Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion The Atlantic takes on post-secondary PC/coddling

They hate us for our freedoms!

Free speech and individual rights ARE his (and evidently "their"?) thing. I certainly don't begrudge them that, and defend their right to engage in public discourse on the subject.

But he does have a history of courting media attention and controversy on the subject, exploiting his professional position to do so, and that article from 7y ago is only one such example. I bear it in mind (and mention it here) only because he's willing to throw pretty much anyone under the bus in the name of pursuing that idealogical goal (individual rights, apparently).

http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/04/wither-goes-free-speech-at-harvard/

Source is FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education


He does have an agenda, whether or not one agrees with it. I'm pointing out that he seems to be an idealogue, operating in the service of that larger agenda. It is what led to that op-ed in BMJ, and I strongly suspect that it led to his wife's e-mail and him standing in a quad surrounded by agitated and screeching students. He went there for the express purpose of making his point. In light of that, of course he was calm-- the wilder the undergrads got, the better his point is made, after all. He does understand how to work the media to make a point.

The ivory tower is filled with idealogues. He's unusual in that his views are more Libertarian than most in that particular milieu.


On a side note, yeah-- won't mom and dad be proud of that video? Ouch.

Sorry, I can't see anything wrong with the quote above, or with his editorial in general. I also thought that his wife's email was balanced, well-written, and carefully considered. If, during that video, he was aware that people would see him defending free expression in front of a mob... well, great. I don't think that defending free expression is only okay when you're certain that no one is recording you on his smartphone.

His editorial mentioned Harvard's reaction a satirical flyer distributed at the college. The satire in question was apparently aimed at what its authors saw as abusive practices at the university. The university's official position deplored its use of "inappropriate language," with RAs being instructed to find out who wrote it. Sounds to me like the university was trying to intimidate the writers.

Interesting. Satire and intimidation...kind of reminds me of Charlie Hebdo. They're satirical and offensive, too. Maybe we should shut them down for inappropriate use of offensive language. Hmm. Or maybe we (and especially college students) should accept that no one has a right to not be offended. This is a basic part of what an education should impart to its students.

Interesting point. However, one may say that the students had a point too -- because they did. Maybe he has a larger, well-developed point, but most people, most of the time they're speaking, have a point to make of some sort. After all, why would one say anything without first having a goal for their speech?
However, I think that a lot of this gets way overblown because people bring a lot of things into these sorts of conversations. Obviously, this is hard to eliminate -- but I think many times this becomes a political clash when perhaps that only inflates and dilutes the matters at hand.

Well, I happen to find his position more appealing (personally) than, say... the usual opinions of Charles Murray or Steve Sailer. Granted. I like and respect Paul Krugman enormously-- but knowing how liberal he leans is pretty important for evaluating his op-ed pieces, no matter how inclined I am to agree with him.

(This assumes that all that was written was true, and that may not be so, either-- in fact, in light of what I know FIRE's usual tactics to be, I think it may have gained a thing or two in the retelling-- I've not fact-checked any of it, just posted it for consideration).

I'm cautioning because I've seen the undercarriage of this particular bus, too.

There IS such a thing as free speech rights being used by the majority to kick those who are already down, just so that the majority can continue doing exactly as they please, and enjoy unfettered access to the privilege that they have enjoyed all their lives-- and that can feel, well-- pretty hostile. Consider the recent public kerfuffles in a lot of locations re: religious displays at Christian holidays. Why it should be offensive for a cashier to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" in December is beyond me, but it certainly angers a fair number of people. Now, that's majority entitlement. The interesting trick, in my mind, is making one's self out to be an Embattled Martyr to the Cause while actually being a member of the established majority. It's fascinating.


This isn't as simple as impaneling an Officially Diverse Committee to Determine What Constitutes Hate Speech. It's also a matter of when individual rights give way to civil compromises in the name of the social contract. Er-- assuming that there IS a social contract, I mean.

Christakis apparently believes that he has a lock on truth here, but the fact is that he might not feel quite so sure of himself at a historically black college, a BlackLivesMatter rally, an inner city junior high school, etc. He might even feel-- gasp-- intimidated. By the words/behaviors of others, even. He ignores the fact that some things are pretty much BOUND to cause discomfort like that to some students at his institution-- students who already feel pretty alienated from the vast, privileged majority who are attending that fine institution.

He fancies that he's being Patrick Henry, I'm sure-- but what if he's actually being Joe McCarthy? There is such a thing as tyranny by majority, and it's why we've got laws to protect, say, disabled children while they are at school, minority voting rights, disgusting hiring practices directed toward women, etc. Those laws exist so that the majority don't do the kinds of things featured in Lord of the Flies, I mean. Otherwise, a certain percentage of the average population will do those kinds of things. Social Darwinists don't see it that way-- they think that kind of construct is just fine. It does self-correct, as history demonstrates. Of course, it's a bit messy, and the timescale is sometimes longer than the people living it like. But what the heck. It's the free market for a better society. Let everyone shout and see who shouts loudest, I guess. Buckle up, because that kind of world is where only the strong (and already privileged) survive-- at least until the unwashed masses have had enough, that is.

Context is everything. I think (personally) that it is critical to recall that the entire thing is mostly a tempest in a teapot, (or maybe just an ivory tower) given that ALL of them are speaking from positions of power, prestige, and yes-- privilege. Christakis is defending HIS OWN privilege, when you get right down to it. Nobody in that video has much claim to so-called "coveted victim status" at all in the first place. On either side.


It'd also be nice if more college professors and students understood that their own words and actions have an impact on others, and that sometimes others are vulnerable in ways they don't understand (because of their own privilege or just excessive navel-gazing). I mean that in every sense of that statement.


Sure. Everyone has freedom of speech in the US. What nobody has is the freedom from the social consequences of that speech. Not even those defending unfettered free speech. Sometimes words do cause actual harm to others. Defending that with "But MY RIGHTS!!" generally makes one a jerk. I happen to believe that being a decent human being trumps my innate right to say whatever I please in any location, at any time, etc. I kind of figure that jokes about some things are going to result in a highly unpleasant afternoon for myself if I make them in a TSA line, for example-- and that furthermore, the disruption that I've caused in that setting might actually HURT OTHER PEOPLE who actually needed for their afternoons to be disruption-free. Freedom OF speech. Yes. But not freedom from the consequences of it, nor from the fact that sometimes other people are collateral damage if I exercise that right injudiciously and selfishly.

AKA, the inextricable intertwining of personal freedom and personal responsibility.

That's how I understood it too.

So true.

Overall, I find myself agreeing with Val's comments the most so far.

My own opinion is that certainly people need to accept responsibility for any and all actions. Insult somebody - expect consequences but asking someone to listen to a well reasoned and civilly delivered argument is far from insulting.

Like Val, I have a real issue with spending half a million dollars to subsidize this infantilism of my or anyone else's voting age 'child'.

There is a larger issue at play, perhaps this is a consequence of the 'college for all' mentality that seems so prevalent these days as Peter Turchin's article alludes:-

overproduction of elites

Yep, in addition to the horrible behavior, the parents just watched her flush their $400K investment down the toilet ($160K for high school, plus $240K for Yale). Who in the world would hire her?

Contrast her behavior with that of Tim Tai, the photojournalist who tried to take photos at the protest in Missouri. He was firm about asserting his rights, and remained polite in the face of a crowd of unreasonable people. Tuition, room, and board at Missouri is probably only $20K per year, but Tim's stock just shot up.

My kids will be watching both videos as case studies of how to, and how not to, behave in public.