took vastly superior numbers for the North to defeat the South. I do hope Southerners who are so disposed will continue to fly St. Andrew's Cross in the face of the PC police in honor of those brave homeland defenders who gave their lives in defense of their neighbors.
PC and its associated intolerance is in general a product of progressives, especially those insulated by the smothering blanket of liberal-college faculties and their culture of uniformity of thought.
The Confederate Army was comprised mostly of young men who neither owned nor desired to own slaves. The out fought the Yankees at every turn until they ran out of bodies and supplies. The reason: they were fighting like people whose homeland was had been invaded by foreign intruders. By and large those invaders were not motivated by anything more noble than a draft notice and didn't give a damn about the plight of the slaves. That is why it took vastly superior numbers for the North to defeat the South. I do hope Southerners who are so disposed will continue to fly St. Andrew's Cross in the face of the PC police in honor of those brave homeland defenders who gave their lives in defense of their neighbors.
PC and its associated intolerance is in general a product of progressives, especially those insulated by the smothering blanket of liberal-college faculties and their culture of uniformity of thought.
4
You make a lot of fair points. But please understand that once the confederate flag became a symbol for the KKK and other thug-like behavior, it took on a different meaning for many, and instilled fear. That is why people do not like it.
1
I'm all in for 100%, real, free speech, it is the 1st amendment for important reasons. It protects people from being subjected to their leaders demanding shrines and jail (or death) to the critics of the rulers. Still, it is human to get upset when insulted. Understanding the important dynamics of free speech is complicated philosophical battle, that was lost a long long time ago, just like the constitutional protections separating government from religion. As a nation, far too many people (about 40%) do not understand, or reject, the constructs of "evolution" and other scientific parameters. They see snow so decide global warming is a hoax. This ignorance (and hatred) in spite of zillions spent on comprehensive education for everyone. Assimilation of the basic parameters regarding the need for comprehensive healthcare, like the ACA (AKA Obama Care) is a lost cause. Likewise, secure retirement income is now a fantasy like winning the lottery in the USA. Our universities, and other institutions, are a mere reflection of our incomprehensible failures to comprehend. Good luck to us all, it looks like it will all get a whole lot worse as more people rally to elect a pack of meanor, dumber, and more corrupt flock of idiots. Still, I thank you for your dedication and insight for making this world a better place. It certainly helps me with becoming more knowledgeable and understanding.
1
I cannot understand why this is not being put into perspective. Very few people are involved in all of this. It gives me comfort(safe space) to know that the vast majorities at both Yale and Missouri are not being bothered by the hysteria and are going on with their everyday lives.
There were a few upset students at Yale who in a very nasty manner confronted a faculty member over a ridiculous and unnecessary memo she wrote about costumes. All are silly people.
There are a few dozen angry(and rightfully so) protesters who state there were some awful racial remarks and actions sent their way that created a hostile environment on campus. The football team backed them up and the President resigned for taking no action (I am not sure what action was expected since no perpetrators were pointed to by the victims, and I believe there are only signs of incidental racism on this campus that we all see every now and then from the idiots of the world).
No matter how much the media will try to stir the pot,this will all blow over in a week
We need to not only all get along, but also not be so reactionary.
There were a few upset students at Yale who in a very nasty manner confronted a faculty member over a ridiculous and unnecessary memo she wrote about costumes. All are silly people.
There are a few dozen angry(and rightfully so) protesters who state there were some awful racial remarks and actions sent their way that created a hostile environment on campus. The football team backed them up and the President resigned for taking no action (I am not sure what action was expected since no perpetrators were pointed to by the victims, and I believe there are only signs of incidental racism on this campus that we all see every now and then from the idiots of the world).
No matter how much the media will try to stir the pot,this will all blow over in a week
We need to not only all get along, but also not be so reactionary.
5
"Free expression" can be used as a defense for indefensible insults, threats and ridicule. "Respect for differing opinions" can now be used to allow ugly, hateful demeaning worldviews to be thrust in the faces of people those worldviews are meant to silence and eliminate. Remember, these abuses - everything from thoughtless remarks to outright attacks - are cumulative and do their damage over time. These are systems of abuse. They have emotional and physical effects on their targets. And there are consequences when people who are abused finally reach their limit.
Schools and workplaces are special communities because they contain captive audiences. People who are being targeted and emotionally battered do not have an easy option to stop associating with their tormentors. In the case of colleges and universities, campus is also the students' home. No escape.
When those in charge are dismissive, unaware or are even seen to collude with these patterns of abuse (as in the Mexican costume photo) it is a breach of their responsibility and even trust. When people who have been systematically emotionally and physically abused in many ways over generations have finally had enough, it is messy. That mess is a lot easier to see than the damage that has been done to so many for so long.
Schools and workplaces are special communities because they contain captive audiences. People who are being targeted and emotionally battered do not have an easy option to stop associating with their tormentors. In the case of colleges and universities, campus is also the students' home. No escape.
When those in charge are dismissive, unaware or are even seen to collude with these patterns of abuse (as in the Mexican costume photo) it is a breach of their responsibility and even trust. When people who have been systematically emotionally and physically abused in many ways over generations have finally had enough, it is messy. That mess is a lot easier to see than the damage that has been done to so many for so long.
3
Lynn, you point out, correctly, that offensive speech can have consequences, though I think you are being hyperbolic when you use words like "outright attack" and "abuse." It logically follows that offensive speakers somehow need to be silenced. Is that truly what you want? So many people can be offended by so many different words, that you yourself might want to be very careful what you say because the next step would be to detain certain people for speaking certain words.
1
Of course free speech allows hurtful speech. It may not be right, but it's a cornerstone of democracy and protected by the Constitution, whether we agree with the speech or not.
The important point is how you choose to deal with the hurtful speech. "Sticks and stones" still apply . . .
The important point is how you choose to deal with the hurtful speech. "Sticks and stones" still apply . . .
2
The human impulse to censor derives from the psychological reality that to varying degrees we all repress difficult conflicts and painful anxieties extant from our early developmental struggles. Those who suffered the most as infants and young children due to parental abuse (including primarily abandonment, physical or emotional by one or both parents) tend to become the least tolerant of any expressions which tend to offend their ultra-defensive sensibilities. Bigotry and intolerance of differing opinions are both projective defenses against becoming aware of uncomfortable truths.
1
Mr. Kristof, I respect your observation that those protesting oppression are not unilaterally always right and that their tactics can veer to the sanctimonious. However, I take issue with the notions that those of us left-leaning should be asked to make equal room for the alternative viewpoint - read: privileged mainstream discourse already in place and upheld - and with the idea that members of the oppressed are merely being "mocked in their own community" - surely you are not bypassing the scant step from hateful speech and acts to tragedy and violence?
In an era when black men are killed weekly by officers of the law owing only to the color of their skin despite widespread media coverage of each act, and where a professor jogging down a street adjacent to campus is spit on and abraded by arguably the most offensive epithet in our nation's history but can't know for certain she won't wind up dragged behind the pick-up truck from which the assault came, it is unacceptable to ask the protestors to "struggle with a plurality of values". They are fighting for their basic rights and survival as human beings, and yes, that does trump being "open-minded".
While I may be highly uncomfortable with the degrading and disrespectful tirade the young woman at Yale launched against Dr. Christakis, it is understandable that someone housed in a residence hall where she must refer to that very professor as "Master" might be moved to such verbal barrage.
In an era when black men are killed weekly by officers of the law owing only to the color of their skin despite widespread media coverage of each act, and where a professor jogging down a street adjacent to campus is spit on and abraded by arguably the most offensive epithet in our nation's history but can't know for certain she won't wind up dragged behind the pick-up truck from which the assault came, it is unacceptable to ask the protestors to "struggle with a plurality of values". They are fighting for their basic rights and survival as human beings, and yes, that does trump being "open-minded".
While I may be highly uncomfortable with the degrading and disrespectful tirade the young woman at Yale launched against Dr. Christakis, it is understandable that someone housed in a residence hall where she must refer to that very professor as "Master" might be moved to such verbal barrage.
23
Oh please. Does she get upset at Master Carpenters or Master Classes as well?
3
You are - in my opinion - bringing one interpretation to Kristof's article, but not necessarily one that I share. I would argue that his point is: fight for equal treatment, protection, and fairness; but also remember to keep the high ground you have by offering equal treatment, protection, and fairness to others, even if you disagree with them. That is much different than tolerating racism in this case, especially if you read the backstory.
It seems utterly bizarre to argue that minority students should tolerate overt racist attacks and imagery as "free speech." Nonsense. White students parading around in costumes that mock, degrade and humiliate students of color has nothing to do with free speech. White students hurling racial epithets and verbal abuse at minority students is not "free speech." Such actions are not only offensive but are destructive and damaging to the minority students forced to witness or experience them.
Those who argue for the "free speech" of whites to be as racist as they have apparently been reared to be, are essentially arguing that students of color should be accepting of whites' continuing need to debase and degrade black, brown, Asian and Indian students.
To this ridiculous demand these students of color are finally shouting an emphatic and consistent "No!" I'm proud of them.
Those who argue for the "free speech" of whites to be as racist as they have apparently been reared to be, are essentially arguing that students of color should be accepting of whites' continuing need to debase and degrade black, brown, Asian and Indian students.
To this ridiculous demand these students of color are finally shouting an emphatic and consistent "No!" I'm proud of them.
49
I don't think anyone reasonable is arguing that the racial attacks are free speech, but the professor who is being excoriated for suggesting that admins not have to tell 18-22 year olds how to dress did not racially attack anyone. The students' response has been disproportionate. Her views, which she does have the right to express (and this is what people are bringing up now, in addition to being upset that the reporter was bullied, manhandled, and told to keep away), were reasoned and encouraging the students to behave as they would when they leave the safe confines of a college.
3
I would suggest that a costume that represents a slave with a basket of cotton on the wearer's back might well be somewhat insensitive to the rights and feelings of other, but wearing a costume and make up to represent a cat, or a Suisse man in lederhosen and a Tyrolian had would not.
The issue is not that one wears a costume, but what the costume is supposed to resent.
Isn't it time to take a look at the detail before the broad brush is applied?
Or is that being a touch too "conservative" in allowing for something to be viewed in all of its contexts, no just narrow and bigoted one that suit the issue du jour?
The issue is not that one wears a costume, but what the costume is supposed to resent.
Isn't it time to take a look at the detail before the broad brush is applied?
Or is that being a touch too "conservative" in allowing for something to be viewed in all of its contexts, no just narrow and bigoted one that suit the issue du jour?
1
No one should be immune from mockery.
1
"Universities should work harder to make all students feel they are safe and belong"
Wrong.
Universities should work to make all students *be* safe and belong. Some people will always claim to *feel* unsafe as long as something with which they disagree is "allowed" to roam free. Sometimes it can be an idea, sometimes a person, sometimes a newspaper article a book or lecturer. He/she does not *feel* safe.
Well, at some point it is can be just too bad. Really - at *Yale* some kids don't *feel* safe because an administrator suggested that they NOT restrict Halloween costumes?!
I would expel them on grounds of immaturity.
Wrong.
Universities should work to make all students *be* safe and belong. Some people will always claim to *feel* unsafe as long as something with which they disagree is "allowed" to roam free. Sometimes it can be an idea, sometimes a person, sometimes a newspaper article a book or lecturer. He/she does not *feel* safe.
Well, at some point it is can be just too bad. Really - at *Yale* some kids don't *feel* safe because an administrator suggested that they NOT restrict Halloween costumes?!
I would expel them on grounds of immaturity.
5
If you expelled all those who were immature, who would be left? Isn't part of a college's mission to help with the maturation process?
The reason the struggle Mr. Kristof describes seems so complex is that there is often confusion about what freedom of speech/thought/expression (hereafter FSTE) is/is not. The concept of FSTE does not suggest that all thoughts are equally valuable. What FSTE does stand for is that all thoughts should be available for consideration. Thoughts are like genetic diversity…we never know when a particular thought or gene may be needed. For example genes: we know that researchers use poisons to create life-saving cancer medicines. For example thoughts: Galileo’s heliocentric view of the solar system was deemed sinful, but has proved to be very useful. All freedoms/rights come with one or more paired responsibilities. In the case of speech, we have the responsibility to not yell “Fire!” in a theater just for the fun of it. Likewise, we have the responsibility to not express opinions about “racial inferiority” with the intention to do emotional harm. However, FSTE does not forbid the expression of an idea in order to foster debate. Most life forms have genes that express for dislike/fear of anything strange or “different”. But humans have brains that can and should express for moderating those genetic compulsions to avoid infliction of harm. Wearing an “offensive” Halloween costume to express the (ignorant) thought that all Mexicans wear sombreros should be protected. Wearing that costume with the intent to intimidate should not. Thin line? Yes. Important distinction? Also Yes.
47
I trace the breakdown of civil discourse and rationality -- in society and in our governing bodies -- to the first dollar that was cut from public education during budget crises that started in the 1970s. What went were arts and music programs. And, eventually, a track of classes that my school called "civics."
It discussed how government works by balancing opposing views, how society works (for instance, helping you calculate interest on credit cards to show how much you would waste not paying for good outright with cash), how voting works, how to make your voice heard by connecting with your representatives. And mostly, how to be a responsible citizen to do your part for the privilege -- and it is one -- to live in a vibrant representative democracy.
Absent fundamental teaching around how to participate in our nation's governance, we resort to screaming terrible things. And once those things get said - on either side - damage become much more challenging to repair.
It discussed how government works by balancing opposing views, how society works (for instance, helping you calculate interest on credit cards to show how much you would waste not paying for good outright with cash), how voting works, how to make your voice heard by connecting with your representatives. And mostly, how to be a responsible citizen to do your part for the privilege -- and it is one -- to live in a vibrant representative democracy.
Absent fundamental teaching around how to participate in our nation's governance, we resort to screaming terrible things. And once those things get said - on either side - damage become much more challenging to repair.
14
Funny, I trace this and plunging test scores to the leftist takeover of the educational system.
2
Leftist intolerance is rampant. Just look at the majority of the posters posting in this leftist NYT arena.
Certainly, they are entitled to express their viewpoints. But in general they disdain right wing viewpoints.
This same arrogance is ascending and stifling in colleges.
And when these arrogant leftists are told about their hauteur, they state it is deserved for the bad, even evil opposition. And of course they deny that they contribute to the gridlock that has stymied the US.
Yes, some rightists are the same, but this needs to be understood by leftists who pride themselves on understanding and tolerance!
Certainly, they are entitled to express their viewpoints. But in general they disdain right wing viewpoints.
This same arrogance is ascending and stifling in colleges.
And when these arrogant leftists are told about their hauteur, they state it is deserved for the bad, even evil opposition. And of course they deny that they contribute to the gridlock that has stymied the US.
Yes, some rightists are the same, but this needs to be understood by leftists who pride themselves on understanding and tolerance!
32
Being understanding and tolerant does not mean accepting statements that are contrary to fact, or ignoring evidence, or using power to undermine democracy (by, for example, passing laws and regulations aimed at suppressing voter turnout in poor areas). And so far as Congressional gridlock, that was the policy clearly articulated by Mitch McConnell (and others): to oppose *anything* President Obama favored—and they did oppose even legislation they themselves sponsored, after President Obama indicated that he favored it. It's not symmetric, dude. Try reading "It's Even Worse Than It Looks" and get some factual information.
2
Listening to and understanding viewpoints doesn't require acceptance, especially when the viewpoints expressed are based on unfounded assumptions or incorrect facts.
1
People on the left are social liberals, while those on the right are not conservative, they have become mean. Please tell me why we should understand and tolerate cruelty, bigotry, racism.
I believe the world’s greatest leaders have led by example. As a liberal Jew, it seems to me that Jesus Christ is a case in point. He did not impose his beliefs on skeptics, even though he felt that if the entire world believed as he did, it would be a far more accepting, productive, loving, and unified place. Instead of screaming at people to share his beliefs, instead of telling them that they weren’t worthwhile if they refused, he showed them what it was to believe as he did, what it was to have his faith. He lived the life he preached, led by example, and gave others the choice to follow that example.
We college students could take a lesson from Jesus, and from Gandhi, and from Martin Luther King, and many others. It is so easy to hate those who hate you; it is much harder to love them, if not simply to show them how to love. It is so easy to silence those who would silence you; it is much harder to listen to them, if not simply to show them how to listen. It is so easy to reject those who reject you; it is much harder to accept them, if not simply to show them how to become accepting.
Nuts and bolts on the college campus issues: everyone shares in the right of free speech, no matter how disagreeable the speech; changing hearts and minds is far more important and effective than changing rules, even though the latter may seem like the quick fix; and we must prove that acceptance and love are the right way by example, not by enforcement.
We college students could take a lesson from Jesus, and from Gandhi, and from Martin Luther King, and many others. It is so easy to hate those who hate you; it is much harder to love them, if not simply to show them how to love. It is so easy to silence those who would silence you; it is much harder to listen to them, if not simply to show them how to listen. It is so easy to reject those who reject you; it is much harder to accept them, if not simply to show them how to become accepting.
Nuts and bolts on the college campus issues: everyone shares in the right of free speech, no matter how disagreeable the speech; changing hearts and minds is far more important and effective than changing rules, even though the latter may seem like the quick fix; and we must prove that acceptance and love are the right way by example, not by enforcement.
11
Gratifying, finally, to find a Times OP Ed that recognizes the remarkable levels of intolerance and intellectual totalitarianism on the left and in the Universities that are the prime domicile. But disappointing that the piece does not face the grim fact that the NY Times, particularly on its editorial pages, is a prime example of the issue.
34
I live in Ohio. Republican candidates got 51% of the Congressional vote here in 2012. Thanks to their gerrymandering, they took away 75% of Ohio's seats in the U.S. House. That kind of political strongarming is defended 24/7 on Fox TV and innumerable radio stations. Talk about a "grim fact."
Take a deep breath. That is good advice, Nicholas. The young lady at Yale who launched a tirade at the head (we used to call them Masters in the 1970's which I remember offended nobody) of Silliman needed to take a breath and think. I admire the administrator for his restraint. Young adults are passionate and that is a very good thing. But they need to understand that their view is just that, their view. It could be 100% correct or 100% incorrect; the answer is likely somewhere between those two points. Too many students feel that people who do not support their views are wrong, ignorant, racist, unfeeling... . Oh, too be so young and so certain. No doubt some of the students' concerns are very real and need to be addressed. The discourse must take place in an environment that allows all sides of the issue to be explored equally, intelligently and respectfully. Universities, Yale included, are now closed to debate for fear of offending. Take a breath. Then talk.
20
Thank you for this article. I too am a liberal on most issues, but I am really concerned about this current push for making sure that no one is offended, ever. It's okay to let someone say what they have to say, and then afterwards to disagree; to let someone write an op-ed piece, and then to write another op-ed piece stating that you think that what they said was wrong or insensitive or whatever. Obviously, threats to someone's life or very hostile environments are not okay. But as someone who has spent many years in the academic system - both as a student and professionally - I can say that the college campus environment is not generally a hostile or unsafe place. If there are students in particular places making it so, they should be reprimanded in a meaningful way. But to close off free speech in the service of never feeling offended seems like a fascist, totalitarian solution to a problem that is supposed to about inclusion, right? I don't want to live in a fascist liberal state any more than I want to live in a fascist conservative one.
25
Unfortunately, this is not about offense, this is about hate.
Could it be that conservatives are willing listen to opposing viewpoints because those viewpoints are mainstream and they have no choice? E.g. the strong majority of the country favors gay marriage; conservatives must listen to that stance simply by virtue its being popular. On the other hand, as "liberal" viewpoints become more mainstream, it becomes harder and less productive to expose oneself to failed and outdated modes of thinking.
3
Of course, why bother when you know you are always right? But is the issue that these students don't want to hear opposing views themselves, or are they afraid that someone else might listen.
2
If that's true about gay marriage, how do you explain the defeat of every gay marriage bill when put to the vote of the people?
1
But then why the rage from the left, John. If their views are winning, the expressions of anger are unacceptable.
1
We are in the midst of a very significant demographic shift in this country. As more excluded groups begin to assert themselves it is to be expected that they will demand respect. Every other group that has advanced in society has gone through this stage.
3
Respect must be earned. Individuals deserve only the respect they accord others. In the individuals described here, that is sorely lacking.
1
With respect to Mr Kristof for his usual thoughtful comments, this is not about minority students feeling insufficiently safe or appreciated. In the Mizzou case, the university president was ousted because some drunk guy had supposedly made a racist comment, for which he has been removed from campus and faces expulsion. Someone else had drawn a swastika on a wall in feces. How that merits firing the university president is beyond me.
In the demand for his resignation, the students demanded a hand written note of apology, in which the president acknowledges his "white privilege" and the ensuring text indicates he would still be removed. With respect, this incident is not a sign of insensitivity of administration as it is completely unreasonable and even fascistic behavior on the students.
Which imbecility is surpassed only by the blatant immaturity and hyper sensitivity of the incident at Yale. A master writes an email saying that students should choose their own costumes for Halloween and the proper way to handle offense is to tell the offender. For this, the children in question went on an infantile tantrum, screaming at a very accommodating administrator (the husband of the emailer) to shut up. And when an 18-21 year old gets angry and only wants to talk about their pain because someone wrote an email about Halloween costumes, there is nothing on earth that can appease such childish narcissism.
In both cases, the fault lies entirely with the students. Despicable fascism.
In the demand for his resignation, the students demanded a hand written note of apology, in which the president acknowledges his "white privilege" and the ensuring text indicates he would still be removed. With respect, this incident is not a sign of insensitivity of administration as it is completely unreasonable and even fascistic behavior on the students.
Which imbecility is surpassed only by the blatant immaturity and hyper sensitivity of the incident at Yale. A master writes an email saying that students should choose their own costumes for Halloween and the proper way to handle offense is to tell the offender. For this, the children in question went on an infantile tantrum, screaming at a very accommodating administrator (the husband of the emailer) to shut up. And when an 18-21 year old gets angry and only wants to talk about their pain because someone wrote an email about Halloween costumes, there is nothing on earth that can appease such childish narcissism.
In both cases, the fault lies entirely with the students. Despicable fascism.
45
Please, someone show us a picture of the "poopswastika." I'm sure if it were real, it would be all over the internet.
1
Nobody drew a swastika. That was alleged by an anonymous flyer. There is no picture of the swastika and no known witness of it.
1
In both cases, the fault lies entirely with the students. Despicable fascism.
=============
Exactly so
=============
Exactly so
1
The master of a residential college is responsible for setting a tone. Didn't the letter that sparked this current friction come from part of the master's house? I think, as someone with multiple degrees from Yale, including an undergraduate one, that that may be part of why students have found the letter so upsetting, why they have seen it as impinging of their sense of safety in their home. I also think there's a difference between how free speech on topics like birth control affects people who disagree with the position taken, and how free speech that makes people feel rejected or unsafe in their college affects people -- just where do minority students go when they feel unwelcome in their residential college? The Afro-Am House? All students should feel equally welcome on all of the campus. Yale has a thing about Halloween costumes, at least it did when I was there. Costumed revelers paraded through the library and attended a party at the president's house. Costumes might be outrageously creative, but the humor was not at the expense of others as I remember it. So, to me, defending costumes that demean others distorts the tradition. On the other hand, there was a fair amount of lack of social acceptance along racial lines that I witnessed. It felt to me like a conservative campus, however to the left the faculty may have been. So based on my experience, I don't find the arguments in this column helpful, at least with respect to Yale.
10
Clearly neither one of your Yale degrees was in English.
The difficulty of your comment is, the comment was perfectly appropriate. We all need to be a little more tolerant, and I wish your post displayed that more.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Happy Thanksgiving.
As someone with multiple degrees from Yale, I would think you would've shown enough interest to have actually read the letter at the heart of this incident. There's no way it can be interpreted as "defending costumes that demean others".
3
I have a student attending a reputed midwestern University which was accused of racial insensitivity by certain minority activists and students who rallied around these activists
There were alleged threats against a couple of minority students posted on their internet accounts . After these were exposed to be hoaxes perpetrated by the so called victims themselves the unrest dwindled down and the activists lost support.
My student tells me that that the student body overall is very respectful and the accusations of racial insensitivity were not founded in reality
There is a culture of intimidation and fear that you would be labelled racist or intolerant if you politely express a contrary view point when engaging with these activists and their sympathizers-this despite my daughter herself being a minority but then not the right kind . There is a tendency to take offense where none exists.This is the state of affairs amidst the student body at an institution that takes pride in the "life of the mind" . My daughter states that these detract from the culture of learning at the institution
It is important to remedy social ills and wrongs but in the right way and not by shouting down or trampling on others' right to free thought and expression.
The cause of the people who are wronged will be better served if media can learn to highlight the ills in society without stoking divisions along racial/ethnic /religious lines. We need more unifiers and not splitters
There were alleged threats against a couple of minority students posted on their internet accounts . After these were exposed to be hoaxes perpetrated by the so called victims themselves the unrest dwindled down and the activists lost support.
My student tells me that that the student body overall is very respectful and the accusations of racial insensitivity were not founded in reality
There is a culture of intimidation and fear that you would be labelled racist or intolerant if you politely express a contrary view point when engaging with these activists and their sympathizers-this despite my daughter herself being a minority but then not the right kind . There is a tendency to take offense where none exists.This is the state of affairs amidst the student body at an institution that takes pride in the "life of the mind" . My daughter states that these detract from the culture of learning at the institution
It is important to remedy social ills and wrongs but in the right way and not by shouting down or trampling on others' right to free thought and expression.
The cause of the people who are wronged will be better served if media can learn to highlight the ills in society without stoking divisions along racial/ethnic /religious lines. We need more unifiers and not splitters
36
I'm a little tired of having this argument with the Far Left, especially with minorities who say, "You can't possibly understand what it's like!" But if it's impossible for me to understand, why are you talking to me about it, dear? You're telling me that I need to empathize with your situation, then declaring the infeasibility of my ever getting my little white brain around said situation.
I'm also tired of seeing, when this topic rears its head, "I'm a liberal," followed by criticism of the P.C. mob. Good for you; you're a liberal. Let's get you a cookie. Has it really gotten to the point where we must bare our bona fides before denouncing such garbage? Radical academics and their babyish flock are often as passionate and as misguided as Glenn Beck and his Tea Partiers.
"The Vagina Monologues" were canceled because of insufficient sensitivity to transgenders! Good God in Heaven, have we all become invertebrates? Encouraging hypersensitivity, or pandering to it, is a mistake. There's no question that some sensitivity on the part of the previously insensitive is necessary; then again, so is some fortitude on the part of the offended. Those who believe this is the proper strategy for dismantling privilege are profoundly mistaken. By chasing moderates into the arms of conservatives, it's more likely to help eternalize the very privilege it aims to dismantle. Ms. Yalie wants to create a dreamworld; and those have a habit of becoming police states.
I'm also tired of seeing, when this topic rears its head, "I'm a liberal," followed by criticism of the P.C. mob. Good for you; you're a liberal. Let's get you a cookie. Has it really gotten to the point where we must bare our bona fides before denouncing such garbage? Radical academics and their babyish flock are often as passionate and as misguided as Glenn Beck and his Tea Partiers.
"The Vagina Monologues" were canceled because of insufficient sensitivity to transgenders! Good God in Heaven, have we all become invertebrates? Encouraging hypersensitivity, or pandering to it, is a mistake. There's no question that some sensitivity on the part of the previously insensitive is necessary; then again, so is some fortitude on the part of the offended. Those who believe this is the proper strategy for dismantling privilege are profoundly mistaken. By chasing moderates into the arms of conservatives, it's more likely to help eternalize the very privilege it aims to dismantle. Ms. Yalie wants to create a dreamworld; and those have a habit of becoming police states.
66
You think university administrivialists who have cudgeled faculty into sales associates too scared to give the student customers a C (F? fuhgeddaboutit) are suddenly going to develop the intellectual and spinal wherewithal to explain how free speech works? Mr. Kristof, you have no idea what the university does today.
I am totally unsurprised by that young woman at Yale shrieking at Prof. Christakis. On the other hand, I was very pleasantly surprised when the football players joined the other student protesters at Missouri U. MU is not one of the places that automatically come to mind when one thinks of the great ivied halls of learning, so it is remarkable when its students articulate the principles of fairness and liberalism so effectively. Methinks the Yalies have a thing or two to learn from them. But the attempt to muscle Tim Tai out of the tent city shows that maybe the MU students have a thing or two to learn of their own.
So, two steps forward, one step back. And sometimes, the other way around.
I am totally unsurprised by that young woman at Yale shrieking at Prof. Christakis. On the other hand, I was very pleasantly surprised when the football players joined the other student protesters at Missouri U. MU is not one of the places that automatically come to mind when one thinks of the great ivied halls of learning, so it is remarkable when its students articulate the principles of fairness and liberalism so effectively. Methinks the Yalies have a thing or two to learn from them. But the attempt to muscle Tim Tai out of the tent city shows that maybe the MU students have a thing or two to learn of their own.
So, two steps forward, one step back. And sometimes, the other way around.
7
Inevitable aftermath of the "coup d'état" at Mizzou by primarily, it seems, black student activists, is that this once proud university with a great reputation, whose school of journalism is the finest in the country, has lost its credibility as a place of higher learning. It can no longer maintain standards. If a minority of students can force the president to resign, is this minority not capable of other things? What professor would not now think twice before giving a low grade, or even flunking a student, even if his work had no merit, lest he be the victim of public humiliation and perhaps lose his job?Scholarship has given way to ideological fervor,political correctness, the university has become a joke, and a degree from Mizzou no longer commands the respect that it once did.Journalism professor's complaints about being called the "n word" sound specious.If fellow faculty members called her that, why were they not reported? Both my younger children r African American. Thus, I have "skin in the game."I have always inculcated into them fact that life is not a popularity contest, that there will always be people who do not like you, but others who do. These whiners at Mizzou, one of whom at least, Butler, who went on a hunger strike, comes from the one percent, may have won in the short run, but in the long term, they will lose, since their degree will not have the value it once had.NK's words, "sanctimonious bullies,"r well chosen.
17
I don't know if this is so much about free speech vs racism on college campuses as a battle taking place about racism in general.
From the birthers trying to deny the right of a black man to be president, to the attempts at denying the votes to blacks, to the shootings by law enforcement of blacks, to incarcerating minorities in disproportionate numbers we seem to be turning our backs on important work done in Civil Rights. Welfare and Obamacare are seen as handouts to minorities among the white population.
We see more and more guns on our streets to fend off what in particular - this liberal government that supplies the handouts?
We see race posing as arguments in our media. Where do the anti-immigration numbers come from? Are they blacks and Hispanics - born and raised here in the USA - who are protesting the immigration? No, it is whites.
Why do our leaders follow instead of lead on this issue?
It is disturbing to see such hate and rancor inform our citizens. The hope for this great nation is seeing us all come together in a future where we are all welcome and all have opportunity to be happy and raise our children in the freedoms as guaranteed in the Constitution.
From the birthers trying to deny the right of a black man to be president, to the attempts at denying the votes to blacks, to the shootings by law enforcement of blacks, to incarcerating minorities in disproportionate numbers we seem to be turning our backs on important work done in Civil Rights. Welfare and Obamacare are seen as handouts to minorities among the white population.
We see more and more guns on our streets to fend off what in particular - this liberal government that supplies the handouts?
We see race posing as arguments in our media. Where do the anti-immigration numbers come from? Are they blacks and Hispanics - born and raised here in the USA - who are protesting the immigration? No, it is whites.
Why do our leaders follow instead of lead on this issue?
It is disturbing to see such hate and rancor inform our citizens. The hope for this great nation is seeing us all come together in a future where we are all welcome and all have opportunity to be happy and raise our children in the freedoms as guaranteed in the Constitution.
75
Wow, you live in a fantasy world. Come to the South where we don't hate each other or ourselves as much as you appear to.
3
All live matter, but all are not equally endangered. The first 12 year-old white kid playing with a toy gun who gets shot by police immediately upon their arrival, I'm all for changing the slogan from Black Lives Matter to All Lives Matter. Our Constitution prescribes presumptions of innocence and equal protection of the laws. Our practice says otherwise.
Does Mizzou or Yale permit open carry? Imagine these environments with gun toting angry people. Texas will soon allow open carry on campuses. The only safe college campuses will be at religious schools since they can opt out. I cynically think the point of open carry in Texas is to suppress free expression for fear of getting shot or to insure the killing of liberals who speak out. I also think a hot headed conservative is more likely to carry a gun than a hot headed liberal.
11
Strange. Back in the days of my college years (late 60s), it was leftist radicals (and I do mean radical, as in advocating the violent overthrow of government) who were "militarized" not just intellectually but physically.
NB, your facts are wrong. Texas Bill 11 does NOT allow open carry on college campuses.
It allows persons who have a concealed handgun permit to carry their weapon concealed on campus.
Shooting someone over a disagreement is already illegal. Threatening to shoot someone is aggravated assault, which is also illegal.
The Texas campus carry law will not change anything except providing protection to students who choose to legally carry. There will be no increase in crime on campus. (More guns = more deaths? Please, check your facts. Gun ownership is the highest it's ever been, while gun homicides are at an all-time low. The FBI stats prove it.)
Here's the reference on the law, if you'd like to educate yourself:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/legal/newlegislation.htm
It allows persons who have a concealed handgun permit to carry their weapon concealed on campus.
Shooting someone over a disagreement is already illegal. Threatening to shoot someone is aggravated assault, which is also illegal.
The Texas campus carry law will not change anything except providing protection to students who choose to legally carry. There will be no increase in crime on campus. (More guns = more deaths? Please, check your facts. Gun ownership is the highest it's ever been, while gun homicides are at an all-time low. The FBI stats prove it.)
Here's the reference on the law, if you'd like to educate yourself:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/legal/newlegislation.htm
It's hard to be "reasonable" about injustice. It's hard to be "reasonable" about intolerable racism.
8
Well - the world is full of people who may have different definitions and viewpoints and if these kids can't manage to have a debate without frothing at the mouth or having a nervous breakdown, I shudder at what will happen when they are in the real world
1
Words to this effect have been said by every revolutionary turned tyrant around the world. It's a convenient and mindless position that appeals to individuals who don't think critically. Don't agree with me and want to have a dialog about where we differ? You're a racist! Reminds me of that screaming young woman at Yale.
1
Martin Luther King did pretty well using reason. No one said it was supposed to be easy.
It's interesting how the commencement speakers who are protested or banned are those with conservative viewpoints or have somehow done something to offend those on the left. A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste.
20
No. A closed mind is a good thing to waste.
Ms. Rice lied to the country, and assisted in fomenting the overthrow of Iraq. The cost to us in blood and treasure was incalculable, so why would any U.S. College or university honor her with an invitation to speak?
I do not buy the proposition that there is a lot of white racism on US university campuses, esp. at elite schools like Yale. I think there are "comfort levels" in ethnic/racial groups which result in substantial self-segregation . . . and sometimes people try to justify this self-segregation by alleging racism which supposedly forced the relevant racial (mainly African-American community) to coalesce and hunker down. This tendency to self-segregate is reinforced by university policies which set up ethnic or racial-based housing and centers.
If you want to understand what happened in Missouri, you would probably be well-served to read A PASSAGE TO INDIA and contemplate how misunderstanding can trigger simmering ethnic or racial tensions into a conflagration.
The ridiculous movement towards "safe spaces" has to be condemned, and free speech defended . . . or what is the point of a university education in the liberal arts? Why strive to admit more minorities into American universities if the result is a Balkanized patchwork of communities which just regard each other with suspicion and hostility?
If you want to understand what happened in Missouri, you would probably be well-served to read A PASSAGE TO INDIA and contemplate how misunderstanding can trigger simmering ethnic or racial tensions into a conflagration.
The ridiculous movement towards "safe spaces" has to be condemned, and free speech defended . . . or what is the point of a university education in the liberal arts? Why strive to admit more minorities into American universities if the result is a Balkanized patchwork of communities which just regard each other with suspicion and hostility?
451
When an entire frat thinks it's ok to dress in costumes that harken back to blackface, are intended to be insulting caricatures of blacks, and can't figure out what is wrong with that, then they need to be educated in general respect for humans.
It is the duty of the university president to make sure they get that education as soon as possible. When universities let this kind of stuff go on and on with no intervention, then they are not doing their job and need to resign.
There is a history of hate speech and violence going hand in hand in this country as a constant practice of terrorism against certain groups of people, and those that have been subjected to it (and us old white men that know better) are not going to let them get away with it any longer.
No, it is no longer politically correct to be a racist. Yes we are changing what is acceptable speech, and if you can't figure out what rude is, we will let you know.
It is the duty of the university president to make sure they get that education as soon as possible. When universities let this kind of stuff go on and on with no intervention, then they are not doing their job and need to resign.
There is a history of hate speech and violence going hand in hand in this country as a constant practice of terrorism against certain groups of people, and those that have been subjected to it (and us old white men that know better) are not going to let them get away with it any longer.
No, it is no longer politically correct to be a racist. Yes we are changing what is acceptable speech, and if you can't figure out what rude is, we will let you know.
That's how I felt in my integrated high school. I tried, but my African-American classmates preferred each other's company.
1
I thoroughly agree Mr. Dean! Yes, I am a member of the white middle class, but as a college student in the 80's, I was surprised to find a Black Student Union on campus, but not a white student union, and in fact, a white student union was considered racist. I find that people of similar ethnic or religious beliefs tend to flock together professionally and personally. This only widens the gap between peoples and leaves more opportunity for misunderstandings and perceived hurts. We need to remember that while one may not like what someone else says, they have the right to say it.
1
I fear, and dream often that our nation will go through a debilitating upheaval during the 12 months left in the Administration of Barack Obama. Campuses will suffer the most. I saw this very thing happen in 1969, at Cornell University, with the seizure of the University student life center. It led to the suicide of one professor, and the departure of many of his colleagues. It was terrorism of the radical left, who would not permit any voice to be raised that challenged their assessment that Cornell was racist.
It wasn't then, and neither is Yale, or Smith, or Rutgers now. They are places where "higher learning" is the goal...not social revolution.
I pray that what has occurred at Mizzou will not be repeated, but I fear it will. At least, until November, 2016.
It wasn't then, and neither is Yale, or Smith, or Rutgers now. They are places where "higher learning" is the goal...not social revolution.
I pray that what has occurred at Mizzou will not be repeated, but I fear it will. At least, until November, 2016.
12
The uproar at Mizzou may simply be a manifestation of the anger that drove the "Occupy Movement," which fizzled after it failed to zero in on any targets. A college campus puts activists face-to-face with those who have power over them. Usurious loans and dismal job prospects lay the groundwork for the same kind of resentment that many Americans feel in today's economy.
1
As a White college student, these people terrify me. Watching that professor be surrounded and shouted by down by an angry mob reminded me of things I've seen on my own campus, and of Maoist struggle sessions. I can't speak for minority college students, but I can say that I feel out of place here. The right is far more accepting of who and what I am than the left, and liberals should be worried that their actions are unintentionally creating a generation of disillusioned young extremists on both sides.
60
Val in Brooklyn, NY to Cameron Jones in Iowa
Your very comment proves the point of why the university president was ousted.
No, you most certainly cannot speak for minority students, can you? And as a White student you feel threatened? Wow. Sounds to me like you need to re-visit some U.S. history--but make sure it's not sanitized for your comfort level. After being reminded of what minority students have experienced, i.e., SNCC, etc., you will know what real terror is.
Submitted 11-12-15@6:53 a.m. EST
Your very comment proves the point of why the university president was ousted.
No, you most certainly cannot speak for minority students, can you? And as a White student you feel threatened? Wow. Sounds to me like you need to re-visit some U.S. history--but make sure it's not sanitized for your comfort level. After being reminded of what minority students have experienced, i.e., SNCC, etc., you will know what real terror is.
Submitted 11-12-15@6:53 a.m. EST
Because it's your privilege that is being challenged, that's why you feel so. But maybe have you ever thought for a second, just a second, that there are other people and/or groups that do not enjoy such exemption, that it is time for them to have it, and this is them fighting for it?
liberals should be worried that their actions are unintentionally creating a generation of disillusioned young extremists on both sides.
===================
Frankly it appears to be their goal
===================
Frankly it appears to be their goal
2
This whole business is vastly overblown. It is a right-wing talking point, a great way to distract from the real issue afflicting the country: the ongoing entrenchment of the oligarchy.
Mr. Kristoff writes, in lockstep with the Wall Street Journal and other rightist outlets: "This is sensitivity but also intolerance, and it is disproportionately an instinct on the left."
It is the left. They are the intolerant ones.
In Liberty University, at Oral Roberts University, or at any of the thousands of Bible colleges around the country, evolution cannot be taught in science in class. Grossly distorted versions of history are taught to students (e.g., the constitution rooted in Biblical Law, or America founded as a Christian nation). These are real (as opposed to a manufactured) infringement of free speech, and forms of indoctrination.
These are precisely what the right and Mr. Kristoff accuse supposedly "leftist" agendas on campus of doing. But I don' see editorials and op-eds decrying that.
The censorship is there, alright. On the right.
Mr. Kristoff writes, in lockstep with the Wall Street Journal and other rightist outlets: "This is sensitivity but also intolerance, and it is disproportionately an instinct on the left."
It is the left. They are the intolerant ones.
In Liberty University, at Oral Roberts University, or at any of the thousands of Bible colleges around the country, evolution cannot be taught in science in class. Grossly distorted versions of history are taught to students (e.g., the constitution rooted in Biblical Law, or America founded as a Christian nation). These are real (as opposed to a manufactured) infringement of free speech, and forms of indoctrination.
These are precisely what the right and Mr. Kristoff accuse supposedly "leftist" agendas on campus of doing. But I don' see editorials and op-eds decrying that.
The censorship is there, alright. On the right.
10
I was raised religious and refuse to look back with contempt. Of course, children are indoctrinated, with ideologies that worked for centuries. I'm tolerant because both sides have a legitimate perspective. When I studied chemistry, I learned how many times science has changed; religion didn't have to.
Liberty hosted a speech by Sen. Bernie Sanders, Gfagan. That's the point; conservatives are more willing to hear the views of those who disagree with them than liberals are. And you appear to be no exception.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the vitriolic Yale student was a fake? Was she a true "student of color" or could she have been a phony, a stooge planted by the right to parody progress arguments of safety and micro aggression and hence discredit the progressive movement?
1
The attitude of many of those gathered at the U of Missouri campus, demanding that media representatives remove themselves from the site disturbed me greatly -- until I realized that when I was very young it was evident that those who organized "civil rights" protests used those occasions to shape their public discourse by using the media (limited in the extreme in the 1950's and 60's) to get their messages across to the world. And nowadays the media cover the story of them covering the story, often as much as they are reporting "what is happening." Too many examples of TV correspondents front and center with the Ferguson protests as the canvas behind them may be one of the motives for these (mostly) young and (incredibly) savvy students telling the media "we are not ready to be recorded -- we are still in the process of figuring all of this out." So I am willing to watch the process unfold. The cameras are still there; and the stories are still being wired around the world. So far the young people of Missouri and elsewhere around the world are teaching and learning and refining and editing their positions in the public gaze. It shall take care of itself.
2
Father - With all due respect, this -- intimidation of a Mizzou student photojournalist -- was not an instance of the media covering the media covering the story. However, even if this were the case, it does not justify employees of a public university forcing the news media off of a public property. No one is saying the protestors should be forced to speak with the press, only that the press had the right to be there.
1
Watching the video footage from the University of Missouri, I admired Mr. Tai's ability to counter irrational arguments against his presence with mature, thoughtful responses. That man is destined to be a leader.
The other students in that video appeared to be overexcited and undereducated, but mostly well-meaning. On the other hand, the two university workers did not represent themselves, the university, or liberal-minded people in general, at all well.
The other students in that video appeared to be overexcited and undereducated, but mostly well-meaning. On the other hand, the two university workers did not represent themselves, the university, or liberal-minded people in general, at all well.
24
That's because those two people are not liberals. They are socialists, feeding the impressionable students their pablum. Child abuse - not just for the force feeding but for not teaching them to think critically and independently.
1
Only a collective thug acting under the color of authority would choose the words of Ms. Click. She incited others to commit battery on Mr. Tai. Her apology should have been made during arraignment for criminal conduct. Anything less is unacceptable in a free society.
25
Agreed. They were fast enough to arrest during the famous cotton balls incident, which was clearly symbolic speech. There seems a need for an arraignment here for Professor Click and her merry muscle.
1
This speaks to fear, pride, ignorance, prejudice and misunderstanding. I see much more of it in the actions and words against minority students than by them. That said, bullying and trying to intimidate the press or people who disagree with you to be quiet is seriously wrong. I don't think the left over-reaction is common (although the Wall Street Journal begs to differ.) I watched the video of the students in Missouri staying peaceful even as people worked to provoke them and treated them like a nuisance. Most liberals - most people - know self-righteous hatred destroys the hated and the hater alike. You cannot win someone's understanding by making them your enemy. Societies are transformed for the better through the redemptive power of love - nothing else works. I hope these young adults can stay strong
3
I think a big reason for why we see this increase in student "activism" and acquiescence by the universities is because of the absurdly high tuitions now. I'm paying $50k a year for this school, if something here upsets me, let's protest until we get our way. Similarly, it's bad business for schools to upset the students; they could transfer, not donate as alumni, and it's bad press to prospective students and their parents potentially. These are no longer academic institutions, they're businesses where healthy open discussion is trumped by the bottom line
12
In similar schools of other states many students a decade ago would not have met standards, legally qualified, or been subsidized by an overly benevolent government. That is hardly the way to run a business so let them transfer. If so then most middle class taxpayers would care less.
1
There is one point I have to disagree with here, and that's the lumping in of protests against commencement speakers with your examples of people being unwilling to listen to 'uncomfortable' points of view.
A commencement speech is not just a forum for presenting one's views, but also carries with it an implicit honor (often made explicit through the awarding of honorary degrees). A university, when choosing a commencement speaker, is saying that 'not only do we want to hear this person's ideas, but we think these ideas are so worth listening to that they deserve honor and recognition.'
It is this attached honor/value judgment that is the focus of protest. I have no problem iistening to what Condolezza Rice has to say, but I will in no way be party to honoring her for it. When you were one of the architects of the Iraq War, were party to an administration that condoned illegal torture, and likely had a hand in setting up the vast quasi-legal network of domestic spying on American citizens, your actions require explanation, not an award.
This is especially true of political figures, who are often quite famous for saying one thing and doing another. Yes, I am willing to listen to you speak, but your public actions have said more than your words ever could.
It is for this reason that protesting commencement speakers is a different animal from other instances of 'avoiding uncomfortable viewpoints,' and I for one am tired of the media failing to understand that.
A commencement speech is not just a forum for presenting one's views, but also carries with it an implicit honor (often made explicit through the awarding of honorary degrees). A university, when choosing a commencement speaker, is saying that 'not only do we want to hear this person's ideas, but we think these ideas are so worth listening to that they deserve honor and recognition.'
It is this attached honor/value judgment that is the focus of protest. I have no problem iistening to what Condolezza Rice has to say, but I will in no way be party to honoring her for it. When you were one of the architects of the Iraq War, were party to an administration that condoned illegal torture, and likely had a hand in setting up the vast quasi-legal network of domestic spying on American citizens, your actions require explanation, not an award.
This is especially true of political figures, who are often quite famous for saying one thing and doing another. Yes, I am willing to listen to you speak, but your public actions have said more than your words ever could.
It is for this reason that protesting commencement speakers is a different animal from other instances of 'avoiding uncomfortable viewpoints,' and I for one am tired of the media failing to understand that.
31
So I presume you protested against Hillary being a commencement speaker at Barnard in 2009? She supported the Iraq war. This commentator only proves Mr Kristof's point: the left sees no wrong in exclusion. In fact, as this person did, they'll argue why it's a good thing.
1
I hope you have the same vitriol for left-wing politicians, Sean.
But does freedom of speech mean freedom to speak? Exercising freedom of speech comes with consequences and challenges. These activists collectively use free speech and the right to assemble as a strategic tool that normally for them individually has not helped them in the face of systemic racism.
Mr. Kristof needs to consider that identity plays into freedom and freedom of speeh- because they are unequal for minorities in this country. Why? Historically and still currently, minorities have had opinions formed in the realm of free speech against them by the majority. But what are these opinions? These opinion invalidate the existence of minorities and/or relabel them; a political tool of persuasion.
Also what kinds of speech are we talking about? We need to worry about that too. Activism is a divisive speech that separates supporters from non supporters in order to organize the right people to achieve a goal. Academia and intellectual speech is very nuanced and qualified and is meant to find new possibilities. So on the grounds of a public space to tackle divisive speech which is used against people invalidate someone's identity, it makes sense to organize and find supporters to push an agenda to fix one issue in an issue of systematic racism.
This differs completely from a philosophical debate like example of the abortion debate. This is not about persuasion. This is about achieving goals. Will these goals fix systematic racism? I don't know and we will see.
Mr. Kristof needs to consider that identity plays into freedom and freedom of speeh- because they are unequal for minorities in this country. Why? Historically and still currently, minorities have had opinions formed in the realm of free speech against them by the majority. But what are these opinions? These opinion invalidate the existence of minorities and/or relabel them; a political tool of persuasion.
Also what kinds of speech are we talking about? We need to worry about that too. Activism is a divisive speech that separates supporters from non supporters in order to organize the right people to achieve a goal. Academia and intellectual speech is very nuanced and qualified and is meant to find new possibilities. So on the grounds of a public space to tackle divisive speech which is used against people invalidate someone's identity, it makes sense to organize and find supporters to push an agenda to fix one issue in an issue of systematic racism.
This differs completely from a philosophical debate like example of the abortion debate. This is not about persuasion. This is about achieving goals. Will these goals fix systematic racism? I don't know and we will see.
2
Unfortunately, the great changes in race relations, on our campuses and in our society, were not generated by “civil discourse” or “reasoned dialogue.” In large measure, they were initiated by ugly confrontations such as those in Montgomery, Birmingham and Selma, Alabama and the militant demands of black students on college campuses in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Many critics of that era claimed that the clashes generated more “heat” than “light.” We, in turn, responded with the following:
“In politics, as in physics, if you generate sufficient heat, THERE WILL BE LIGHT!”
Many critics of that era claimed that the clashes generated more “heat” than “light.” We, in turn, responded with the following:
“In politics, as in physics, if you generate sufficient heat, THERE WILL BE LIGHT!”
6
Don't forget Abe Lincoln.
As a person of color, I find it so inspiring when a straight white man tells me what to be offended by and/or not be offended, as well as condescendingly tell me how I should feel and react to the various iterations of discrimination -- you know, those things he will NEVER have to deal with. Great job. NYTimes, continue your descent into irrelevance by keeping these idiots on your payroll.
6
Yes, straight white males are NEVER discriminated against or offended. How are things over there in Fantasyland, Roy?
3
Are you kidding.? You are the only one to be "offended"? Not Jews, or "priveledged" white men? Or older women? You are no more special than any one else.
2
Roy, ff you feel you have nothing to learn from another human because of the color of their skin, then your problem is internal.
3
The fact of the matter is that these kids are just not prepared for college, and they are disrupting campuses where other kids, who have paid their tuition, are there to actually learn something. It seems clear that many of these kids are just overwhelmed by the fact that the college experience includes facing uncomfortable and confusing questions, and learning to deal with them.
There are many places in which to place the blame for this complete lack of preparedness – broken families, lack of role models, incompetent primary educators. These are not new problems, and this country has bent over backwards to try and remedy these flaws with affirmative action, remedial post-primary education, and countless other efforts at all levels along the way. And the result we see today is a generation of kids who are afraid of words.
To anyone who is viewing these events honestly and with an unbiased mind, there is clearly no culture of racism on the UM campus, nor is there at Yale. What we have are overwhelmed and unprepared students lashing out with the only defense they have ever learned in life – which is that all misfortune is the fault of white society.
Until these kids can pull themselves up by the bootstraps, they have no chance. But in the meantime, they cannot be allowed to disrupt the education of others.
There are many places in which to place the blame for this complete lack of preparedness – broken families, lack of role models, incompetent primary educators. These are not new problems, and this country has bent over backwards to try and remedy these flaws with affirmative action, remedial post-primary education, and countless other efforts at all levels along the way. And the result we see today is a generation of kids who are afraid of words.
To anyone who is viewing these events honestly and with an unbiased mind, there is clearly no culture of racism on the UM campus, nor is there at Yale. What we have are overwhelmed and unprepared students lashing out with the only defense they have ever learned in life – which is that all misfortune is the fault of white society.
Until these kids can pull themselves up by the bootstraps, they have no chance. But in the meantime, they cannot be allowed to disrupt the education of others.
13
What evidence do you have of this? The protests had nothing to do with academics.
Great comment. Did you know that "pulling oneself up by the bootstraps" is now considered a very politically incorrect phrase by social justice warriors everywhere? There have been several suggested college speech codes that have explicitly banned that phrase from use in the classroom. Such is the crazy world we now live in.
1
Vagina Monologues don't include penis monologues? No, it cannot be, we cannot stand this!
A black girl is complaining about racism when her white roommate listens to a rap song by a black rapper and sings aloud a racial slur from that song.
Folks get angry with a racist speech when others call bad neighborhoods bad neighborhoods.
A black student considers it's racist when in a conversation about black life people turn to him and ask what are his views as a black man.
This is not a joke. This is not funny.
It's disastrously sad.
A black girl is complaining about racism when her white roommate listens to a rap song by a black rapper and sings aloud a racial slur from that song.
Folks get angry with a racist speech when others call bad neighborhoods bad neighborhoods.
A black student considers it's racist when in a conversation about black life people turn to him and ask what are his views as a black man.
This is not a joke. This is not funny.
It's disastrously sad.
25
Just imagine trying to have a discussion about Mugabe and other African leaders and their anti-LGBT agendas.
1
This nonsense on Campus, especially at Yale will come to an end very shortly after parents of kids who pay full tuition start pulling the purse strings shut when the Colleges hit them up for donations. Why donate when the money is being used to support riff-raff who have nothing better to do but disrupt classes for everyone else.
I would love to know how many of these Yale protesters actually pay tuition. My guess, zippo. And that is the problem. When you admit students who do not have financial "skin" in the game because you subsidize them civilized behavior goes out the window and in its place is a bad 60s protest flashback.
I would love to know how many of these Yale protesters actually pay tuition. My guess, zippo. And that is the problem. When you admit students who do not have financial "skin" in the game because you subsidize them civilized behavior goes out the window and in its place is a bad 60s protest flashback.
6
Universities should foster intellectual growth, which comes through critical thinking; the challenges shouldn't be limited to what happens in the classroom. College campuses are heterogeneous environments that will draw together people with divergent and inconsistent viewpoints. Part of growing up and part of a good education is learning to cope with and to address the tensions inherent in those circumstances. Shouting down the opposition doesn't work; the suppressed message gains cachet through its suppression. One student's "safe space" is another's hostile environment. The best a university can hope for is to foster discussion, or at least contemplation of the position one opposes. Debate, disagreement, and analysis are cornerstones of education and should permeate the environment of a campus, not be shouted down and suppressed by people guided by doctrinaire myopia. Bad arguments are at their weakest when they are exposed, discussed, debated and debunked, not when people fight to keep them from even being expressed.
163
Please stop STOP lumping all "minorities" together. You are NOT doing African American community (including the aggrieved at Mizzou) any favors by lumping together the VERY legitimate grievances of of American Black community with other minorities and the so-called "brown people." Most egregious of such freeloaders are Muslim Americans (I am one) who must look introspectively and critically at their own communities and heritage much MUCH more before they piggyback ride on other people's cruel experiences and outrageously hijack slogans like "Muslim lives matter." To borrow from that out of bounds student at Yale: Do you understand that lumping all minorities and their gripes together with issues faced by African Americans is a major reason why progress for Blacks has been slow? How many Muslims or gays have been arrested or shot since last year on American roads or streets? Do y'all see why being P.C. has become so repellent? It is so at the expense of legitimate racial issues specifically for African Americans.
5
Thanks. Great read... was hoping you'd get to Mlaba Mlaba
Wow. I'm kind of confused by this Mr. Kristoff. Your editorial is more than a little incoherent.
First place, your blame the left for sensitivity AND intolerance.
But - wait a second. We're responding in the first place to intolerance - are you saying we should just suck it up? Ignore racism, sexism, rape?
Also, not all free speech cases are created equal. The Vagina Monologues case is not the same things as the Mizzou situation at all. Black students at Mizzou have been threatened. That is not the same thing as trans women objecting to the fact that biological women have vaginas.
Defending minority students from harm and abuse is the job both of society and of the university. Intolerance of vaginas, even by trans women, themselves a frequently abused minority, is simply intolerance in and of itself and also flies in the face of biological reality.
There's more overlap perhaps in the abuse of journalists at Mizzou, but I understand the professor and others were trying to protect the privacy of the protesters, and that's at least somewhat understandable isn't it?
There's a huge difference between the implied and real menace of swastikas and death threats and the abuse of common sense that sometimes occurs on campus.
We need to be careful not to conflate the two. Some of these issues are silly but others are dealing with the safety and welfare of groups of students, especially including minorities with a long history of being threatened and abused.
First place, your blame the left for sensitivity AND intolerance.
But - wait a second. We're responding in the first place to intolerance - are you saying we should just suck it up? Ignore racism, sexism, rape?
Also, not all free speech cases are created equal. The Vagina Monologues case is not the same things as the Mizzou situation at all. Black students at Mizzou have been threatened. That is not the same thing as trans women objecting to the fact that biological women have vaginas.
Defending minority students from harm and abuse is the job both of society and of the university. Intolerance of vaginas, even by trans women, themselves a frequently abused minority, is simply intolerance in and of itself and also flies in the face of biological reality.
There's more overlap perhaps in the abuse of journalists at Mizzou, but I understand the professor and others were trying to protect the privacy of the protesters, and that's at least somewhat understandable isn't it?
There's a huge difference between the implied and real menace of swastikas and death threats and the abuse of common sense that sometimes occurs on campus.
We need to be careful not to conflate the two. Some of these issues are silly but others are dealing with the safety and welfare of groups of students, especially including minorities with a long history of being threatened and abused.
7
Mr. Kristoff is a member of the press. His ox is being gored. Understand now Sophie?
Swastikas are anti-semitism. I don't see any sensitivity training being asked for to curb anti-Semitism, nor any place for Jews on the board of the overseeing board. This is per the students' list of demands.
1
You need to focus on the people actually COMMITTING racism, sexism, and rape, Sophia, rather than to call for the heads of those NOT doing so.
1
When Mr. Kristof wrote "intolerance" he wrote it as "THIS is sensitivity but also intolerance... (emphasis mine)". I take it to mean that this particular intolerance of viewpoints that disagree with the prevailing consensus that he's mentioned in the first part of his op-ed tends to prevail on the left.
And I don't believe that the term "free speech" in this case has a context-free meaning, either. The free speech that I would endorse, and I think Mr. Kristof does as well, means that the students have an absolute right to express their grievances and disagreements with the school administration - and to take reasonable actions to push that administration towards change. On the other hand, journalists (such as Tim Tai, the student journalist mentioned) have a right (and a responsibility, as part of their chosen profession) to show this disagreement in a way that doesn't diminish or minimize it. And, quite frankly, if journalists didn't show anything about the University of Missouri protests, most of us wouldn't know anything about them - and thus any sort of national significance wouldn't be able to be drawn from protests such as these.
And I don't believe that the term "free speech" in this case has a context-free meaning, either. The free speech that I would endorse, and I think Mr. Kristof does as well, means that the students have an absolute right to express their grievances and disagreements with the school administration - and to take reasonable actions to push that administration towards change. On the other hand, journalists (such as Tim Tai, the student journalist mentioned) have a right (and a responsibility, as part of their chosen profession) to show this disagreement in a way that doesn't diminish or minimize it. And, quite frankly, if journalists didn't show anything about the University of Missouri protests, most of us wouldn't know anything about them - and thus any sort of national significance wouldn't be able to be drawn from protests such as these.
1
"I suggest we all take a deep breath."
ok, done. now, what if anything are college students learning, other than triggers that excuse them from intelligent analysis, debate an action?
as for living in calhoun dorm, give me a break. go to brown university and feel really triggered.
ok, done. now, what if anything are college students learning, other than triggers that excuse them from intelligent analysis, debate an action?
as for living in calhoun dorm, give me a break. go to brown university and feel really triggered.
3
This is a very troubling scenario reminiscent of the rage on campuses during the 1960's. However, there are big differences. Then it was trying to redirect a nation on the wrong path leading to the destruction of so many young lives, white and black. Here there is a group taking up the mantra of "Black Lives Matter" with fists in the air making demands. I cannot comprehend why the faculty and administration succumbed to this angry group. The university is the place where reason, truth and education is taught. The solution is to work together to solve the problem.
6
All colleges should have a mandatory course on free speech to help students understand that this is not a right you tailor to your needs, while ignoring the rights of others with different opinions. Students should be encouraged to listen to other opinions and engage in healthy intellectual debate. This will better prepare them for a far less insular environment after college, where they will encounter many different opinions and wide variations in individuals' sensitivity.
246
Calling someone the n-word and painting a swastika on a dormitory wall with feces are not expressions of opinion; they are obviously expressions of hate. So yes, these are examples of speech, but as you examine whether you believe that hatred should be protected speech, please don't mischaracterize this malignancy as benign opinion.
1
Of course, you are absolutely right.
But what about if ones "culture" tends to take and "offense" in some opinion (which say our, Western culture considers just an opinion, part of a debate, opinion exchange, exercise of right to fee speech)?
The problem is cultural and the issue is protection of the culture, where the right and protection of the right to free speech ought to be maintained.
But what about if ones "culture" tends to take and "offense" in some opinion (which say our, Western culture considers just an opinion, part of a debate, opinion exchange, exercise of right to fee speech)?
The problem is cultural and the issue is protection of the culture, where the right and protection of the right to free speech ought to be maintained.
While there appears to be a recent malady among the left, namely a visceral intolerance and smug condescension towards opposing viewpoints, it is a mistake to characterize this intolerance as a core strand of leftist thinking. By its very definition, leftist ideology eschews intolerance and exclusion.
Additionally, with few exceptions, people in the United States have the freedom to say whatever they want and this freedom should be guarded vigorously. In this respect, the United States is unique in the world.
The flip side, of course, is that outlandish, inflammatory comments are often recognized as such and subsequently condemned, marginalized, and ignored. This is precisely why we neither have nor need libel laws or similar restrictions on speech like other advanced Western countries such as Britain and Canada, France and Germany.
Additionally, with few exceptions, people in the United States have the freedom to say whatever they want and this freedom should be guarded vigorously. In this respect, the United States is unique in the world.
The flip side, of course, is that outlandish, inflammatory comments are often recognized as such and subsequently condemned, marginalized, and ignored. This is precisely why we neither have nor need libel laws or similar restrictions on speech like other advanced Western countries such as Britain and Canada, France and Germany.
4
These universities are cesspools of hate and racial vitriol. Until they can guarantee that no students will have to suffer feelings of insecurity and persecution, the kids should refuse to participate. The sooner we shut these hate factories down, the better. Better to see them closed, than propagating the lies our society tells about college and inclusion.
1
Right, shut down all the universities, then move on to the high schools and elementary schools. to paraphrase a movie line, "We don need no stinkin edjucation"
3
Free speech is great as long it runs parallel with our viewpoint or ideology. The moment it runs counter to popular sentiment it gets silenced.
4
.
.
I absolutely think that students should express their racial tolerance and their condemnation of old ways that were harmful to individuals, groups, even whole nations.
It should begin with a loud boycott of the money earned by a white supremacist who cruelly exploited African natives.
I think Mr. Kristof knows where this is going: The white supremacist was named Cecil Rhodes; his money sends people to Oxford.
.
I absolutely think that students should express their racial tolerance and their condemnation of old ways that were harmful to individuals, groups, even whole nations.
It should begin with a loud boycott of the money earned by a white supremacist who cruelly exploited African natives.
I think Mr. Kristof knows where this is going: The white supremacist was named Cecil Rhodes; his money sends people to Oxford.
2
You forgot to mention one of the ultimate liberal betrayals of the principle of freedom of speech: the revocation by Brandeis of the honorary degree it had planned to bestow on Ayaan Hirsi Ali--a woman of color and one of the world's most courageous individuals. All because some anonymous "someones" on campus objected--without attribution or explanation--to her (well-founded) opinions on Islam and its repression of women.
21
Making campuses a 'safe place'? From what? If it's genuine crime you're concerned about, the campus should be no different from anyplace else - that's why we have police. But from any IDEAS that might make somebody, somewhere, uncomfortable?
For the answer to THAT question, an old classic Herblock cartoon comes to mind. It shows the then-FBI director pointing an individual who represents the U.S. public toward a jail cell, telling him "If you'll just get in there, we'll really be able to protect you." As the French like to say, 'Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose." ("The more things change, the more they remain the same.')
For the answer to THAT question, an old classic Herblock cartoon comes to mind. It shows the then-FBI director pointing an individual who represents the U.S. public toward a jail cell, telling him "If you'll just get in there, we'll really be able to protect you." As the French like to say, 'Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose." ("The more things change, the more they remain the same.')
196
Last year at Yale, when Swastika symbols were found around campus, everyone including administration condemned it right away. Police went on to investigate the matter.
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2014/10/14/swastikas-chalked-on-old-campus/
Clearly it was offensive to many people and in particular, to Jewish members of the community. But there was no debate on free speech. However, when symbols that are offensive to people of color are displayed, advocates of free speech rights are all up in arms. I think it is utterly hypocritical and insensitive. Although the student in the video could have been more civil in her protest, I feel her frustration is justified.
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2014/10/14/swastikas-chalked-on-old-campus/
Clearly it was offensive to many people and in particular, to Jewish members of the community. But there was no debate on free speech. However, when symbols that are offensive to people of color are displayed, advocates of free speech rights are all up in arms. I think it is utterly hypocritical and insensitive. Although the student in the video could have been more civil in her protest, I feel her frustration is justified.
4
Dude ... there haven't been any cross burning in years.
1
And if it was KKK symbols instead of the Swastika symbols displayed in the story you mentioned, I am sure the reaction would have been exactly the same.
1
Did anyone else notice that Kristof’s “voice” in this piece is so different from his normal style that another author might be suspected? Indeed, it’s so close to mine that I could have written this piece. The effect is more than a little spooky.
Or perhaps I should take the advice that I occasionally offer Walter Rhett and lay off the unblended until AFTER the comments.
But back to the commentary.
To me, what happened at Mizzou was justified. There appears to be sufficient evidence that a culture of racism has existed there for some time. Their president when made aware of numerous complaints chose not to engage them, possibly because he didn’t accord them importance. The widespread rejection by students of his unwillingness to engage was understandable, and the eventual outcome strikes me as appropriate.
At Yale and elsewhere, on the other hand, what we often see is an insistence that the most sensitive, the quickest to take offense and the most insistent on one ideological view must set the boundaries of what is acceptable speech. We also see this to a lesser extent in business, where sensitivity training suggests that the least self-confident personalities should wield the same power. The danger of tolerating this should be evident in a society that values free expression, and indeed depends on it to discern truth by means of adversarial discussion.
In other words, I guess I agree with this other-dimensional Nick Kristof. It does happen from time to time.
Or perhaps I should take the advice that I occasionally offer Walter Rhett and lay off the unblended until AFTER the comments.
But back to the commentary.
To me, what happened at Mizzou was justified. There appears to be sufficient evidence that a culture of racism has existed there for some time. Their president when made aware of numerous complaints chose not to engage them, possibly because he didn’t accord them importance. The widespread rejection by students of his unwillingness to engage was understandable, and the eventual outcome strikes me as appropriate.
At Yale and elsewhere, on the other hand, what we often see is an insistence that the most sensitive, the quickest to take offense and the most insistent on one ideological view must set the boundaries of what is acceptable speech. We also see this to a lesser extent in business, where sensitivity training suggests that the least self-confident personalities should wield the same power. The danger of tolerating this should be evident in a society that values free expression, and indeed depends on it to discern truth by means of adversarial discussion.
In other words, I guess I agree with this other-dimensional Nick Kristof. It does happen from time to time.
6
I'm a liberal, & I thought the 'Vagina Monologues' was fun. The students who refused to permit it being shown on campus were clearly' hysterical' - in the Freudian sense.
11
Berlin wouldn't be my "go to" philosopher - especially given the situation at Missouri. Rather, John Rawls - Justice As Fairness.
Fairness should suffice.
Fairness should suffice.
2
What has happened to my alma mater that it has fallen into this mess nearly 60 years after I had graduated with the a BJ! The university had black students then, as well as Asian Americans such as I as well as white students. We got along fine. What has transpired since then!!!
7
For every student journalist who was treated rudely, I suspect that there were a dozen ordinary students. Grown up journalists tend to focus too much on their "understudies", whose status tends to be exaggerated in the minds of the grown ups, who are having flashbacks to their own noble service on their student newspapers.
What we are seeing on college campuses are the children of the Maoist philosopher Herbert Marcuse, who in 1965 gave a theoretical explanation for why progressives should have free speech but conservatives should be shut up, censored and suppressed . His theories gave birth to the Critical Race Theory and Post-Colonial Theory and other forms of cultural Marxism that infect our colleges today. It's no wonder that our students don't understand our historic commitment to free speech when their professors are busy telling them it's wrong and evil.
4
Just FYI ... Wesleyan students did not cut funding for a student paper ... please take a closer look at the facts
2
I have some trouble with what seems here to be labelled "liberal". I've been a liberal for many decades, at four universities, and I've always supported free speech on university campuses and elsewhere. Indeed, I see universities as unique places, especially suited to the airing of informed and varied opinions by persons of any skin hue, gender, or religion. All should be welcome.
But I offer a caveat. A university ought not to appear or sound like talk radio. It should instead act impartially, ... well ... like an ACADEMIC institution. At least between football games, of course.
But I offer a caveat. A university ought not to appear or sound like talk radio. It should instead act impartially, ... well ... like an ACADEMIC institution. At least between football games, of course.
1
The opportunity cost of freedom of speech is that you may be upset by something you hear. That unabridged freedom is so quintessential to a truly free society that no cost is too high. A free market place of ideas is the essence of the "University". Political correctness is the mortal enemy of free expression.Ralph Emerson's shibboleth is still the greatest rejoinder against the orthodoxy of intolerance "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". The lack of intellectual sophistication is the primary cause of most intolerance. Students have to understand that exposure to ideas that challenge or disturb their value system makes them mentally stronger and prepares them for life in our increasingly pluralistic society.
5
As William Saroyan once said, "No foundation. All the way down the line."
1
This isn't about free speech or minority rights, It's about basic decorum and civility. If you can civilly and constructively criticize something, and have a legitimate, fact based reason to criticize, you should have the right to criticize. Obviously, calling people the N-word and other religious and racially motivated actions do not fall under that criteria.
On the other hand, unless you have a legitimate, detailed complaint, don't complain. How many transgender people are there on a given college campus? It can't be more than a few percent of the total population, which for the university I live near would only be a few hundred people at most.
Sure we can make accommodations for LGBT-Q, Muslims, Hindus, Sikh's, African Americans, Hispanic people, Asians, etc. But how much damage is it going to cause a small group of people if there is a production of a play or a musical that they disagree with? I mean, people who think the Earth is flat is an affront to my identity as a physicist and an astronomer, but I'm not calling for YouTube to start blocking conspiracy theory channels and for ISP's to block conspiracy websites.
We have become so consumed with the pains of minorities, that we have lost all feeling for the real pains that affect nearly all of us, regardless of orientation, race or religion. Of course, I'm talking about the pain caused by the rich sucking the life blood of the lower and middle classes, through wage stagnation and service inflation.
On the other hand, unless you have a legitimate, detailed complaint, don't complain. How many transgender people are there on a given college campus? It can't be more than a few percent of the total population, which for the university I live near would only be a few hundred people at most.
Sure we can make accommodations for LGBT-Q, Muslims, Hindus, Sikh's, African Americans, Hispanic people, Asians, etc. But how much damage is it going to cause a small group of people if there is a production of a play or a musical that they disagree with? I mean, people who think the Earth is flat is an affront to my identity as a physicist and an astronomer, but I'm not calling for YouTube to start blocking conspiracy theory channels and for ISP's to block conspiracy websites.
We have become so consumed with the pains of minorities, that we have lost all feeling for the real pains that affect nearly all of us, regardless of orientation, race or religion. Of course, I'm talking about the pain caused by the rich sucking the life blood of the lower and middle classes, through wage stagnation and service inflation.
8
Mr. Kristoff concludes his column with a false comparison. People who sit around the workplace and do wolf whistles or similar are not protected by the First Amendment because a private employer is not bound by the First Amendment, which only binds governments. Even if there is a governmental employer, there is a lessened First Amendment right in the workplace.
None of which binds the students. And can we please stop pretending that there is a lessened First Amendment protection when there have been death threats, or on the lawn of the black organization's campus compound, or within an hour of Sandy Hook as the times has suggested recently? The First Amendment is, as has been famously said, not there to protect parades on the Fourth of July. I say it applies with especial force to protect those who wear trench coats within an hour's drive of Sandy Hook, or in symbolic speech on the lawn of the black compound, or following death threats. Because that is where it needs the most protection.
None of which binds the students. And can we please stop pretending that there is a lessened First Amendment protection when there have been death threats, or on the lawn of the black organization's campus compound, or within an hour of Sandy Hook as the times has suggested recently? The First Amendment is, as has been famously said, not there to protect parades on the Fourth of July. I say it applies with especial force to protect those who wear trench coats within an hour's drive of Sandy Hook, or in symbolic speech on the lawn of the black compound, or following death threats. Because that is where it needs the most protection.
As far as I can tell - students self-isolate themselves all together too much
into groups that think/look/act too much like themselves.
When Universities started building "Wellness Centers", Townhouses instead of
Dorms, provided Living Quarters for this group or that group, and gave students
the power to approve or not approve what was said on campus by their professors - what did they think was going to happen ?
The "Ship of Pampered/Spoiled Self-Righteousness" has sailed into Port
and God only know what will happen.
Meanwhile the Poor are still Poor.
The Homeless are still Homeless
The Wars go on and on and on...
Good to know that the most pressing issue in this Country and World
is whether College Students' - oh so tender feelings - are hurt...
into groups that think/look/act too much like themselves.
When Universities started building "Wellness Centers", Townhouses instead of
Dorms, provided Living Quarters for this group or that group, and gave students
the power to approve or not approve what was said on campus by their professors - what did they think was going to happen ?
The "Ship of Pampered/Spoiled Self-Righteousness" has sailed into Port
and God only know what will happen.
Meanwhile the Poor are still Poor.
The Homeless are still Homeless
The Wars go on and on and on...
Good to know that the most pressing issue in this Country and World
is whether College Students' - oh so tender feelings - are hurt...
11
i don't think anyone should be allowed to disagree with blacks, hispanics, gays, womyn, transgendered people or muslims unless you fall into one of these groups yourself. It isn't right to disagree with these people on any issue because it might hurt their feelings, and that would be bad. Also, no one should ever even have to tolerate the speech of white or asian males because these people are responsible for all the problems in the whole world. In fact white and asian male faculty and students should be expelled from all universities. we need harmony on campus, not debate, because debate can cause trauma. trigger warnings should be mandatory when someone is about to express a difference of opinion.
10
"Yes, universities should work harder to be inclusive. "
Are you serious? Universities have been the vanguard of affirmative action for decades; their tuition costs have skyrocketed in part because of the huge growth of administrators and bureaucrats who come up with brilliant things like the Yale Halloween dress code, so that no one could possibly be offended.
Universities do not need to worry about being inclusive; they need to worry about free speech.
Are you serious? Universities have been the vanguard of affirmative action for decades; their tuition costs have skyrocketed in part because of the huge growth of administrators and bureaucrats who come up with brilliant things like the Yale Halloween dress code, so that no one could possibly be offended.
Universities do not need to worry about being inclusive; they need to worry about free speech.
11
Mr. Kristof,
I very much appreciate your article. Frankly, I am surprised by it, but glad for it. I believe we are at a moment where the much condemned "McCarthyism" of the right has now revealed itself as a tool of the left. It does make for interesting times!
I take the New York Times because it is entertaining to read the ridiculous blather spewed by New York liberals and because, every once in awhile, I encounter something that is challenging to my own understanding of the world. It came as something of a shock to me years ago when I realized that other people didn't enjoy challenges to their religious or political views. I consider such challenges to be the stuff of life and feel sorry for the oh-so-arrogant, ignorant youths who parade around our campuses shouting down those who have the temerity to disagree with them.
I encourage readers of the Times to also read Reason and National Review. In turn, I recommend that readers of those magazines read the Times, but, of course, they already do.
Another sorrow for me in all of this is that few seem to appreciate, or have, good manners anymore. Thank you for exhibiting a gracious approach to a challenging situation.
I very much appreciate your article. Frankly, I am surprised by it, but glad for it. I believe we are at a moment where the much condemned "McCarthyism" of the right has now revealed itself as a tool of the left. It does make for interesting times!
I take the New York Times because it is entertaining to read the ridiculous blather spewed by New York liberals and because, every once in awhile, I encounter something that is challenging to my own understanding of the world. It came as something of a shock to me years ago when I realized that other people didn't enjoy challenges to their religious or political views. I consider such challenges to be the stuff of life and feel sorry for the oh-so-arrogant, ignorant youths who parade around our campuses shouting down those who have the temerity to disagree with them.
I encourage readers of the Times to also read Reason and National Review. In turn, I recommend that readers of those magazines read the Times, but, of course, they already do.
Another sorrow for me in all of this is that few seem to appreciate, or have, good manners anymore. Thank you for exhibiting a gracious approach to a challenging situation.
6
The problem is more rampant than just in colleges. Here in Lowell,we've had free speech racial problems in the high school, where recently a young man from West Africa was threatened with text messages suggesting he be lynched after he won the presidency of his class.
I don't recall that I have ever attended a protest meeting in my life. though I have known people who have attended dozens of them.
I would certainly have protested the Nazis, but that was before my time. Blacks I would sometimes have joined, but I always felt that I would be regarded as an outsider or as an intruder.
My basic problem with protesting is that, try as I might to be angry with this country or anything bad currently going on it, I wake up every morning delighted to discover that I am still a citizen of the greatest country that ever was or will be, the one country in the world where everything remains possible.
President Obama, a black man, may soon be succeeded in office by another black man. If that happens, we may have a stretch of 16 years in which
the President of the United States was a black man. Call me a cockeyed optimist if you like, but things like that have convinced me that if we just keep on going essentially the way we are, sooner rather than later, we'll get to where we need to be.
I would certainly have protested the Nazis, but that was before my time. Blacks I would sometimes have joined, but I always felt that I would be regarded as an outsider or as an intruder.
My basic problem with protesting is that, try as I might to be angry with this country or anything bad currently going on it, I wake up every morning delighted to discover that I am still a citizen of the greatest country that ever was or will be, the one country in the world where everything remains possible.
President Obama, a black man, may soon be succeeded in office by another black man. If that happens, we may have a stretch of 16 years in which
the President of the United States was a black man. Call me a cockeyed optimist if you like, but things like that have convinced me that if we just keep on going essentially the way we are, sooner rather than later, we'll get to where we need to be.
2
As a free society, we will never eliminate all racism or prejudice. No matter the topic, there are always a few idiots. That being said, I find many of these very general claims of systemic racism a bit hard to believe. In your opening, you speak of a professor named Cynthia Frisby who says she has been called the "N-word" so many times she can't count them all. Who called her this horrible name so many times? Was it students? Was it colleagues? I would assume if either used such a term she would have taken action. Have complaints been filed or action taken against the offender? I would assume such a heinous act would have been reported in some manner. Also, I find it amazing that despite the claims of rampant racism for decades, many of those who make the claim have remained at the university for years. One would assume if the university presents such a hostile environment, those on the receiving end would seek a friendlier campus. A few years back, I seem to recall multiple publications singing the praises of Mizzou. As Michael Sam emerged from the university, the campus was portrayed as a bastion of acceptance and Progressivism. Sam himself indicated he was treated very well. He told us many knew of his sexuality, yet honored his decision to keep it quiet until he was ready. He seemed to have no issue with student's behavior on race or sexuality. How and when did things change so dramatically?
4
Employers unless they are government bodies have no obligations under the first amendment. They do under title vii but those obligations aren't trumped by the constitution. ( we don't need to get into the degree of pervasiveness required for that to come into play in any event) The fact is that it's one of our most fundamental rights to engage in free speech. Unless that speech amounts to threats or is so pervasive AND is so directed at an individual to be true harassment there is nothing a public university can do to stop it just because it's hateful or hurtful. The desire for a more inclusive atmosphere doesn't trump the constitution. Though many on college campuses fail to understand that.
5
There is something unsettling about people who preach about the benefits of freedom of speech and the importance of different points of view when a minority students shouts down a professor yet heap praise on people at a town hall meeting who shout down an elected official trying to explain a law. I guess "speaking truth to power" is ok as long as you agree with the speaker and dislike the "Man", i.e. the person representing the power. But it's bad when you don't agree with the speaker and like the "Man'.
Political correctness is bad when hurtful or offensive speech is identified. But when people react as expected to hurtful or offensive speech, their reactions are criticized - thereby becoming a form of political correctness.
Colleges and schools should encourage freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas. Sometimes freedom of expression can impede the free exchange of ideas, especially where such freedom is exercised in an irresponsible manner. Colleges and schools must make sure that students learn not only how to express themselves but also how to do so with the understanding of how others will react. Offend by all means but don't be shocked when the offense evokes strong reaction.
The free exchange of ideas requires both speaking and listening. This too must be part of the educational experience. And schools and colleges are responsible for insuring that the students learn both.
Political correctness is bad when hurtful or offensive speech is identified. But when people react as expected to hurtful or offensive speech, their reactions are criticized - thereby becoming a form of political correctness.
Colleges and schools should encourage freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas. Sometimes freedom of expression can impede the free exchange of ideas, especially where such freedom is exercised in an irresponsible manner. Colleges and schools must make sure that students learn not only how to express themselves but also how to do so with the understanding of how others will react. Offend by all means but don't be shocked when the offense evokes strong reaction.
The free exchange of ideas requires both speaking and listening. This too must be part of the educational experience. And schools and colleges are responsible for insuring that the students learn both.
9
@ Rita: Sounds good, if vague. Let's get down to cases. How would you apply what you wrote to the situation at Missouri, so that the black students respect the freedom of speech and of the press?
2
NIck:
I love you. Usually. Here you sound so much like Let's-All-Be-Reasonable-Adults David Brooks. And I hate David Brooks. At least his columns. At least the ones saying Let's All Be Reasonable Adults, which is half of them.
I think there are more stark things you could say on these topics.
I love you. Usually. Here you sound so much like Let's-All-Be-Reasonable-Adults David Brooks. And I hate David Brooks. At least his columns. At least the ones saying Let's All Be Reasonable Adults, which is half of them.
I think there are more stark things you could say on these topics.
3
Mr Kristof, I thank you for writing this column. As an independent voter I’m increasingly frustrated and frankly disgusted by the left’s refusal to criticize or push back against the pc, anti-free speech mob. While I sympathize with the sentiments of some of these activists, I condemn their tactics. If they are demanding I choose between the rights of minorities and marginalized communities or free speech, I choose free speech. I vote and the suppression of freedom of speech and expression by the pc mob has become one of my core issues. And a note to the Times Editorial Board, the daily pc racial strife articles are not making me more symmpathic to or reflectve of the issue just immune to it.
41
I wonder just what freedom of speech the "pc mob," your code for upset minority students, violates with their protests ? In Missouri, they tried to reason with the University administrators for a long time before they resorted to what is a perfectly acceptable means of protest, a boycott and rallies. What freedom of speech would you like to see guaranteed "against the pc mob?" The idea of posting a picture of a lynched woman on the dorm room wall? Mr. Krisof doesn't condemn any pc mobs just like independent is a pc term certain people employ to conceal their Conservative belief system. There are plenty of media outlets that do nothing but condemn movements like Black Lives Matter. I'm glad the NYT is not among those call them "pc mobs." Politically correct means respect for the diversity of viewpoints and it's a label I will wear proudly.
3
One comment suggests that to help minority students feel at home: "Gender, race, and cultural studies requirements, as part of general education requirements, should be tripled and students required to get them out of the way in the first two years. ... and facilitate cultural and social dialog on racial, gender, and sexual matters."
Agreed, efforts should be made to ensure that minority students can feel fully at home on campus. However, a tripling of these sorts of classes may not yield the desired result. This approach gives whites even more power. Think about it. After a tripling of these studies two different outcomes suggest themselves: whites admit to their privilege and systemic racism, or they don't. This makes black students dependent either on eventual white confession or denial. In either case, agency is transferred to the whites.
There is a better way to make everyone feel welcome and a valued member of the university body.
Agreed, efforts should be made to ensure that minority students can feel fully at home on campus. However, a tripling of these sorts of classes may not yield the desired result. This approach gives whites even more power. Think about it. After a tripling of these studies two different outcomes suggest themselves: whites admit to their privilege and systemic racism, or they don't. This makes black students dependent either on eventual white confession or denial. In either case, agency is transferred to the whites.
There is a better way to make everyone feel welcome and a valued member of the university body.
4
You mean treating colleges as indoctrination centers and assigning everyone a victim or perpetrator identity isn't an effective means of making everyone feel welcome and valued??? This is indeed shocking news.
10
If a comment said that, it would be better to respond directly to it so we may see what was said WITHOUT the ellipsis. That's the way debate works.
"whites admit to their privilege and systemic racism"
Is this like the Eddie Murphy sketch about how when blacks aren't there, whites give each other stuff?
Is this like the Eddie Murphy sketch about how when blacks aren't there, whites give each other stuff?
3
Unfortunately this otherwise thoughtful essay was ruined by the claim that forcing Condoleeza Rice to withdraw as a speaker was an attack on free speech similar to banning The Vagina Monologues, a theatrical work, because it doesn't mention transgender "women" (the vast majority of whom never acquire a vagina and 100 percent of whom never experience menstruation). Condoleeza Rice is a documented liar and warmonger; she is inappropriate to speak at universities. On the other hand, a litmus test for literature consisting of an evaluation of whether it includes this group or that group, spells the death of literature. It's bizarre these two incidents were mentioned as if they were somehow equivalent.
12
Nixon spoke at the Oxford University Union a year or so after he resigned. He didn't get a lot of love, but he was listened to politely and respectfully.
You could learn something from that.
You could learn something from that.
11
Thank you for proving Kristoff's point -- many of those in the left don't believe in free speech, and want to shut up those they disagree with.
7
I think we are beginning to come up against a perennial dilemma. When people rebel against institutionalized violence they tend to get violent themselves. I don't want to argue about when this is justified. That is not the point. The point is that very few people are up to using violence properly. It usually becomes counterproductive.
There are a number of reasons why it gets counterproductive. For one thing excessive anger makes you stupid. Also it turns off the mass of people in the middle, whose support you might need. Also if you win you might find that you are worse off than before.
The easiest way to make a revolution is by working people into a rage, but there are likely to be unhappy consequences. We will see more of this.
There are a number of reasons why it gets counterproductive. For one thing excessive anger makes you stupid. Also it turns off the mass of people in the middle, whose support you might need. Also if you win you might find that you are worse off than before.
The easiest way to make a revolution is by working people into a rage, but there are likely to be unhappy consequences. We will see more of this.
13
Please point out one instance in which the institution known as the University of Missouri committed violence against black students.
2
In the chilling video at Yale, the student didn't just tell the Professor to be quiet, she cursed viciously and screamed hysterically at him because his wife expressed a point of view she disagreed with. The practical result of such fury over a comment about Halloween costumes of all things is to bully people into silence and submission. It is to use fear, humiliation and ostracism as a weapon to discourage free expression. I assume no punishment will be doled out for cursing and screaming at a faculty member. I suspect no apology is forthcoming. This is not "noble forces colliding." It's people pursuing a worthy cause (inclusiveness) in a terribly wrongheaded and positively frightening way.
337
What worthy cause is being pursued? These Yale students are among the chosen few and yet they feel it is okay to try and restrict free speech. Do they not understand the danger of doing so? Apparently not. And all this is done on account of a faculty member stating her opinion? Or was it over the very important issue of what Halloween costumes will/will not offend? Or was it some member of a fraternity who said something offensive which was maybe overheard by another student? And what of the signs found that said things which could only be construed as positive? It is all very childish, isn't it? It doesn't show Yale in a very good light.
8
Hysteria. I tell my daughter its hormones...calm down.
2
For too many on the left and for too long, the formerly oppressed or supposedly still discriminated against can never be wrong or badly wrong in their actions, thoughts, behavior.
Thus that out-of-whack "Ivy League" student brutally shouting down her professor can never act wrongly.
Similar reasoning like when - now US AG, Loretta Lynch, at that time US District Attorney, speaking to law (!) students argued that "inner city communities are desperate for better relationship with police" and as evidence presented the fact that "after all, they didn't burn down the entire city" (i.e. "only" several blocks).
So, significantly a double standard.
Thus that out-of-whack "Ivy League" student brutally shouting down her professor can never act wrongly.
Similar reasoning like when - now US AG, Loretta Lynch, at that time US District Attorney, speaking to law (!) students argued that "inner city communities are desperate for better relationship with police" and as evidence presented the fact that "after all, they didn't burn down the entire city" (i.e. "only" several blocks).
So, significantly a double standard.
2
And then we have the NYT reporting about a black then Mizzou freshman, having her white roommate sing along with a rap song, going out of her way to loudly emphasize the "N" word, and then telling her black roommate that a friend pinned on their door a picture of a black woman appearing to be lynched, as a "joke."
How exactly does an 18/19 year old react with reasonableness to such conduct?
Talk all you want Sir about the multiplicity of viewpoints and the messiness of life, but real people encountering real racism as a frequent if not daily occurrence, produce real reactions and real anger. Using the occasional manifestation of that anger, or citing the distorted personalities it may create in some, as the excuse for "oh, all will be okay - yes you've waited a couple of hundred years, but please, be patient!" is really a bit of a stretch.
Take all the deep breaths you want. But also accept that there will be plenty of instances where reason just does not prevail. It is asking too much of human beings. Kind of like what the Israelis ask of the Palestinians: "just sit there and take it guys...we can be violent in subjugating you and suffocating the life out of your society, but don't you dare be violent against us...consequences will follow!"
How exactly does an 18/19 year old react with reasonableness to such conduct?
Talk all you want Sir about the multiplicity of viewpoints and the messiness of life, but real people encountering real racism as a frequent if not daily occurrence, produce real reactions and real anger. Using the occasional manifestation of that anger, or citing the distorted personalities it may create in some, as the excuse for "oh, all will be okay - yes you've waited a couple of hundred years, but please, be patient!" is really a bit of a stretch.
Take all the deep breaths you want. But also accept that there will be plenty of instances where reason just does not prevail. It is asking too much of human beings. Kind of like what the Israelis ask of the Palestinians: "just sit there and take it guys...we can be violent in subjugating you and suffocating the life out of your society, but don't you dare be violent against us...consequences will follow!"
13
Right. To mention the situations at Yale and Missouri in the same sentence as the Palestinians is beyond ludicrous and must be taken as facetious. Yale students are so put upon as to be suffocated and subjugated just like the Palestinians. Yale students have every break in the world. Every opportunity awaiting them. Come on, give me a break.
2
Again, something totally unverifiable. I suggest that since she knows the name of her freshman roommate that she name the person, but remember that the First Amendment does not protect slander.
2
Perfectly expressed realistic point of view, unlike Mr. Kristof's, "That's life" summation.
2
Wesleyan has invited countless conservative notables to speak on its campus, including Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The dialogue is always spirited - it's Wesleyan, after all - but respectful. If you have a bright, creative, passionate child, you want her or him to go to a place like Wesleyan. The story regarding the student newspaper is not yet finished. Give these kids a chance - they'll get it right.
5
There is a First Amendment. There is no right to be offended. The events at Missouri have damaged the first, and given aid and comfort to those who do believe there is some right to a "safe space" where you do not have to hear views you do not agree with.
19
Although nothing could ever top you, Mr. K, this link to Harvard law's helpful definition of fascism is great auxiliary reading: Fascism at Yale | The Harvard Law Record
http://hlrecord.org/2015/11/fascism-at-yale/
http://hlrecord.org/2015/11/fascism-at-yale/
1
I prefer to think of myself as a liberal progressive, but lately the left has gone so far round the bend, I think maybe I'm becoming a conservative. The hypersensitivity of the left has become a form of fascism. A good ten years ago, I learned there was no dialogue to be had about illegal immigration amongst my liberal friends; they shut it down with one word: "racist". I notice the same is true with trying to have a conversation about the migration crisis in Europe. "Racist". It's so incredibly ironic to witness liberals coming to the defense of an intolerant, misogynistic culture, one that abhors liberal values of tolerance; I guess being perceived as downtrodden makes it all forgivable. The Noble Savage, apparently. It becomes circular, to the point that liberals are more closed minded than conservatives. Certainly less honest.
I am surprised and pleased to read Nick Kristoff addressing this.
I am surprised and pleased to read Nick Kristoff addressing this.
68
It will get him many more clicks than complaining about the government of some equatorial African nation most have never heard of.
Open vs closed mind is a dimension independent from liberal vs conservative political leaning.
1
So what exactly is the behavioral requirement for making everyone feel that they belong? As a faculty member, if I go about my normal everyday activities of teaching, research, etc. and treat all of my students, colleagues, and staff with respect, is that sufficient? If not, why not? I am now required to actively engage in "outreach", to actively speak out against anything and everything that makes someone else feels diminishes? If so, will others also be expected to actively engage me to assuage any negative feelings I will have by being wrongly stereotyped or treated as though I should go through a re-education program without any knowledge on their part about me as a person? For any and all administrators deciding that mandatory sensitivity classes are required of all faculty and staff, they should be required to attend mandatory classes on stereotypes, freedom of expression, coercion, etc.
88
I saw the video of the student at Yale, screaming at the Professor. I'm sure she had a point somewhere in all that invective, but my first reaction was: "not an engineer" - students in the hard sciences don't seem to have the time for feeling "unsafe" - maybe the powers-that-be at the universities in question would do well to see how they can increase the intake of minority students in the hard sciences - the fields that lead to guaranteed, better-paying jobs and opportunities that will help break the cycle of oppression these well-meaning young people are protesting.
20
Franco tried this with the Basques: closing all the liberal arts schools in the Basque Country, and transferring science and engineering schools there to replace them. But the Basques largely refused to leave their homeland to study. Instead, they stayed home, and became expert explosives manufacturers and manipulators, civil engineers expert at bridge destruction, and the like.
It may be that the course of study does not determine the sensibilities of the student, but rather the students' proclivities that determine the course of study.
It may be that the course of study does not determine the sensibilities of the student, but rather the students' proclivities that determine the course of study.
2
Nitin, the student was probably responding in ways she had seen her other female relatives behave, hysterically. These are learned responses, sometime in our childhood we learn that hysteria is not rewarded, its missing in this unfortunate unfolding of emotions.
1
Hostile work enviroment is very narrow. It does not dictate what a person may do on their own time--as there is an end to the work day.
Colleges are different. They are completely about finding your own morals and the clashes that brings. Many of the students live actually on campus. Enforcing Title IX so vastly would surely pose an immense First Amendment challenge to the statute.
Colleges are different. They are completely about finding your own morals and the clashes that brings. Many of the students live actually on campus. Enforcing Title IX so vastly would surely pose an immense First Amendment challenge to the statute.
2
These protest movements in genera are becoming more ludicrous by the day. I could not really understand why protests triggered by the death of a thief who fought with with a police officer (Michael Brown) were being framed as a civil rights issue. Now I cannot understand why these students are getting angry about halloween masks and their "very real hurts". Maybe it is time for me to go to one of those socialist re education camps after all.
22
Another disturbing episode straight out of the heartland. Not dissimilar to Ferguson. The underlying episodes may not have occurred. In the former "hands up don't shoot." It didn't happen.
Here, a claim from a student leader of a drive-by "N" word shouting from a pick-up. We don't know if it happened or, if it did, whether the driver or passenger was affiliated with Mizzou. Heck, maybe he was playing his radio. The latest Kendrick Lamar offering. (But even if affiliated, the epithet hurler's action should be imputed to Tim Wolfe?)
Next, the Poopstika. Today I read that that may not have happened. Indeed, the picture ("evidence") circulating was determined to be years old & not even from a Mizzou lavatory.
Assuming these events occurred - isolated ones the nature of which render them nearly impossible To eliminate - the Administration's response may have been deemed insufficient by some but not by an unbiased assessment.
So where are we? Facts that are alleged but not substantiated - forget about a court of law, not even by an investigative press - form the basis of sweeping actions and recriminations.
It bothers me & those who cherish our traditions of individual justice, the presumption of innocence. A measured approach.
That ship has sailed. We're in the twilight zone of social justice. Things don't need to match up. Nuance & logic are thrown out the window. Cherished rights, like freedom of the press, must take a back seat. Scores must be settled.
Here, a claim from a student leader of a drive-by "N" word shouting from a pick-up. We don't know if it happened or, if it did, whether the driver or passenger was affiliated with Mizzou. Heck, maybe he was playing his radio. The latest Kendrick Lamar offering. (But even if affiliated, the epithet hurler's action should be imputed to Tim Wolfe?)
Next, the Poopstika. Today I read that that may not have happened. Indeed, the picture ("evidence") circulating was determined to be years old & not even from a Mizzou lavatory.
Assuming these events occurred - isolated ones the nature of which render them nearly impossible To eliminate - the Administration's response may have been deemed insufficient by some but not by an unbiased assessment.
So where are we? Facts that are alleged but not substantiated - forget about a court of law, not even by an investigative press - form the basis of sweeping actions and recriminations.
It bothers me & those who cherish our traditions of individual justice, the presumption of innocence. A measured approach.
That ship has sailed. We're in the twilight zone of social justice. Things don't need to match up. Nuance & logic are thrown out the window. Cherished rights, like freedom of the press, must take a back seat. Scores must be settled.
79
If the Republicans win the White House, and keep their control of Congress, the Democrats will have at least two years for them to determine, without Obama in the White House, if actions like this are the mainstream of the Democratic Party, or if it is the left fringe. Elections will ride on it.
The swastika, logically, should not result in black hiring quotas. Perhaps mandatory sensitivity training for students and staff, including these students and professor Click, meeting with members of the IDF who protect against palestinian terrorism, and a session where they have to pretend to have been a victim of a suicide bomber or stabbed in Jerusalem, and recite fifty times "Israel's indivisible capital"
Bet they would have a fit about having to do that. Yet the white privilege, is having to sit still for the equivalent.
Bet they would have a fit about having to do that. Yet the white privilege, is having to sit still for the equivalent.
1
Oh my goodness. The swastika DID happen, the police report has been published, yet here comes the right wing media claiming it didn't, and/or it was a "false flag" incident; in other words, black people and/or progressives did the poop swastika themselves.
Please will you guys give us a break.
All this business about free speech is fine except it's over looking one thing: racism and abuse are real. They really happen. And maybe you don't love Michael Brown but he was a human being, and like so many other black people he wound up dead and he didn't deserve to have been executed on the street.
We diminish ourselves and the values and principles of this country when we try to excuse racism, police brutality and threats to individuals and groups.
I have think a lot of this whining about "free speech" as opposed to "political correctness" means you guys miss being able to put us (women, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, black people, etc) in our places.
How about instead of blaming the victim you try listening to us?
Please will you guys give us a break.
All this business about free speech is fine except it's over looking one thing: racism and abuse are real. They really happen. And maybe you don't love Michael Brown but he was a human being, and like so many other black people he wound up dead and he didn't deserve to have been executed on the street.
We diminish ourselves and the values and principles of this country when we try to excuse racism, police brutality and threats to individuals and groups.
I have think a lot of this whining about "free speech" as opposed to "political correctness" means you guys miss being able to put us (women, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, black people, etc) in our places.
How about instead of blaming the victim you try listening to us?
4
"The protesters at Mizzou and Yale and elsewhere make a legitimate point: Universities should work harder to make all students feel they are safe and belong." Kristof says.
OK but what happens when reality or hypothesis "upsets" these students. For example Edmund Philips, nobel prize wining economist, believes (and states explicitely) that the one most important fact keeping blacks poor is the extremely high illegitimacy rate (about double that of whites). Blacks can, easily, be insulted by this. Does this mean that Dr. Philips should not be permitted to make his viewpoint known? Does it mean that students have the "right" to shout him down or close down his speeches and lectures?
Kristof seems to want it both ways. Unfortunately free inquiry does not work that way. Someone is usually insulted. That has been historically the case (look at how those believed in heliocentrism reacted to Copernicus for example).
OK but what happens when reality or hypothesis "upsets" these students. For example Edmund Philips, nobel prize wining economist, believes (and states explicitely) that the one most important fact keeping blacks poor is the extremely high illegitimacy rate (about double that of whites). Blacks can, easily, be insulted by this. Does this mean that Dr. Philips should not be permitted to make his viewpoint known? Does it mean that students have the "right" to shout him down or close down his speeches and lectures?
Kristof seems to want it both ways. Unfortunately free inquiry does not work that way. Someone is usually insulted. That has been historically the case (look at how those believed in heliocentrism reacted to Copernicus for example).
42
I'd suggest that people take a look at what AB Giamatti had to say (in "A Free & Ordered Space") about what he valued most about college--and general--discourse: "civility"!
He was quick to add that he wasn't talking about fussy behavior or arcane rules of decorum, but rather about a basic respect for ideas, for other people, and for thoughtful discourse.
Everywhere we look today--on campus, in presidential debates, in the news generally--we see yelling, shouting, or zealotry, but generally no real attempt to engage in conversation or actual exchange of ideas.
Giamatti was also clear about WHY this mattered: because education and the exchange of ideas are both fundamental for rational government and democracy. This is a key function of education, but one *nobody* ever mentions anymore--it's all about "return on investment"! No wonder our democracy is in the state it is.
And a number of posters here who try to use this thoughtful column to bash colleges don't really seem interested in free speech or democracy at all, but rather want to impose *their own* views on "uppity" college students.
He was quick to add that he wasn't talking about fussy behavior or arcane rules of decorum, but rather about a basic respect for ideas, for other people, and for thoughtful discourse.
Everywhere we look today--on campus, in presidential debates, in the news generally--we see yelling, shouting, or zealotry, but generally no real attempt to engage in conversation or actual exchange of ideas.
Giamatti was also clear about WHY this mattered: because education and the exchange of ideas are both fundamental for rational government and democracy. This is a key function of education, but one *nobody* ever mentions anymore--it's all about "return on investment"! No wonder our democracy is in the state it is.
And a number of posters here who try to use this thoughtful column to bash colleges don't really seem interested in free speech or democracy at all, but rather want to impose *their own* views on "uppity" college students.
17
Giamatti? Callabresi? Who says there was no diversity at Yale back in the good old day?
BTW, Guido Callabresi, lauded by a commenter further down the chain & rightfully so, had this idea that in a tort (negligence) action the financial loss should be bourne by the party who could better pay for it - irrespective of fault.
Hmm. Maybe he's the source of all this moral decay?
BTW, Guido Callabresi, lauded by a commenter further down the chain & rightfully so, had this idea that in a tort (negligence) action the financial loss should be bourne by the party who could better pay for it - irrespective of fault.
Hmm. Maybe he's the source of all this moral decay?
1
As it turns out, the student who berated the professor at Yale, is a woman of great privilege, even if she were not a Yale student. And yet, her and their pain is presented as insurmountable pain.
A few days ago the Times ran an article about the extraordinary and great suffering among working class white people resulting in hundreds of thousands of early deaths and even more disability.
Why hasn't the Times used its bully pulpit to help their plight?
A few days ago the Times ran an article about the extraordinary and great suffering among working class white people resulting in hundreds of thousands of early deaths and even more disability.
Why hasn't the Times used its bully pulpit to help their plight?
43
@ schbrg: So according to your rationale, if you are a wealthy or upper middle class African-American, Latino, or Asian in this country you can't possibly experience racism or racism should not affect you as much? Or do you mean that a victim of racism has no right to protest if s/he is financially privileged? Does the same logic apply wealthy and practitioners of minority religions (i.e., wealthy Jewish people protesting antisemitism)?
4
I think the Times has been covering that pretty thoroughly. Krugman, for example, has written about it both in his column and on his blog.
"White people" have been demonized--haven't you noticed?
3
The core issue here is Marxist theory that ascribes consciousness to class position. The theory does not make ethical distinctions because "false consciousness" results from one's class position. Eliminate capitalism and you eliminate false consciousness. The problem is that coercion is still necessary to make the system work (e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.). The authoritarianism at the center of the so-called PC movement is the residue of a failed model misapplied to issues of identity.
8
There are really two different issues being conflated here, One is the raw feelings around race persisting in this country, exacerbated on all sides by instant exposure on the internet. I'd add too the easy access of racists and agitators of all stripes to internet forums and blogs to spew hate and racial conflict, not all of it from whites. That some in the African-American community feel uneasy is not helped by the constant stream of outright hate (not often justly due sober criticism) directed against our first President of color. This state of affairs is separate from the speech codes and "micro-aggression" hoopla, and other offenses against robust academic freedom and speech now circulating in academia.
The trouble was started not by black activists or their allies but mostly by very pale academics with tenure and an ideological ax to grind. They were abetted in many places by an equally ideological administration or a feckless one seeking only campus peace and huge tuition payments at any price, even the death of the First Amendment and academic freedom. Then in the mix came often pampered millennials whose expectations are not to be challenged and whose feelings are not to be bruised at any time. Robust discussion making me slightly uncomfortable or causing me to rethink my views? Oh is that what university is about? Well some of us old enough to have heard of the Free Speech movement at UC Berkeley and Mario Savio thought so.
The trouble was started not by black activists or their allies but mostly by very pale academics with tenure and an ideological ax to grind. They were abetted in many places by an equally ideological administration or a feckless one seeking only campus peace and huge tuition payments at any price, even the death of the First Amendment and academic freedom. Then in the mix came often pampered millennials whose expectations are not to be challenged and whose feelings are not to be bruised at any time. Robust discussion making me slightly uncomfortable or causing me to rethink my views? Oh is that what university is about? Well some of us old enough to have heard of the Free Speech movement at UC Berkeley and Mario Savio thought so.
4
A good article. I think most professors would agree that regardless of political caste, an idea should be exposed to the light of knowledge, not shoved under the shadow of ideology.
An aspect of these protests is troublesome to me though. The language that you hear university students using to express their frustration is borrowed more from the popular usages of victimization than it is from the language of the constitution, the bill of rights, Thoreau, Gandhi, King, and other luminaries--you would presume that they have had exposure to these ideas at an institution of higher learning. You have arguments about officials not empathizing with students, not giving them a safe space to be themselves or to express their proclaimed identity, and not labeling themselves in the correct way to represent their unstated oppression. The "selfie" millennials have great energy and can quickly form themselves into collectives that are impressive in their force and immediacy; however, I don't get the sense from either Yale or Mizzou (and I got my PhD at Mizzou) that students are interested in productive discourse that will move them towards a new collective identity which is more liberatory (something ML King and Gandhi advocated) so much as they are in ensuring they feel safe to be in whatever bubble they want to be in. That's why the viral video you see with Tim Tai is all about personal space and why the students who are blocking him are so ignorant of the value of the 1st Amendment.
An aspect of these protests is troublesome to me though. The language that you hear university students using to express their frustration is borrowed more from the popular usages of victimization than it is from the language of the constitution, the bill of rights, Thoreau, Gandhi, King, and other luminaries--you would presume that they have had exposure to these ideas at an institution of higher learning. You have arguments about officials not empathizing with students, not giving them a safe space to be themselves or to express their proclaimed identity, and not labeling themselves in the correct way to represent their unstated oppression. The "selfie" millennials have great energy and can quickly form themselves into collectives that are impressive in their force and immediacy; however, I don't get the sense from either Yale or Mizzou (and I got my PhD at Mizzou) that students are interested in productive discourse that will move them towards a new collective identity which is more liberatory (something ML King and Gandhi advocated) so much as they are in ensuring they feel safe to be in whatever bubble they want to be in. That's why the viral video you see with Tim Tai is all about personal space and why the students who are blocking him are so ignorant of the value of the 1st Amendment.
30
Good comment. The practice of civil disobedience by these incipient adults has been misunderstood to the point that the practitioner is unwilling to accept any bad consequences of his/her actions.
For example, what if the coach of the Missouri Tigers football team had a spine and expelled from the team the kids who boycotted the upcoming BYU game?
For example, what if the coach of the Missouri Tigers football team had a spine and expelled from the team the kids who boycotted the upcoming BYU game?
10
It seems to me that you think students of color are or want to be in a bubble. I don't know anything more 'out of your bubble' or scary than being the only person of color on a majorly white campus and being expected to "make it a home" for four years. I went to a majorly white campus and never before in my life had my race and identity been so apparent and amplified! It's a very real issue with racism in higher education institutions, but this one video of Tim Tai seems to be used as a way to challenge the legitimacy of racism on campus by saying "hey look at those students...they are trampling on free speech." No one wants to hear or acknowledge racism and how it relates them as white people, but everyone is quick to stand up for freedom of speech...are they not the same things essentially? These higher institutions are all about creating leaders...EXCEPT when these leaders go against the status quo? And I don't know what is more comforting for white students than college campuses that are majorly white.
3
Dr. King went to jail. A real jail, in Alabama, and he stayed there and did not get a $50 fine after a quick processing, and it was very unpleasant and hot in the days before air conditioning. He did all this for his beliefs.
Today's civil disobedience has as much relation to that as the war games my nephews favor do to war.
Today's civil disobedience has as much relation to that as the war games my nephews favor do to war.
5
Mr. Kristof, I don't agree with how you characterized the Yale issue with Halloween costumes. The trouble started when Erika Christakis, a faculty member who is married to the professor in your column (and they're both administrators of a student residence) wrote a very non-helpful email to the students who live at that residence. It included the quote:"I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive?"
Let's imagine that. If you are a non-white or non-Christian student who has to deal with people who are being "a little bit" provocative, obnoxious, or yes, offensive, constantly while trying to attend to your studies, wouldn't that wear you out? Just a little bit? That people can be "provocative" about your skin color, or religion, or ethnicity - just because? Put yourself in these students' shoes. College is supposed to be their home away from home-not just a place for classroom instruction -and they're already in the minority. Are they supposed to be OK with people with blackface makeup and Afro wigs and holding "Back to the ghetto" parties because "It's just Halloween, what's the problem?"(These incidents have happened at colleges around the U.S.)
Here's the problem: so many people who pronounce "I'm more liberal than thou, so I GET it, I really do" but really don't get it when it comes to race or gender.
They really don't.
Let's imagine that. If you are a non-white or non-Christian student who has to deal with people who are being "a little bit" provocative, obnoxious, or yes, offensive, constantly while trying to attend to your studies, wouldn't that wear you out? Just a little bit? That people can be "provocative" about your skin color, or religion, or ethnicity - just because? Put yourself in these students' shoes. College is supposed to be their home away from home-not just a place for classroom instruction -and they're already in the minority. Are they supposed to be OK with people with blackface makeup and Afro wigs and holding "Back to the ghetto" parties because "It's just Halloween, what's the problem?"(These incidents have happened at colleges around the U.S.)
Here's the problem: so many people who pronounce "I'm more liberal than thou, so I GET it, I really do" but really don't get it when it comes to race or gender.
They really don't.
23
It's not their home. It's a rather large community of thousands of people with a diversity of backgrounds and opinions. What's needed in such communities is tolerance of a wide variety of activities and beliefs. That means NOT constantly monitoring what others are doing and screaming at them for perceived offenses.
9
Why do you intentionally leave out White and Christian students? As Erika Cristasis puts so succinctly in her email no one really cares if you offend religious people with "risque" outfits. Just imagine how dismissive college students are when you tell them their costume of your lord and savior Jesus Christ offends you. "Lighten up" they will say.
12
There is no right, constitutional or otherwise, not to be offended. The notion that everyone's life, public or private, should be free of offense is inane. Period. End of story.
However, I find it peculiar that it is always African-American liberals who allege hearing all these racial slurs. Is it that conservative blacks are not targeted by racists? Or, is that there's another source for these unvetted stories. God forbid, because from "mattress girl" to Tawana Brawley or the Duke lacrosse stripper rape allegations, we have never seen or heard of a liberal, or an African-American, making false allegations of political or monetary gain.
Don't be surprised if just coincidentally, of course, there's a rash of such cases between now and November 2016.
However, I find it peculiar that it is always African-American liberals who allege hearing all these racial slurs. Is it that conservative blacks are not targeted by racists? Or, is that there's another source for these unvetted stories. God forbid, because from "mattress girl" to Tawana Brawley or the Duke lacrosse stripper rape allegations, we have never seen or heard of a liberal, or an African-American, making false allegations of political or monetary gain.
Don't be surprised if just coincidentally, of course, there's a rash of such cases between now and November 2016.
21
The former dean of Yale Law School, Guido Calabresi, emphasized one thing above all to the students. He said that we all need to be civil and respectful of one another. That was an obvious but powerful theme that has stayed with me for a long time.
We don't need to be civil to proven dangerous bigots such as self-proclaimed Nazis, but that's not what we are facing nowadays in our colleges.
I hope that Dean Calabresi's message is still being shared at Yale and that the students learn how to engage in logical civil discourse so that we need not be embarrassed by another video like the one showing a Yale college student being disrespectful to Professor Christakis.
We don't need to be civil to proven dangerous bigots such as self-proclaimed Nazis, but that's not what we are facing nowadays in our colleges.
I hope that Dean Calabresi's message is still being shared at Yale and that the students learn how to engage in logical civil discourse so that we need not be embarrassed by another video like the one showing a Yale college student being disrespectful to Professor Christakis.
16
ReEsteban: Unlikely. Disrespect for university professors and the forced resignation of TW at Mizzou will only embolden the. activists. If they r capable of giving the old heave ho to a university rector, president, they are capable of other things. My prediction is that student activism will spread throughout the country like a patch of oil on water. Professor recently was forced to resign at Mizzou because he had encouraged his students not to give in to "bullies."There is a climate of intimidation on US campuses, and professors think twice before downgrading students, giving them low grades even if their performance merits it.Inevitable result is that future employers will look at graduates of Mizzou or Ithaca College, and conclude that a degree from either school is not particularly worthwhile, since it was likely to have been granted under duress by a professor in fear of losing his position.In the short term the activists, egged on by BLM, have won, since they have "gotten their own " back against a mostly white establishment, but in the long term they will lose because future employers will know that the diploma was not granted on merit,
1
A deep breath is not what we need. The liberal arts tradition is crumbling because of hyper-liberal activists posing as students. Truth is what we need.
I teach at a liberal arts college. What do I do when a student tells me, "there are thousands of genders and I can be any one I want to be"? Do you think that I can honestly challenge this student?
When I have a student who writes a paper on the evils of hypermasculinity, can I challenge him to view masculinity as anything other than repugnant?
When a student comes into class with 'Black Power' on his t-shirt, and is failing the course, do you think that I can fail him?
I want to get tenure. I am politically conservative. Do you really think that I have freedom of speech?
I teach at a liberal arts college. What do I do when a student tells me, "there are thousands of genders and I can be any one I want to be"? Do you think that I can honestly challenge this student?
When I have a student who writes a paper on the evils of hypermasculinity, can I challenge him to view masculinity as anything other than repugnant?
When a student comes into class with 'Black Power' on his t-shirt, and is failing the course, do you think that I can fail him?
I want to get tenure. I am politically conservative. Do you really think that I have freedom of speech?
81
As a tenured professor, I would say yes. You have to stay in the realm of ideas and stick to your guns (sorry about the microaggression there--I hope you don't come from a frontier family that had to use guns to survive on a meager portion of food. I don't want to bring up any bitterness in that regard.) You have to take the higher road and not get bogged down by ideology but keep ensuring that you are presenting ideas that need to be confronted by ideas. Social and political commitment should flow out of those ideas, not the other way around, and that move has to be outside of your purview and left to the students on their own. Academia has flourished since the 60s on this notion that political commitment precedes instruction in the classroom, and so instruction has become an exercise in shibboleths and indoctrination. Now is a remarkable opportunity to free students from this hyper-compartmentalized, over-politicized identity they have constructed for themselves and to introduce them to a better "story" than they've been told and that they have told themselves that victimization is the way forward.
5
Maybe the problem is that colleges have allowed courses to be taught where a paper about hypermasculinity is appropriate. (Whatever that is, I'm certain that it will not help us become more competitive internationally.)
Instead of studying traditional liberal arts subjects - the classics, rhetoric, history - or even the more modern ones, many students today study themselves; e.g., gender studies, Afirican Anerican studies.
When we enable this hypernarcissistic curriculum we shouldn't be surprised when the students wig out over the slightest transgression committed toward them.
Instead of studying traditional liberal arts subjects - the classics, rhetoric, history - or even the more modern ones, many students today study themselves; e.g., gender studies, Afirican Anerican studies.
When we enable this hypernarcissistic curriculum we shouldn't be surprised when the students wig out over the slightest transgression committed toward them.
5
@candide: "Do you think that I can honestly challenge this student?"
"... can I challenge him to view masculinity as anything other than repugnant?"
What do you mean by "challenge"? Is it the role of an educator to "challenge" students?
@candide: "... a student comes into class with 'Black Power' on his t-shirt, and is failing the course ..."
You didn't use the word "challenge" in this case. Why not "challenge" the student to explain his t-shirt?
"... can I challenge him to view masculinity as anything other than repugnant?"
What do you mean by "challenge"? Is it the role of an educator to "challenge" students?
@candide: "... a student comes into class with 'Black Power' on his t-shirt, and is failing the course ..."
You didn't use the word "challenge" in this case. Why not "challenge" the student to explain his t-shirt?
1
Gee--something I can more or less agree with you on. Its been a long time. Nobody at a university should get away with using the n-word or the f-word when talking about gays. I believe there have been death threats against minorities at many colleges and they are not always taken seriously enough. The type of talk described in the op-ed would be unacceptable at any major company. It may be that the Greek system of selectivity no longer has a place in a university that tries to be inclusive. But, at the same time ethnic or gender-based associations on college campuses which exclude others may also have outlived their usefulness.
This newspaper has a bad habit of calling people who disagree with or have reservations about its position "haters" and "racists." This does not help us get to solution, especially with issues that lack a broad consensus like transgender rights. The recent editorial on the Houston voting is a case in point. The Times's rhetoric is often not helpful at all.
I believe there is too much "P.C." at some places and we have forgotten how to disagree without dividing into warring camps. We have forgotten the importance of accommodating the views of others. However, conditions at the University of Missouri seem to be bad enough and the administration's management lame enough to justify the changes that have happened.
This newspaper has a bad habit of calling people who disagree with or have reservations about its position "haters" and "racists." This does not help us get to solution, especially with issues that lack a broad consensus like transgender rights. The recent editorial on the Houston voting is a case in point. The Times's rhetoric is often not helpful at all.
I believe there is too much "P.C." at some places and we have forgotten how to disagree without dividing into warring camps. We have forgotten the importance of accommodating the views of others. However, conditions at the University of Missouri seem to be bad enough and the administration's management lame enough to justify the changes that have happened.
6
As I have said before, the best solution to this is eight years in the wilderness for the Democratic Party, in which they have to decide what policies will get them elected again, rather than imposing them from on high.
3
Freedom is annoying.
Take that as you will. I take it as a reminder that by granting others the same freedoms that I want to enjoy sooner or later they will say or do something I do not like. I have to accept that or admit what I want then is not a universal freedom, but privilege.
Take that as you will. I take it as a reminder that by granting others the same freedoms that I want to enjoy sooner or later they will say or do something I do not like. I have to accept that or admit what I want then is not a universal freedom, but privilege.
17
Mr. Kristof seems to suggest compromise, but why do people of color always have to "meet halfway" with the racists? You wouldn't tell a woman to meet halfway with a man who sexually harassed her at work, would you? Every time people of color protest and bring forth their concerns for a more inclusive and sensitive college community, their concerns and realities become an attack on freedom of speech or is deemed anti-intellectual, but this "freedom speech" almost seems foreign to other public spaces: PTA meetings, public schools, work environment, church, and etc. What is it with colleges that they get a pass on being blatantly and repeatedly racist? Is it because it's a space of learning, free thought and contemplation, and openness? Quite the opposite. Higher education institutions, like that of Mizzou and Yale, are spaces that white people have dominated and thrived in, while people of color were barred from. This "freedom of speech" reasoning comes as a backlash to people of color demanding a space for their worldview and realities, which does not do well with white students, white leaders, and white institutions. To say that "it's complicated" and this is "life," Mr. Kristof is as passive as can be towards racism on college campuses. Then again, it's not his reality, so he can use such language and go to sleep at night just fine.
210
How is Mr. Kristof asking you to meet half-way? He is simply saying that minority students shouldn't attack journalists, or respond excessively. He wasn't saying that people who verbally abuse minorities shouldn't be punished, but rather that minorities shouldn't punish the majority for what a minority of the majority has said.
11
Using historical racism to suggest intellectual discussion can be dispensed with is myopic. What those students at Yale did was not political protest-- they threw a tantrum. There is a difference. Your dismissal of Mr. Kristof's thoughtful piece based simply on his 'race' is equally shallow. I say this as a professor and a woman of color who is appalled by the muzzling of intellectual inquiry that seems all the rage these days.
25
This is not a Manichaean universe. At least at Mizzou, the events are not just "people of color" vs. "the racists." Also, compromise doesn't always mean there are just two parties, that people meet exactly halfway, or that misanthropes are solely on the other side of the equation. I agree that we need to be wary of disproportionality and that often times those who are complaining for a very good reason get blamed for complaining (it's alway easier to maintain the status quo than to progress into new, uncharted territory). But compromise is an educational process, and it seems to be lost in this debate, at least initially. MLK and Gandhi protested against policies and laws, they didn't protest so that someone could say a catch phrase about white privilege. They recognized they needed compromise to make things change for everyone and that everyone needed to be involved.
Finally, isn't there irony in the football players being the saviors of the cause? Sure it's effective because it hits the university in its pocket book, but essentially aren't they just replicating white privilege by playing? Look at the stands and the expensive seats. What is the predominant color there? Look in the law school, what is the predominant color there? Look on the football and basketball court, what is the predominant color there? They self-righteously force the university to admit its stereotypes and then reinforce them.
Finally, isn't there irony in the football players being the saviors of the cause? Sure it's effective because it hits the university in its pocket book, but essentially aren't they just replicating white privilege by playing? Look at the stands and the expensive seats. What is the predominant color there? Look in the law school, what is the predominant color there? Look on the football and basketball court, what is the predominant color there? They self-righteously force the university to admit its stereotypes and then reinforce them.
7
Intolerance is disproportionately an instinct on the left? That makes as much sense as to say that tolerance is disproportionately an instinct of the right. It makes no sense to say either. Intolerant of what, of whom, why, in what social context or historical frame, to what end? Can we ask these questions instead of batting around phrases like "free speech" as if they had some fixed or context-free meaning?
134
Many on the left are tolerant of everything....except the out group, which just so happens to comprise about 50% of the electorate. I think you need to examine where a lot of the speech suppression is coming from. PC is being used more as a sword than a shield lately. It is difficult to watch the UM videos and have apologists try to justify professors engaging in overt suppression of speech via physical intimidation. Replace those professors with white supremacists physically removing minorities from a public space and see if that changes your view.
The test is whether you can tolerate the unkind speech of the out group, not those of the in group that look different than you that you happen to agree with.
Free speech isn't a choice, it's the law. "Safe spaces" and minority status don't override that.
The test is whether you can tolerate the unkind speech of the out group, not those of the in group that look different than you that you happen to agree with.
Free speech isn't a choice, it's the law. "Safe spaces" and minority status don't override that.
9
Sorry, Campus Liberal, free speech actually has a fixed and context-free meaning here in America. In fact, it's enshrined in the Constitution and centuries of case law. It might behoove you, since you are self-identified as a campus dweller, to study the First Amendment and its litigation history since 1791. And in the process you might learn something about tolerance.
5
Intolerant of anyone deemed to fall outside political correctness.
Some students at some colleges have decided to revise one of western civilizations most important freedoms. What I don't understand is any acquiescence by faculty. Should they not resist this their institutions are in peril.
391
Because at many institutions (Washington University is an example) the faculty have no influence, no more than the electricians. Administrations have bullied faculty and deprived them of all their former rights and influence.
10
Because when they go against the grain, they are treated as at Yale or quietly do not get tenure. Next question?
4
When you see Melisa Click hysterically, yet with full confidence that she, on top of that a faculty member in department of journalism(!) screams into camera her lungs, calling for some mob "muscle help" to remove a student/freelance reporter for ESPN who dare to report on Click's at al. very public protest at very public space and Clicks feel absolutely comfortable and justified to act this way, we know - because there are tens of thousands of American college faculty members who feel and thing the way she does, even when not acting always exactly (and when cameras are present) as she did, there is actually little hope that there are enough faculty members at too many of our colleges to resist this onslaught, now from the extreme left mob.
This is P.C. history repeating itself. At Princeton in 1963, the Whig-Clio Philosophic Society invited Mme. Nhu, wife (widow?) of the boss of South Vietnam to speak, then had the audacity to invitie Gov. Ross Barnett of Mississippi to speak, not long after the bombings in Montgomery Alabama.
The "liberals" on campus, including many professors, decried the invitations and tried to get the university to force Whig-Clio (a student organization) to cancel the invitations.
The university declined to interfere. The "liberals" on campus paraded and demonstrated, loudly proclaiming that Mme Nhu and Gov. Barnett did not have the same rights to free speech as did those who opposed the VietNam war and who thought segregation abhorrent.
One of the reasons I am still proud of having graduated from Princeton is that the administration refused to cave into the politically correct dungeon, and allowed free speech and democratic debate on hugely sensitive topics.
Freedom of speech is the basic bedrock of all other freedoms, as philosophers have known for centuries. Without it, we are doomed to darkness. It can be argued that the principal purpose of universities is to teach that freedom, and to allow every sort of speech, even hate speech, to be breached to the students, so they may learn to analyse and reason and debate and ... in the end, choose what they believe.
The "liberals" on campus, including many professors, decried the invitations and tried to get the university to force Whig-Clio (a student organization) to cancel the invitations.
The university declined to interfere. The "liberals" on campus paraded and demonstrated, loudly proclaiming that Mme Nhu and Gov. Barnett did not have the same rights to free speech as did those who opposed the VietNam war and who thought segregation abhorrent.
One of the reasons I am still proud of having graduated from Princeton is that the administration refused to cave into the politically correct dungeon, and allowed free speech and democratic debate on hugely sensitive topics.
Freedom of speech is the basic bedrock of all other freedoms, as philosophers have known for centuries. Without it, we are doomed to darkness. It can be argued that the principal purpose of universities is to teach that freedom, and to allow every sort of speech, even hate speech, to be breached to the students, so they may learn to analyse and reason and debate and ... in the end, choose what they believe.
191
frugalfish, that works both ways. During the early 1960s I remember Marxist protestors being beaten up (literally) on campus while the police did nothing. university administrators also did nothing to any of the students doing the beatings. No expulsions, reprimands, etc. Nothing.
9
Beautiful my brother. Princeton - in the nation's service.
1
I agree on these precise cases, but think that there are limits (a French sensibility, no doubt). Hate speech that advocates violence against anyone, hate speech that stigmatizes any "class" to which one is born (race, gender...) as opposed to a class that one joins (political party, religion...)... these are things that I feel can be legitimately restricted, on or off college campuses.
2
Free speech has nothing to do with listening to a diversity of opinions. Condoleeza Rice does not have a free speech right to give a paid commencement speech to many thousands of listeners. She is still free to share her thoughts anywhere she wants with no legal recourse.
Which takes precedence, white Mizzou students' right to gather on campus threateningly chanting "white power," or black Mizzou students' right to feel and be safe? This is not a level playing field.
Which takes precedence, white Mizzou students' right to gather on campus threateningly chanting "white power," or black Mizzou students' right to feel and be safe? This is not a level playing field.
8
This quote should answer your false dichotomy: " the late Sir Isaiah Berlin, argued that there was a deep human yearning to find the One Great Truth. In fact, he said, that’s a dead end: Our fate is to struggle with a “plurality of values,” with competing truths, with trying to reconcile what may well be irreconcilable.
That’s unsatisfying. It’s complicated. It’s also life."
As for free speech, the fact of the matter is that there's no hate speech exception from the First Amendment. Eugene Volokh, a Law Scholar, provides more details in this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-t...
That’s unsatisfying. It’s complicated. It’s also life."
As for free speech, the fact of the matter is that there's no hate speech exception from the First Amendment. Eugene Volokh, a Law Scholar, provides more details in this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-t...
16
OK Sam. but let's say that black students invite the black panthers to class. Does that mean I have to be forced to listen to it? Why should I not protest or shout the black panthers down? After all, they are racists. Now, do you get the problem with your argument?
13
No one has a right to "feel safe" from expressions of unwanted opinions.
16
At colleges and universities it seems reasonable to expect that when one speaks, others have a right to speak back, especially in learning communities supposedly based on the free exchange of ideas.
Obviously "hate speech" is an exception, as is language akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. Reasonable people understand how to exchange ideas, even ideas that challenge our racial and gender beliefs.
Regarding UMissouri, based on the information I have read, I am yet to hear anything that required the urgency of a "hunger strike" . Did I miss something?
Obviously "hate speech" is an exception, as is language akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. Reasonable people understand how to exchange ideas, even ideas that challenge our racial and gender beliefs.
Regarding UMissouri, based on the information I have read, I am yet to hear anything that required the urgency of a "hunger strike" . Did I miss something?
34
Hate speech is not an exception. Do you know how many times the Supreme Court has upheld state action that has restricted speech?
Jason Pierre Paul could count them on the fingers of his injured hand.
If/when a hate speech law is reviewed by the high court, expect it to be struck down or, at a minimum, severely limited.
I'm half black. People can call me the N word everyday. I like my First Amendment though. The trade off is not even close.
Jason Pierre Paul could count them on the fingers of his injured hand.
If/when a hate speech law is reviewed by the high court, expect it to be struck down or, at a minimum, severely limited.
I'm half black. People can call me the N word everyday. I like my First Amendment though. The trade off is not even close.
27
Yelling fire (WHEN THERE IS NO FIRE) in a theater is action that can lead to immediate danger. Even there, if there is an actual fire, it is OK to yell "FIRE". Yelling at those who go into the theater that they will burn in the fire of hell is permitted speech as that fire is in the future and not an immediate danger.
Comparing it to hate speech is ludicrous.
Comparing it to hate speech is ludicrous.
6
Hate speech is a far-left liberal construct that has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution. It is name-calling, and timid liberals cannot bear to be called names. It is not remotely the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a theater. Sooner or later it will get to the Supreme Court and be tossed for good.
9
What happens when embracing fair and balanced leads to FOX News? One must remain vigilant against false equivalencies. All ideas are worth something , they are not, however, equal in worth.
10
Mr. gage, the only way that can be determined though is through intellectual exchange. Not something that mr. Kristoff would support if it is not "inclusive" (i.e., does not hurt someone's feelings).
3
I guess we should all consult Rick Gage when we ponder which ideas have worth and which do not. Or, we could just formulate our opinions, allow others the liberty to do the same, and accept that we won't always be able to cocoon in a safe space rather than hear or read something that irritates our finely honed sensitivities.
14
"What happens when embracing fair and balanced leads to FOX News?"
Then that's what happens.
The idea is to debate the merits of the ideas, not to squelch the ones with which you disagree.
Then that's what happens.
The idea is to debate the merits of the ideas, not to squelch the ones with which you disagree.
21
The author of this article was coward enough to not make a point or express an opinio, simply describing the different opinions, with nothing to add or conclude. Yes, the environment for minorities is not safe. But do you really need to yell incontrolably at your teacher (or anyone) to be heard? Yes, the administrators don't listen to your complains and make light of racial tensions. But is it really necessary to monopolize a public space and take by force those you don't want around? And what is the problem with the media?They won't bite. The cause can be noble, but these students (and teachers!) need to grow up, become adults before any of their complains can even be heard. It is difficult to debate and make changes with 8 year olds throwing a tantrum.
38
How are minorities not safe on campus?
5
Mr. Kristof, let me commend you for being willing to recognize that conservatives are much more willing to be exposed to speech with which they disagree than liberal are. You are right. When I was in the student government at Georgia Tech, the African American Student Union asked me to sponsor a bill approving Al Sharpton as the speaker for Black History Month at the university. I readily agreed, even though I consider Sharpton a charlatan and a racist, because I refuse to shut down speech with which I disagree or that I find offensive. Other conservatives within the student government eventually supported the bill, but they complained that Georgia Tech funds were being expended to support this speech. This was true, but the decision to grant the AASU funds for a speech had already been made, and I believed that any decision to deny this request would be related to the content of the speech and not to the money. My reasoning prevailed in the debate, and the speech was approved. Can you imagine a liberal at Yale University making a similar defense on behalf of a speech by Ann Coulter?
However, you underestimate the threat to our freedoms these “little Robespierres” represent. Not only do they want to punish, discipline, and terminate people for speech, they also want to force people to confess progressive dogma. One of their demands to the president of the University of Missouri was that he admit his white privilege. They are the Inquisition.
However, you underestimate the threat to our freedoms these “little Robespierres” represent. Not only do they want to punish, discipline, and terminate people for speech, they also want to force people to confess progressive dogma. One of their demands to the president of the University of Missouri was that he admit his white privilege. They are the Inquisition.
230
Racial slurs, and threats, are so early 20th century. No excuse for these behaviors, and threats are criminal. But, when some African American students, and some looney whites, scream about white privilege, give me a break. Plenty of whites without money or privilege, and fortunately a growing number of blacks with money and privilege, and prestigious positions. Making whites feel guilty about being irredeemably racist is insanity. Some people are racist, on both sides of the fence. Many others are not.
20
"Mr. Kristof, let me commend you for being willing to recognize that conservatives are much more willing to be exposed to speech with which they disagree than liberal are."
that's funny. When I was a student in the early 1960s I remember Marxist protestors getting the manure beaten out of them by students and non-student by standards. Do you suppose the majority of those doing the beating were of the left or right?
that's funny. When I was a student in the early 1960s I remember Marxist protestors getting the manure beaten out of them by students and non-student by standards. Do you suppose the majority of those doing the beating were of the left or right?
4
"They are the Inquisition." Yes, it's a 'repeat after me' thing and reminds me of Salem, where the word "witch" leveled at someone would land them in jail, under investigation, judged guilty, and hung. Now the word has changed, but that one word has the same damning power. I also see a resemblance to the fundamentalist mind-set of ISIL--submit, agree, or be eradicated, killed. To define everyone by skin color is pure lunacy. It is an essentialism from which we can never escape--there is no redemption. You are born with x skin color, for which you had no choice, and yet it will define you forever.
3
I'm sure there are thousands of students, including black students, who would love to attend Yale regardless of whom the buildings are named after or whether a professor's wife sent a lame email about Halloween costumes. If an Ivy League school isn't sufficiently attending to every hurt feeling and discomfort, perhaps they should step aside and allow others who would show more appreciation for the amazing, elite and, yes, privileged education and its attendant life-long benefits they are receiving. There are some many in our country struggling with so many real problems, it's difficult to sympathize with crybaby first world complaints.
170
I am glad you made the connection to Mount Holyoke. It, along with the few remaining women's colleges, is seeing its single-sex mission under attack from outside and from within. There is so much enthusiasm for supporting transgender students that most people seem to not realize that by admitting them, the school has passively gone coed. Men- naturally born or otherwise- do not belong at Mount Holyoke because it undermines Mount Holyoke's mission to educate women. It undermines the rights of the students who believe that Mount Holyoke is still single-sex and choose to go there because of that single-sex atmosphere. Likewise, the protesters at Mizzou were so concerned with their own needs that they violated the First Amendment rights of the student media members.
It is unpopular to say, but being in a minority does not give someone more rights than someone in the majority.
It is unpopular to say, but being in a minority does not give someone more rights than someone in the majority.
274
Women are not a minority. Women are the majority.
Not counting certain clergy schools, are there any male-only colleges left?
Not counting certain clergy schools, are there any male-only colleges left?
4
I believe that Sarah was referring to transgenders as being a minority.
2
Dave, none. And that's the way feminists want it. Male only colleges are discriminatory while female only schools are, naturally, inclusive. Hypocrisy at its best.
8
Obama chided GOP candidates to quit being so sensitive. His point was, if you can't deal with reporters, how can you possibly deal with Putin? The Yale protests bring a similar thought process, if you wimps can't deal with a Halloween mask, how can you deal with the world when you get outside your cushy, pampered, little school?
312
This is NOT the same thing.
For pete's sake. Being strong enough to deal with a tough foreign leader isn't the same thing as having to tolerate racism in your home.
And the university is the students' home. That's their point.
Also we have, or should have transcended the 19th century by now. Why on earth would anybody think it's cool, or cute, or funny, to mock black people, or Arabs, or Jews, or women?
Anyway, college students are generally kids, they are not running for leader of the world.
You're making a rather absurd comparison to be honest.
For pete's sake. Being strong enough to deal with a tough foreign leader isn't the same thing as having to tolerate racism in your home.
And the university is the students' home. That's their point.
Also we have, or should have transcended the 19th century by now. Why on earth would anybody think it's cool, or cute, or funny, to mock black people, or Arabs, or Jews, or women?
Anyway, college students are generally kids, they are not running for leader of the world.
You're making a rather absurd comparison to be honest.
3
I just saw A Tel of Two Cities performed at my child's High School, and although I haven't read the book, the impression from the performance was that anyone could have lost their head (literally) in the revolutionary frenzy. I hope that there will be some calm and time taken to review some of these issues at universities - does everyone really have to lose their jobs over complaints from a handful of students about Halloween costuming? Save the guillotine for the worst offenders and behaviors and let's all try to take a breath about the other issues regarding free speech.
26
Somehow, the right has turned a debate about systemic racism on campus into a debate about free speech.
What's happened at Yale recently?
A black Yale student (who happened to be the son of Charles Blow) was held and arrested at gunpoint because police were looking for a black man in the area who had allegedly committed a crime.
A Yale fraternity (SAE) held a Whites-only party and turned away black girls at the door.
Black Yale students live in a college named for Calhoun, a man who fought for the right to own their ancestors.
And now, when Yale students sent around an email asking for fellow students to be conscientious about the potential impact of poor Halloween costumes, one of the masters of their dormitory dismissed this simple call for conscientiousness and inclusivity as a call for censorship and said they were coddled.
Here's the thing. To be a "Master" of a residential college at Yale is a privilege. It is somewhat the equivalent of being an RA at a dormitory. Faculty members are chosen for their ability to create welcoming and inclusive environments in student dorms- to make them feel at home. This has nothing to do with academic freedom or free speech.
Erika Christakis sent an email, in her capacity as Master, that harms the inclusivity of that dormitory. It's fine to keep her on as a professor, but she simply isn't good at her other job- making sure students feel welcome in their own homes. Being a college "Master" is a privilege, not a right, for her
What's happened at Yale recently?
A black Yale student (who happened to be the son of Charles Blow) was held and arrested at gunpoint because police were looking for a black man in the area who had allegedly committed a crime.
A Yale fraternity (SAE) held a Whites-only party and turned away black girls at the door.
Black Yale students live in a college named for Calhoun, a man who fought for the right to own their ancestors.
And now, when Yale students sent around an email asking for fellow students to be conscientious about the potential impact of poor Halloween costumes, one of the masters of their dormitory dismissed this simple call for conscientiousness and inclusivity as a call for censorship and said they were coddled.
Here's the thing. To be a "Master" of a residential college at Yale is a privilege. It is somewhat the equivalent of being an RA at a dormitory. Faculty members are chosen for their ability to create welcoming and inclusive environments in student dorms- to make them feel at home. This has nothing to do with academic freedom or free speech.
Erika Christakis sent an email, in her capacity as Master, that harms the inclusivity of that dormitory. It's fine to keep her on as a professor, but she simply isn't good at her other job- making sure students feel welcome in their own homes. Being a college "Master" is a privilege, not a right, for her
25
This is an inaccurate and biased summary of the Christakis email. It was a thoughtful and respectful communication, but I would encourage NYT readers to actually read the email and make up their own minds.
33
Charles Blow's son was arrested by a Black police officer, so that is probably not the best example of racism. Also the "whites only" party has been alleged but not proved. And although you didn't mention it, the feces swastika supposedly part of the Univ of Missouri debacle has not been documented. No photo. No witness. No formal complaint. It seems to be a lie - kind of like the "hands up don't shoot lie" as documented by Mr Holder's DOJ - never actually happened in Ferguson.
35
It's not just the right that is appalled at the disrespectful, incredibly rude treatment given the two Masters by these brats. I read Ms. Christakis' email in full. It's tone was respectful and thoughtful. What did she and her husband get in return? Hysteria. You don't have to be a right-winger to see that. It was plain as day.
22
The lack of diversity goes far deeper than ideology on American campuses. Vast swathes of the working classes, especially working class whites, are unwelcome and excluded and nobody, nobody speaks up for them.
The clearest statistics on this point come from the experience of veterans. American elite (and elitist) universities, including Yale, Harvard and Princeton, and most of the elite liberal arts colleges, have structured their undergraduate admissions in ways that exclude veterans and refuse to do anything about it. The working class is good enough to die in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect the spoiled legacy admits, black and white, but not good enough to considered for admission. Columbia University is the rare exception.
See this Inside Higher Ed article published today, Veterans' Day 2015. The numbers are appalling, even disgusting.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/11/11/where-are-veterans-elite...
The clearest statistics on this point come from the experience of veterans. American elite (and elitist) universities, including Yale, Harvard and Princeton, and most of the elite liberal arts colleges, have structured their undergraduate admissions in ways that exclude veterans and refuse to do anything about it. The working class is good enough to die in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect the spoiled legacy admits, black and white, but not good enough to considered for admission. Columbia University is the rare exception.
See this Inside Higher Ed article published today, Veterans' Day 2015. The numbers are appalling, even disgusting.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/11/11/where-are-veterans-elite...
49
Yale did take the step sometime in the recent past of removing the stained glass window in Calhoun Hall that showed the slave holder and Yale alumnus holding a chain attached to a black man lying on the ground. I guess that is progress of sorts, but considering the mans history I think they should seriously consider changing the name of the dormitory.
8
there is a frat house (occupied by a black frat) on my campus named after Mugabe . Should it also be renamed?
19
Re Yoda: Of course naming a fraternity house after one of Africa's most bloodthirsty dictators, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe(formerly RHODESIA)should be renamed, but don't count on it. Mugabe, a Shona whose Fifth Brigade, trained by North KOREA, murdered over 20,000 innocents in his crackdown in Matabeleland after assuming power in 1980.He has also expropriated, for the benefit of his political cronies, some of the most fruitful farmland in the country, whose owners were threatened with losing their lives unless they gave up their property, Result: Zimbabwe, once an agricultural breadbasket,whose exports surpassed imports, is now dependent on imports, and living standards for most citizens r lower now than they were under Smith.The fact that the fraternity brothers in question chose the name Mugabe house tells us that a)they r ignorant of African history and (b)r insensitive to other students, both black and white who believe in standards of decency..But don't count on its being renamed: Given the polarized atmosphere,anyone who suggested it would be accused of being anti minority, and politically insensitive. All of this portends the end of free speech on Mizzou's campus as well as on other campuses throughout the country.
1
As a politically middle of the road voter, I often disagree with Mr. Kristof. But he has the courage to say what many already know - that the left can be more bellicose, bullying, intolerant, and smug than any Tea Party Republican. And this is not a new development. When I was in college in the 1970s, my professors showed a great enthusiasm for left-leaning attitudes, and huge disdain for anything that smacked of accommodation. My own children report that on campus, you must adhere to the leftist dogma - that nothing is good unless it's pro-gay, pro-Muslim, pro-black, pro-immigration, pro-anything-but-plain-vanilla-white. And OMG, if you dare say you support Israel's right to exist, you are toast, both socially and academically. In the end, I still vote Democrat because I believe in justice and equality, but it must be hard for leftists to always know that they're right.
130
There's an underlying idea hear that I don't hear anyone talking about, and that is the lack of anyone these days to be "convinced" by a calm debate or argument made by someone with a differing opinion.
It's human nature to want to be "right" in our thoughts and actions. But to completely dig in and refuse to listen to an argument and decide that your initial thoughts might be incorrect, are completely absent.
It's not a weakness to change your mind because you've been convinced by someone else that perhaps your viewpoint was wrong or mis-informed.
The polarization of politics, relationships - everything, it seems - stems form the lack of anyone to listen to anyone else's viewpoint and seriously consider it's validity.
Instead we get something like, "whoever yells the loudest wins." The result is the absence of true debate and closed minds at a time when it should be the opposite.
It's human nature to want to be "right" in our thoughts and actions. But to completely dig in and refuse to listen to an argument and decide that your initial thoughts might be incorrect, are completely absent.
It's not a weakness to change your mind because you've been convinced by someone else that perhaps your viewpoint was wrong or mis-informed.
The polarization of politics, relationships - everything, it seems - stems form the lack of anyone to listen to anyone else's viewpoint and seriously consider it's validity.
Instead we get something like, "whoever yells the loudest wins." The result is the absence of true debate and closed minds at a time when it should be the opposite.
51
I think we're missing one portion of the situation, and that's the concept of a safe space. This concept is frequently ridiculed in the media today, but in the adult world, we absolutely have a safe space: our home. In our homes, we can set whatever rules we choose, without even giving, much less needing to justify, a reason. In our homes we can limit speech, ban firearm possession, quarter soldiers in times of peace... you get the idea. As adults, we're expected to maintain decorum in public, and retreat to our safe space when we're unable to do so. We go home when we're drunk at a dinner party, infuriated by our favorite sports team losing, or disgusted at a movie.
In a university setting, there's no clear delineation between personal space and private space. A student in the dorms may have an assigned roommate, and then can't even control the space in their bedrooms. I find it totally reasonable to expect a student to confront the legacy of blackface (for example) in a history class but not in their dorm rooms. And I think that get's to the matter at hand at Yale (and some of the other college incidents you mentioned), there's no clear delineation between personal and public space. I would argue that students protesting to cancel a play or a speaker have pushed the line too far the other direction.
The university is an amalgamation of all sorts of competing ideas, and it's no surprise that things get explosive when you cram them all together.
In a university setting, there's no clear delineation between personal space and private space. A student in the dorms may have an assigned roommate, and then can't even control the space in their bedrooms. I find it totally reasonable to expect a student to confront the legacy of blackface (for example) in a history class but not in their dorm rooms. And I think that get's to the matter at hand at Yale (and some of the other college incidents you mentioned), there's no clear delineation between personal and public space. I would argue that students protesting to cancel a play or a speaker have pushed the line too far the other direction.
The university is an amalgamation of all sorts of competing ideas, and it's no surprise that things get explosive when you cram them all together.
7
Wrong. Your dormitory room (or your half of a shared room) or your apartment is your private personal space. Nothing else is (except the bathroom stall when you are in it).
15
Brad: I think you're spot-on with the space idea. If you look at the video of the students trying to intimidate the photographer, most of the argument is about space. Perhaps part of the problem is that the "selfie" generation has created this idea that they are their own individual spaces that can't be infiltrated by anything else. They can create their own "hotspots" with their cell phones, and they can include anyone in that space that can fit within the frame of the "selfie." But an older generation didn't grow up with that bubble around them. The loss of personal space was something that happened in rubbing shoulders with others, and so identity politics had more of a give-and-take feel to it that could be negotiated. Now, anyplace where you are is your own bubble of safety that needs to be respected and that is non-negotiable. I think a lot of the traditional notions we have of public and private are being structurally changed by the constant peering into one's own face or one's own world in a cell phone, and it is a threat to compromise, communalism, and collective identities.
2
What we are seeing is fascism, pure and simple. These students (pejoratively referred to as Social Justice Warriors) do not want an intellectual debate on institutional racism or dismissive attitudes towards racist incidents. They want their political narrative, in which white hetero cis men can only do wrong and people of color can only do right to prevail and they want to silence opposing or dissenting views. The best example of this was the Yale incident where Erika Kristasis made and incredibly tepid dissent from a previous administration email and was treated as a war criminal because of it. These students dont want dialogue and for that reason alone they shouldnt be on a college campus.
150
Joe:
Absolutely, unequivocally, 100% correct.
Absolutely, unequivocally, 100% correct.
7
Val in Brooklyn, NY to Joe in NOLA
Take a look at the comments from Ted in Brooklyn, NY & Tiffany in Saint Paul. You might just learn something.
Submitted 11-12-15@6:45 a.m. EST
Take a look at the comments from Ted in Brooklyn, NY & Tiffany in Saint Paul. You might just learn something.
Submitted 11-12-15@6:45 a.m. EST
Thanks for this Mr. Kristof. We as a society need to recognize that your ability to express yourself is not independent of the power you wield within your community. The freedom of expression needs to be absolute in terms of content. Everybody has a right to their ideas, and nobody can be denied that right. However, there need to be limits on how ideas are projected into the world at large. That's why we have restrictions on tobacco advertising, for instance.
What worries me is that even the right to have ideas is seemingly under threat. Both the Mizzou and Yale cases, as well as the racist response in Mizzou, are the result of the de-intellectualization of society and an unwillingness to sympathise or engage with one's opponents in sensible dialogue. If everybody sticks to their own team how will any meaningful discussion occur?
What worries me is that even the right to have ideas is seemingly under threat. Both the Mizzou and Yale cases, as well as the racist response in Mizzou, are the result of the de-intellectualization of society and an unwillingness to sympathise or engage with one's opponents in sensible dialogue. If everybody sticks to their own team how will any meaningful discussion occur?
9
Wow! I am a high school journalism teacher (Roosevelt HS in Seattle) and Kristof's op ed just got into my curriculum as the kind of tolerance we all -- right, left, center, sideways, upside down -- need to practice in the face of active and hyperactive free speech especially on high school and college campuses. In order to preserve a healthy democracy, our 1st amendment must gain a supreme position (and not be recommended for 2nd amendment-ish reforms as an article in the New Yorker in late summer suggested).
So thank you for giving me that perfect example of what journalism and the preservation of free speech is all about. Would love to tell you how my lesson tomorrow goes.
So thank you for giving me that perfect example of what journalism and the preservation of free speech is all about. Would love to tell you how my lesson tomorrow goes.
10
> Melissa Click, an assistant professor who joined the protests,
> is heard on a video calling for “muscle” to oust another student
> journalist (she later apologized)
Might be a salient fact to point out that she also resigned.
> is heard on a video calling for “muscle” to oust another student
> journalist (she later apologized)
Might be a salient fact to point out that she also resigned.
4
Melissa Click only resigned a courtesy faculty appointment to the School of Journalism. She is still very much employed as an adjunct Mizzou Communications Dept. professor. I for one hope Ms. Click's employment status changes soon. Think how much she'll learn about social justice while collecting unemployment. Maybe she'll call in some muscle to force the school to keep her on.
30
Only from a "courtesy" appointment at the Journalism School (of all places)--not from her paying job as an assistant professor of communications.
24
Yes she resigned from her "courtesy" position, but she is still on the payroll. So it might be a salient fact to point out that it was an empty gesture.
13
By linking these issues you make them both seem less important. I am against bigotry and racism, and for freedom of speech and the press.
8
kate, but in Kristof's world they are contradictory due to the need for "inclusion".
4
Calhoun was also a multiculturalist and the sly inclusion and lack of equivocation apropos him isn't fair. Yes, he was a "pro-slavery white supremacist," but he was also a "19th-century" one born in Dixie. Not that that makes his unscrupulous propagandizing permissible, but its only fair to be cognizant the milieu that he was raised in. If we was born in the modern melting pot of NYC, or in any other "liberal" abode, I'm sure his opinions would mirror our more justice-oreiented society.
4
Oddly, peaceful non-violent student protesters are called thug/gangsters. Yet, those advocating against the students are never referred to as thug/gangsters.
3
"non-violent student protesters "
at Missouri these "non violent protestors" surrounded the univ. president's car a threatened him. At yale professor Niko and his wife have been threatened and spit on.
at Missouri these "non violent protestors" surrounded the univ. president's car a threatened him. At yale professor Niko and his wife have been threatened and spit on.
17
Thanks for addressing this. But I think Yale's undergraduates unwittingly walked into a set piece and then played their appointed roles. It seems that the video that went viral may have been taken by Greg Lukianoff, a libertarian-style advocate of unfettered speech on campuses. He is credited for them online. Why was he at Yale? It was a long-scheduled stop that included publicity for his recently published book, "The Coddling of the American Mind", which he also wrote about this fall in The Atlantic. His organization, FIRE, quickly posted those videos online and shared them widely -- including with The Atlantic, which promptly published commentary critical of the students, by Conor Friedersdorf. Why was Lukianoff at Yale, and possibly even at Silliman College ready to videotape, when Prof. Christakis chose to engage with the protesting students? It appears he may have been there as a previously invited speaker at a "Master's Tea" at Silliman, though the timing is unclear. The host? Master of Silliman Prof. Christakis. Whose wife sent the inflammatory email to all students at Silliman College that caused part of the uproar. BTW, that same week, Lukianoff was a featured panelist at the William F. Buckley Jr. Program's fifth annual conference at Yale on "the future of free speech." Prof. and Ms. Christakis have long positioned themselves as pundits and public commentators, at the likes of TIME.com, on the issue of free speech on campuses. It all looks convenient/fishy to me.
7
It may look fishy to you, but the participants who yelled and spat and conducted themselves badly were NOT rehearsed. So it doesn't really matter who filmed them, does it?
25
Ridiculous. Who cares who filmed it? The behavior of these kids was indefensible, and they should all be expelled.
17
Mr. Kristof, what you don't seem to understand is that there is a difference between free speech and racist comments. Allowable free speech includes differing viewpoints on abortion/tax policy/immigration/environmental issues etc. What is not acceptable is racist/hateful/anti-intrinsic characteristics (race/sexual orientation/gender) "speech." One cannot go around a college campus, or for that matter society in general, shouting out "n-word(s) die" or "Jews to the gas chamber." There should be no protection of such "dissonant and unwelcome voices." Such words do more than "leave other people aggrieved or wounded." As a white, male, liberal graduate of Yale, I have no problem with the presence on campus of conservatives with whom I disagree on most issues, be it social/economic/environmental etc. Yet as a father of two girls, I have a huge problem with the continued condonation on college campuses of "speech" and actions which treat women as second-class citizens. As an enlightened member of society, I have an enormous problem with the continued condonation of "speech" which treats minorities as second-class citizens, or worse. We are in the 21st century. It's time to move forward and create a society which is inclusive. There is nothing "PC" about condemning racist/hateful speech. Such speech is wrong, plain and simple.
17
What you don't realize is that a racist comment doesn't cease to be free speech just because it expresses an ignorant opinion. Further, not proscribing such speech isn't the same as condoning it.
17
Wrong. Free speech includes the right to say things that you consider racist...and the rest of your long list of trendy taboos.
If you don't like that, get Congress and the States to repeal the 1st Amendment. So far, it still stands.
If you don't like that, get Congress and the States to repeal the 1st Amendment. So far, it still stands.
28
Your examples are actually instances of protected free speech. You don't have a right to not feel offended by speech.
In the future, who decides which speech is wrong? You or your daughters might not like the results if we allow free speech rights to be infringed.
In the future, who decides which speech is wrong? You or your daughters might not like the results if we allow free speech rights to be infringed.
19
As always, at the end of the day this is not about right and wrong, it's just another naked struggle for power. Activists on the far left sense that this is their moment, and they're going to use every tiny incident, including Halloween costumes on campus (since when have college students ever been polite?) to make their case. On the other side, the Wall Street Journal editorial writers will see in this The Death Of American Civilization (again...)
In truth, it's neither. It's just the media amping up small disputes into major crises. And meanwhile, the real issues facing the nation go unnoticed and unaddressed.
In truth, it's neither. It's just the media amping up small disputes into major crises. And meanwhile, the real issues facing the nation go unnoticed and unaddressed.
14
Here's a little tidbit of interest. Jonathan Butler, the hunger striker at Mizzou, is the son of Eric Butler, EVP at Union Pacific. Eric Butler made $8.4 million at UP last year. http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/columns/joe-holleman/mizzou-hunger-st...
I'm sorry he feels whites are privileged and he is oppressed. I guess he's really suffered from racism.
I'm sorry he feels whites are privileged and he is oppressed. I guess he's really suffered from racism.
167
Ad hominem argument.
3
Wealth is not an antidote to racism. Rich blacks can potentially console themselves with the material comfort. But that does not mean that they are not the objects of microaggressions, discrimination in employment, housing, lending and pay, police hostility or any of the other unjust and intractable features of black life in America.
1
@ AM New York
The reportedly wealthy, privileged background of the hunger striker is relevant as it shows that not only white people attain financial success and influence in the USA.
The reportedly wealthy, privileged background of the hunger striker is relevant as it shows that not only white people attain financial success and influence in the USA.
4
They usually get stuffed down the Media Memory Hole right away, but there have been scores of hate hoaxes on campuses in recent decades.
24
Today, Veteran's Day, we honor those who serve to protect our freedoms. We memorialize those who died protecting our freedoms. I wish that today, of all days, I had seen a picture of college students rallying to show respect for those veterans. Maybe next year.
36
The problem with catering to every single "minority" group by avoiding the possible instance of every supposed offense is that it prevents critical thinking, intelligent debate, and character building. These students will eventually graduate and face the real world. Being coddled in an artificial environment is the absolute worst way to prepare them for life. Yale should not be producing thin-skinned cynics.
69
I don't think it's Yale's fault. They receive these thin-skinned cynics courtesy of affirmative action. Yale has a long history of handling high achieving students, but they are not equipped to handle kids that really have no business being in college in the first place.
8
I remember in fourth grade, when I felt like such an outcast -- I resolved there was nothing actually wrong with me and I should just carry on. Had I developed a resentment, my life would have been much worse.
Everyone feels beleaguered, usually with cause. Most of us get over it. If it festers, then it saps your confidence and your energy. Whether it is real or not.
Get over your precious hurt feelings and take this opportunity to get some high grades in an employable discipline.
Now I am old (57) and job hunting in Silicon Valley with a youth worshipping culture. I
Everyone feels beleaguered, usually with cause. Most of us get over it. If it festers, then it saps your confidence and your energy. Whether it is real or not.
Get over your precious hurt feelings and take this opportunity to get some high grades in an employable discipline.
Now I am old (57) and job hunting in Silicon Valley with a youth worshipping culture. I
41
I am not so concerned about the students in either case. Being unstable and acting crazy is fairly typical for young people in college. The young lady from Yale will grow at some point and feel sheepish for screeching at that poor professor. Ditto for the hot heads at MU. But sins of youth are legion.
But the adults should know better. They need to create a welcoming, inclusive environment for learning and do it passionately. But they also need to make sure all voices are heard and can speak freely. That it equally important. ANd if ever someone needed a lengthy sabbatical, it was Dr. Click. Watch your passion Dr. Click. You are not a student.
I agree with about 10% of what the NYTD Board writes. But I subscribe to the Times to hear their viewpoints. I want to hear a lot of opinions and check my thinking on issues. It makes me a better citizen and neighbor. I am glad to hear Nicholas was treated well at those Christian and Catholic schools.
But the adults should know better. They need to create a welcoming, inclusive environment for learning and do it passionately. But they also need to make sure all voices are heard and can speak freely. That it equally important. ANd if ever someone needed a lengthy sabbatical, it was Dr. Click. Watch your passion Dr. Click. You are not a student.
I agree with about 10% of what the NYTD Board writes. But I subscribe to the Times to hear their viewpoints. I want to hear a lot of opinions and check my thinking on issues. It makes me a better citizen and neighbor. I am glad to hear Nicholas was treated well at those Christian and Catholic schools.
384
Re Professor Click--an apology is insufficient in view of the professor’s egregiously inappropriate, aggressive, and discriminatory behavior. She in effect encouraged and led a verbal and physical assault on MU students. This should not be tolerated.
11
The reason for creating a welcoming inclusive environment is to make your university attractive to the students who attend and the parents who pay for it.
We can use force to punish offensive expression, but we can boycott, protest, strike, or go elsewhere.
These protestors properly used their economic might to get what they want.
But they err in several ways.
It is outside of any administrations capability to suppress all expression that might offend others.
It is also a very bad idea. An educational institution is supposed to be a place where disruptive even offensive ideas can be expressed.
They are prepared to go beyond excercising their legitimate free expression rights - which include protest, striking and boycotting, to the actual use of force against others.
We can use force to punish offensive expression, but we can boycott, protest, strike, or go elsewhere.
These protestors properly used their economic might to get what they want.
But they err in several ways.
It is outside of any administrations capability to suppress all expression that might offend others.
It is also a very bad idea. An educational institution is supposed to be a place where disruptive even offensive ideas can be expressed.
They are prepared to go beyond excercising their legitimate free expression rights - which include protest, striking and boycotting, to the actual use of force against others.
1
What did the professor do or say that was wrong? That administrators should not be telling young adults how to dress? They are moving towards adulthood and as such, they should at least attempt to act like it. She simply said they are old enough to weather seeing things that are distasteful and they responded by stomping their feet. Whose passion needs to be checked?
1
Free speech and the free exchange of different ideas has nothing to do with racial epithets and name calling.
230
That is why making fun of Trump and the some religions, should be banned to in order to insure that Trump and the Mormons feel "safe" or was it another type of name calling that you were referring to?
11
How about spitting on conservative speakers?
14
Actually it does. The best defense of free speech is known as constitutive speech. It argues that equality demands every individual be able to have input on their own moral outcome. This requires very limited speech control.
You can disagree that's what free speech means, but it is the best defense for its existence because it is hard to square equality without it.
You can disagree that's what free speech means, but it is the best defense for its existence because it is hard to square equality without it.
5
There is a great deal of anti-Semitism coursing through the "noble" force that is currently protesting and insisting that "universities should work harder to be inclusive," but at the moment this doesn't appear to be getting much attention. Certainly none in this column.
45
Anti-semitism is on the rise in this country
1
This is such an urgent and totally ignored point. According to the latest FBI statistics on religiously based hate crimes in the US, 60% of these violent acts were perpetrated on Jews. The other groups, including Muslims (11%) were in single digits or barely broke double digits. Yet we are bludgeoned with the Islamophobia meme while it is increasingly (genuinely) unsafe to be a Jewish student on campuses as prominent as Stanford and Columbia. The most taboo idea a college student could express publicly would be any kind of support for the state of Israel. These are terrifying times, and it is astonishing how quickly we've moved from the dusk to the darkness this time.
1
No matter how wonderful an institution, it will still be filled with humans. No matter how breathtaking an idea, it will still be executed by humans. Hopefully realizing this gives us a little grace for one another when our words don't perfectly match our outcomes.
107
Anyone ever hear the one "The Apple Doesn't fall to Far from the Tree”. Maybe if parents had of tempered what was taught around the dinner table these ugly scenes would not be so numerous on our University campuses today. If parents would stop saying my little Johnny wasn’t raised that way and admit that most of what little Johnny learned, he learned from them. Things may begin to change. On football Sunday a lot more emphasis on who is carrying the ball than the point spread would be helpful. Denial is not a river in Africa. Oh I forgot I am supposed to call it the Middle East. I have been looking for a continent for years called the Middle East. I have yet to find it but that’s another story for another time.
10
Problem is there are no parents around the dinner table. Maybe mom's at work, but dad skipped town a long time ago. A therein is the crux of the entire problem.
4
I don't know about Mizzou, but I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the wealthy back kids protesting at Yale of all places are representative of blacks in this country at all, not that whites at Yale are either.
What were they so made about? It was like an email saying to engage with people who offended you through their halloween costume or something?
What were they so made about? It was like an email saying to engage with people who offended you through their halloween costume or something?
16
As the parent of a Yale student, I can assure you that most of the students (black and white) are NOT wealthy. Far from from it. Please don't make assumptions about whether they're "representative" of the rest of the country.
3
Thanks, Nick, for your open minded take on the situation here in Missouri as referenced to the rest of the planet. We are no different, not significantly worse, or less evolved contrary to some opinions.
I find strength in the fact that students at the University of Missouri undertook the current protest, imperfect or not, because they knew that Missourians (imperfect as we may be) have a history of being able to deal with the difficult things in life. We're strong folk. Committed to a better existence in spite of our flaws. We'll work through this. Thanks for the space to let us do what we do best.
I find strength in the fact that students at the University of Missouri undertook the current protest, imperfect or not, because they knew that Missourians (imperfect as we may be) have a history of being able to deal with the difficult things in life. We're strong folk. Committed to a better existence in spite of our flaws. We'll work through this. Thanks for the space to let us do what we do best.
3
I grew up in St. Louis and have lived in Columbia for 30 plus years. The uneducated stereotyping of Missouri and Columbia have been incredible. Have read in reports and comments one untruth after another.
This is a "let the state/city/university who does not have some underlying racism problem cast the first stone".
Columbia is a liberal, progressive college town in the middle of a conservative state. It is usually ranked among one of the best places to live. My children attended multi-cultural public schools. Many schools have multi-cultural days. The principal at my daughters high school is African-American. The problems that exist here such as having a poor black area with public housing are no different than what is in your city or state. Get off your high horse and look around.
This is a "let the state/city/university who does not have some underlying racism problem cast the first stone".
Columbia is a liberal, progressive college town in the middle of a conservative state. It is usually ranked among one of the best places to live. My children attended multi-cultural public schools. Many schools have multi-cultural days. The principal at my daughters high school is African-American. The problems that exist here such as having a poor black area with public housing are no different than what is in your city or state. Get off your high horse and look around.
26
Amazed you at least admitted the intolerance is coming from the left. Until other liberals like you realize the insane ramifications of a school president being forced to resign for essentially not placating a mob this will continue to become a modern day version of The Crucible.
91
Well, this little video called "Modern Educayshun" by comedian Neel Kolhatkar is not politically correct. But our culture and our schools are seriously heading in this direction. I can't say it bodes well for anyone.
https://t.co/4HC0frNBl3
https://t.co/4HC0frNBl3
8
This neat little video gets one thing wrong. The Asian student is given one privilege point, when in reality colleges deduct 3 privilege points from Asian scores.
Yes, the very people who abhor judging groups via statistical criminality, penalize Asians for excessive group academic virtue.
Yes, the very people who abhor judging groups via statistical criminality, penalize Asians for excessive group academic virtue.
3
There is one aspect of hostility that the media continues to ignore: black intimidation against Asians.
Tim Tai is an Asian student bullied by black students, but no one mentions the racial fact. In fact, the media omits race when it comes to Asians- consider the following report of crime against Asian students in New York (note: the students robbed were Asian but not identifed as such in this report!)
http://bedfordandbowery.com/2015/09/nyu-students-told-not-to-mix-with-cd...
And this is not just about speech, but about actual violence:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/stunning-dirty-secret-about-racism-in-america/
In the end, liberals are creating an environment where the highest performing students are bullied, alienated, and overlooked.
Tim Tai is an Asian student bullied by black students, but no one mentions the racial fact. In fact, the media omits race when it comes to Asians- consider the following report of crime against Asian students in New York (note: the students robbed were Asian but not identifed as such in this report!)
http://bedfordandbowery.com/2015/09/nyu-students-told-not-to-mix-with-cd...
And this is not just about speech, but about actual violence:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/stunning-dirty-secret-about-racism-in-america/
In the end, liberals are creating an environment where the highest performing students are bullied, alienated, and overlooked.
240
every time i have pointed out black prejudice against other races,especially other minorities,my observations never get posted.
30
I have had the same experience. Prejudice against Asians is OK according to NYTimes editorial staff.
19
I too post about black anti-Asian and anti-Jewish racism and am censored in this paper. The left is in denial of it. Anti-black racism is treated like a cancer while black bigotry towards others is treated like it's kind of charming. Given that blacks are the largest minority in this country the fact they can bully and abuse smaller minorities is shameful.
13
Mr. Kristof, This is a fine column, and I think it strikes darn close to the right balance. I especially like your defense of free speech, even hateful speech that makes people uncomfortable. There are, however, differences between Yale and Missouri. Yale is a private institution and has much greater latitude in which speech it allows and which it prohibits. That makes the strong defense of the First Amendment by Yale officials all the more powerful. Missouri is a public institution and needs to allow all speech that reasonable people do not consider threats to physical safety.
Those people on the left who talk about micro-aggresions and other new ways to limit the speech of others are the linear descendants of Joseph McCarthy. Their fear of free speech should never be accepted by Americans as the new normal. They have a right to feel safe from physical harm, but they have absolutely no right whatsoever to be free from exposure to ideas they find abhorrent or speech they do not like. The First Amendment was adopted to make sure people who have unpopular ideas and opinions are able to express them without government repression.
Those people on the left who talk about micro-aggresions and other new ways to limit the speech of others are the linear descendants of Joseph McCarthy. Their fear of free speech should never be accepted by Americans as the new normal. They have a right to feel safe from physical harm, but they have absolutely no right whatsoever to be free from exposure to ideas they find abhorrent or speech they do not like. The First Amendment was adopted to make sure people who have unpopular ideas and opinions are able to express them without government repression.
177
You are making very valid points, stressing the fact that - as public instututions - UofMO etc. are to be help to more strict interpretation and protection of freedom of speech than it might be the case with private institutions.
It is high time to raise up and stand to protect freedom of speech, starting with public institutions of high learning.
It is high time to raise up and stand to protect freedom of speech, starting with public institutions of high learning.
This is truth. There is a holier-than-thou mentality on both sides which is proven by the fragmentation of media coverage. We no longer watch the news on a network that maintains a balanced point of view. People watch, listen, and read news that agrees with and reinforces their viewpoint. Universities should be places where all points of view are not just tolerated, but sought out. These divergent views challenge and strengthen the public and our institutions. Shutting these disturbing views out or ignoring them is nothing more than repression. Besides, no one is forcing anyone to attend to or listen although all should. I am politically progressive, yet I still read the Washington Times and watch the Republican Presidential debates.
15
You make probably the most sensible comment in this entire thread. Open minds often lead to good decisions. Closed minds invariably lead to failure.
5
Unfortunately, I agree with WSJ in Yale's case. Professor Christaki's e-mail didn't warrant such a hysterical, idiotic and offensive response.
395
Our kids have become hypersensitive, hyper reactive. Perhaps it is because they are tired of watching their parents and grand parents being steam rolled over, again and again.
2
"Inclusivity" isn't mentioned in the constitution. "Freedom of speech" is, with limited exceptions. Telling people to shut up is fine, but forcing them to shut up isn't. It's a lot better to know who is thinking what in our society than to force underground those one doesn't like.
It's time to rein in the PC movement and grow up. It's not helping make us kinder and gentler; it's making like China.
It's time to rein in the PC movement and grow up. It's not helping make us kinder and gentler; it's making like China.
22
"Inclusivity" isn't mentioned in the constitution. "Freedom of speech" is, with limited exceptions. Telling people to shut up is fine, but forcing them to shut up isn't. It's a lot better to know who is thinking what in our society than to force underground those one doesn't like. It's time to rein in the PC movement and grow up. It's not helping make us kinder and gentler; it's making us like China.
78
China has no PC in schools as far as academic performance is concerned. Barring the 1%, children (of all ages) there can be spoiled brats all they want at home, but school is serious business and teachers rule. oh, they don't have football.
4
How about a Cecil Rhodes scholarship? Remind me again where Cecil got all his money...
9
Meanwhile, the scientists, engineers and mathematicians at Yale and Missouri spend their time actually learning and not crying about every little thing so that they can be successful, productive members of society as adults instead of whiny leeches who live off the work of everyone else.
118
Yes, but do they actually create offspring? What you describe sounds like a dystopia from a James T. Kirk encounter (if you've never watched a narrative about the space that you measure, you might not get the reference.) Conflict is the stuff of life, man. Get out from under the slide rule and into the sun! I don't want to live in your world, Bartelby! It may be proportional, equilateral, and support its own hypotheses, but it's not organic. You can measure energy and movement, but you can't plot the energy of a movement!
What happened to Tim Tai was ignorant. Don't the demonstrators know that campus activism in the 60's saw it's roots in the Berkeley FREE SPEECH movement. It was institutions acting in the same way that the demonstrating"mob" at Mizzou did that compounded the frustration that resulted in violence. The groups on campuses are mirroring effectively the cations of the "wrong side". How far we have come or regressed? As for the concept of safe spaces and nurturing environments, those terms are often in conflict with curiosity, experimentation, and challenge. It's like testing rockets without any expectation that one will fail catastrophically. A lack of such failure simply sustains the status quo and deters growth and dare I say it, maturity. It's not an easy balance but like any act of balance, sometimes one falls down.
23
I tire of the hollow innuendo that Berkeley or Mario Savio invented American free speech. One can only laugh at such a phony shallow notion. Make believe designed to lure sophomores that dream about collectives, entropy and the dialectic into dangerous and self destructive conduct.
3
Let's face it - these politically correct 'movements' rely on intimidation and blackmail knowing full well that the universities are likely to know tow to demands any reasonable person would find ludicrous. How about studying for a change?
68
Student protesters are almost always afraid and inexperienced. It's not surprising if they stray from high minded ideal discourse. But they are the heroes, holding their schools accountable. We should cut them a break and focus on the message and hold accountable administrators and institutions.
113
accountable to what? infantilization?
13
Dr. Barbara, your post mentions students, administrators and institutions. Do you think that faculty have any role to play? Should they not be held accountable? Does anyone at UMass teach the First Amendment?
3
Instead of cutting them a break we should cut their financial aid. They should protest on their dime, not the University's.
8
It seems that Second Amendment rights will be needed to ensure the exercise of First Amendment rights. Quelle affaire.
5
One approach to this dilemma (other than enjoying the absurdity of the Vagina Monologue upset and so many similar upsets) is to BAN free SPEECH (and screaming), and allow only the expression of views through the written word. This would tend to make the views more meaningful, and less hysterical and absurd. Perhaps then there could be beneficial exchanges, based on jousting among ideas, rather than infantile shouting of meaningless slogans.
4
Re "infantile shouting of meaningless slogans" that was how I felt when hearing all the "Yes, we can" chanting in 2008. That was an eye-opener for me--and very scary as far as 'group-think.". It was also scary to me when a conservative black man spoke at a televised town meeting, asking candidate McCain to go after Obama more forcefully, and he received death threats, and so did his family. This was what he received for his 'free speech." To me, this was the start of the proliferation of all this hyper-identity stuff. It jumped up a notch when Eric Holder, on his first official day at DOJ Attorney General said, "we need to have a conversation about race." Whaaat? After we elected a first time black president, a first time black AG suddenly, instead of celebrating, chides by says we need a "conversation about race." It went downhill from there. Trayvon being another negative milestone ('If I had a son" was clearly a prejudicial statement), moving rapidly into Ferguson (where MU hunger striker Butler was involved) and on and on. This administration (and their media lackeys) should finally step up and take a more reasonable stand beyond blindly supporting 'the team' when the team is not the nation. Their lack of maturity and responsibility is a big problem, and has both destabilized the body politic and deeply damaged the Dem party.
10
It's simple really. For a community of any kind to work there one necessary rule. We believe in free expression, while we are not required to respect everyone in the community we are REQUIRED to treat everyone in the community with respect. The only rule needed.
328
You are not required to "respect" others. There is no need to demand that Blacks and Jews "respect" Nazi's, but we are required to refrain from using force against others, except in our own defense.
But treating everyone with respect restricts free expression. We're not expressing ourselves freely if we must censor our thoughts before they leave our mouths to say respectful things to or about people we don't respect. A good attitude is, of course, to respect every group, and not try to stereotype them and then encourage others to apply the stereotype to individuals, by hurling epithets at random members of the group or even wearing seemingly innocuous costumes that in fact denigrate the group. How shall we develop that attitude in ourselves and future generations? That would seem to be the $64,000 question. How do we get all our children to grow up pleased to be equal to every other member of society instead of eager to mask their fears and insecurities by pretending some other group is inferior, or not worthy of the respect they expect for themselves? What role do educational institutions play in achieving that goal? Firstly, we need to agree on the goal, and I am not sure all Americans do, or if they do, are willing to pay more than lip service to it, other goals being, apparently, more important. As you point out, however, is there a more important goal than making the community, the society, the nation function as a single and united entity without forcing everyone into dreary lockstep formations concocted by an elite that thinks it is the superior group chosen to determine all the rules? I agree with Mr. Kristof, I'm afraid. Life is complicated, not simple.
1
Goodness, the First Amendment doesn't require respect. It doesn't regulate feelings. That has already been decided with the 8-1 Westboro Baptist Church ruling. One cannot be violent or advocate violence, but other than that, we all need to grow up and get a thick skin. It was FDR who famously said he "welcomed" hatred. Hateful and disrespectful speech will fall by the wayside on its own with more free speech.
2
Coddled, entitled brats who will get eaten alive in the real world. Get your popcorn ready.
124
No. Coddled, entitled brats who WON'T get eaten alive in the "real world." Get your vomit bags ready.
2
I have traveled all over the developing world (e.g., from Cairo to India 5,000 miles overland before the "Forever War"); and live as a part time resident of a small Central American country. While there are customs and specific codes and unwritten rules there, the rule of law, enforcement and the judicial system is weak or overwhelmed in the sense of Europe and the US.
Latin America and its people are kind, hardworking and loyal. But I guarantee that these sensitive souls at American universities wouldn't last one day here on their own. Filming police or asserting that their lives " mattered" would not be well received, to understate it. They have no idea how tough it is the n the majority of the worlds cultures.
We are promoting a soft generation that is easily offended and that employ the same fascist speech suppression as the New Left of the 6Os and their silly and tired pseudo- Marxist self- criticism sessions.
Latin America and its people are kind, hardworking and loyal. But I guarantee that these sensitive souls at American universities wouldn't last one day here on their own. Filming police or asserting that their lives " mattered" would not be well received, to understate it. They have no idea how tough it is the n the majority of the worlds cultures.
We are promoting a soft generation that is easily offended and that employ the same fascist speech suppression as the New Left of the 6Os and their silly and tired pseudo- Marxist self- criticism sessions.
30
Beautiful.
2
As a liberal, your article made me a bit uncomfortable. It's interesting and significant that I find myself often times neglecting and minimizing the conservative viewpoint. I have become culturally insulated and now find myself poorer for it. To be inclusive, both in college and in life,we must all work hard to
consider and appreciate other viewpoints. The politics of our generation have not made this any easier. Compromise (i.e. the consideration of alternative viewpoints) has become anathema to our communities as much as Washington. Perhaps, we need to be dragged to the table as much as our politicians. Thank you for pulling us along.
consider and appreciate other viewpoints. The politics of our generation have not made this any easier. Compromise (i.e. the consideration of alternative viewpoints) has become anathema to our communities as much as Washington. Perhaps, we need to be dragged to the table as much as our politicians. Thank you for pulling us along.
541
It is not surprising that you reach that conclusion - it is intrinsically PC to want to be inclusive. It also shows a misunderstanding of PC: we cannot be tolerant to the point of being spineless. Arguments in discussion need to have substance if we want a debate that will take into account all the complexities of life. Your argument would only apply is a liberal bias affects the cognitive process rendering any conservative argument inadmissible. Conservatives do not exactly help, usually dressing up the lack of substance with loud and distractful bravado. I would say, as long as one keeps the cool, keeps the focus on the real issues, PC guidelines do not prevent an inclusive discussion.
2
Good post and true enough, but in the final analysis who is truly a liberal and not? I find myself on both sides of that fence. It's like the old saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes." We all sit in our own foxhole at various points. The question is whether we throw a grenade in it or out of it rather than filling it in together, shaking hands and allowing each to have their own point of view. The problem seems to arise by forcing ones point of view on someone else without a consensus and refusing to seek or reach one. It takes time and dialogue. It's not happening. It used to. Drama rules the day now and that I dare say is media generated because circus sells.
1
At Rutgers, for example, the university has housing designed for African-American culture - i.e. housing for black students. Is this is a case of self-segregation, in which certain students of color have made a choice that they want to live separate and apart from the rest of the student body? While they may argue that they are not technically excluding whites or others, but are they welcoming such students. The answer is likely no. On the flip side: Would it be fine to also have housing that celebrates "white culture?" I assume not.
Here is a link:
http://prcc.rutgers.edu/on-campus-living-options/
Here is a link:
http://prcc.rutgers.edu/on-campus-living-options/
3
"We like to caricature great moral debates as right confronting wrong. But often, to some degree, it’s right colliding with right."
That is a core concept of Constitutional Law. Some people's rights run headlong into other people's rights. It is genuine legitimate rights vs other genuine legitimate rights.
When rights are described in absolute terms, then this must happen. From this we get limits on even highly protected rights. The right of free speech is near absolute, but you still can't falsely shout Fire! in a crowed theater and so get others hurt or killed in a panic.
Too much debate puts one right in absolute terms, and so cannot see the conflicts with legitimate other rights.
The courts have tried to deal with this by inventing various rather artificial qualities to rights, like "degree of scrutiny." For all the high flown language used, it comes down to balance of rights, and good judgment to do it.
That is a problem, because people differ on what is good judgment. They put different weight on various rights, according to their own priorities.
The subject can't be done justice in one comment, except to note that this is it, the basic core of Constitutional Law. After all the work by all the good minds, it is still a mess of ideas, not a clear path.
That is a core concept of Constitutional Law. Some people's rights run headlong into other people's rights. It is genuine legitimate rights vs other genuine legitimate rights.
When rights are described in absolute terms, then this must happen. From this we get limits on even highly protected rights. The right of free speech is near absolute, but you still can't falsely shout Fire! in a crowed theater and so get others hurt or killed in a panic.
Too much debate puts one right in absolute terms, and so cannot see the conflicts with legitimate other rights.
The courts have tried to deal with this by inventing various rather artificial qualities to rights, like "degree of scrutiny." For all the high flown language used, it comes down to balance of rights, and good judgment to do it.
That is a problem, because people differ on what is good judgment. They put different weight on various rights, according to their own priorities.
The subject can't be done justice in one comment, except to note that this is it, the basic core of Constitutional Law. After all the work by all the good minds, it is still a mess of ideas, not a clear path.
26
I don't know if it has to be that hard to figure out. I think people should have a right to say what they think. If they don't like some people or actions they should be allowed to say so and try to justify their feelings. That doesn't mean they should have a right to intentionally insulting and abusive speech, particularly in a college community. Also, opportunities for dialog should be created.
1
Mr. Easton,
Evidently, it can indeed be hard to figure out. When people express their dislike of other people or actions, some of those other people find those expressions to be intentionally insulting and abusive--whether they were meant to be or not. The expressions range from blatantly racist, misogynistic or otherwise offensive slurs to "micro aggressions" that nobody aside from the offended would perceive to be slights. Figuring it all out probably will require more opportunities for dialog, especially on college campuses.
Evidently, it can indeed be hard to figure out. When people express their dislike of other people or actions, some of those other people find those expressions to be intentionally insulting and abusive--whether they were meant to be or not. The expressions range from blatantly racist, misogynistic or otherwise offensive slurs to "micro aggressions" that nobody aside from the offended would perceive to be slights. Figuring it all out probably will require more opportunities for dialog, especially on college campuses.
3
"Figuring it all out probably will require more opportunities for dialog, especially on college campuses."
Agree, but as Nick said, it takes two to tango. Seems the Left wants only to be heard sometimes.
Agree, but as Nick said, it takes two to tango. Seems the Left wants only to be heard sometimes.
Mizzou may be a case apart from the rest. It isn't that there aren't other like it, as I am quite sure they are, but that Yale is a different set of related issues. I look at Missouri as a whole as a state that has deep racial issues that are systemic. It is the state that allowed Ferguson and all of the horrific things that were uncovered in the DOJ investigation. It is the state in which we have St. Louis County that pretty much runs things as they were run in Ferguson. Is it any wonder that problems would extend to the state's school? No place or institution operates in a vacuum.
Yale has a distinct history with a particular type of institutional racism one that resembles more closely the experience of minorities across the nation's universities. One that expends a lot of energy attracting minorities, but doesn't match the effort required for them to create a community in which they can truly feel at home.
Gender, race, and cultural studies requirements, as part of general education requirements, should be tripled and students required to get them out of the way in the first two years. Curriculum should be tailored to close cultural gaps soon after a student begins their tenure at school and facilitate cultural and social dialog on racial, gender, and sexual matters. We've reached a crisis point in all three of these areas.
I look at these crises with a view to the long term. University should be the place where lasting harmony and lifetime social bonds are cemented.
Yale has a distinct history with a particular type of institutional racism one that resembles more closely the experience of minorities across the nation's universities. One that expends a lot of energy attracting minorities, but doesn't match the effort required for them to create a community in which they can truly feel at home.
Gender, race, and cultural studies requirements, as part of general education requirements, should be tripled and students required to get them out of the way in the first two years. Curriculum should be tailored to close cultural gaps soon after a student begins their tenure at school and facilitate cultural and social dialog on racial, gender, and sexual matters. We've reached a crisis point in all three of these areas.
I look at these crises with a view to the long term. University should be the place where lasting harmony and lifetime social bonds are cemented.
33
My essay on my first-hand experience with college-level gender and ethnic studies:
http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/04/some-thoughts-on-newblackman-and-drjame...
http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/04/some-thoughts-on-newblackman-and-drjame...
3
You're serious! "Gender, race and cultural studies"... Do you allow any room for such valueless subjects as math, science, literature, history, philosophy, foreign languages, et al? But I guess that by tripling these so called "studies", you'd guarantee lifetime employment for people like yourselves. Not bad!
29
Rima Regas, when I send my children off to ruinously expensive colleges it will be for them to get an education, not an indoctrination. Your comment is more proof that when it comes to higher education, the left prefers brainwashing on pet subjects rather than conferring a classically liberal education.
No wonder so many employers outside of academia complain that today's graduates can't think critically, are emotionally fragile, and have little to no work ethic. They're used to being spoon fed gender, race, and cultural studies requirements which emphasize either their alleged victimhood or their alleged perpetrator status and you want to ensure that those requirements are tripled and front loaded.
Chairman Mao had his cultural revolution. What shall we call the equivalent on campuses throughout the U.S.? Certainly, the truly frightening Melissa Click and her self righteous compatriots at Mizzou are among the vanguard of suppression of freedom and of thought on college campuses.
No wonder so many employers outside of academia complain that today's graduates can't think critically, are emotionally fragile, and have little to no work ethic. They're used to being spoon fed gender, race, and cultural studies requirements which emphasize either their alleged victimhood or their alleged perpetrator status and you want to ensure that those requirements are tripled and front loaded.
Chairman Mao had his cultural revolution. What shall we call the equivalent on campuses throughout the U.S.? Certainly, the truly frightening Melissa Click and her self righteous compatriots at Mizzou are among the vanguard of suppression of freedom and of thought on college campuses.
70