Even if it was, considering that a lot of “debate” on certain social issues in certain circles boil down to “I’m in charge of determining whether you’re offended or hurt, even if I’m not a member of your group, so shut up and let me declare that everything is okay and you’re just making everything up,” I can see how someone can be driven to say something like that.
The original article has been removed.
Then why did you post that link?
When I posted it, it was still there, that’s why. :dubious:
As to the OP, please. The protest is the discussion, their demand for compliance the request. It’s a challenge, systems never want to change they only do when it’s the better alternative. Any half measure on the university’s part is small change to what they really don’t want to do.
It should end when the college gives in or the demands have gone too far and people lose interest, anything less is a waste of effort.
There are plenty of places that quote the original article. If you can’t find it on your own, that’s your problem.
No, that’s your problem, if you want to cite it here as an example of anything. You make the assertion, you bring the link. That’s how the Dope works.
I did, yesterday. Here’s another link.
[QUOTE=D’Anconia]
They even admit it.
From a Yale student:
“And I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my pain.”
[/QUOTE]
Wow, now that I’ve tracked down the actual student op-ed in which that remark appeared, I’m a bit shocked at how you’ve misrepresented the context of the remark and generalized it to “protesters on college campuses”, unqualified.
What the linked student op-ed, written by a resident of Yale University’s Silliman College whose resident faculty director or “Master” has been at the center of this dispute, actually said was this:
Now, one could argue that the student is wrong to expect the resident faculty director of their college dorm to be emotionally sympathetic and supportive towards students as well as encouraging them to debate opposing viewpoints.
But it’s bullshit to take out of context one student’s opinion that sometimes they ought to be encouraged to express their feelings without debating or discussing ideas, and pretend that it implies that the students are not interested in ever debating or discussing ideas.
Bullshit. No one cares about her “pain”, which is nonsense.
The question is not whether the student’s “pain” is “nonsense” or whether anybody “cares” about it.
The question is whether your post took the student’s remarks out of context and misrepresented them. And the answer is that it absolutely did.
For reference, here’s what the student actually said, in context:
And here’s how you mischaracterized it:
[QUOTE=D’Anconia]
They even admit it.
From a Yale student:
“And I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my pain.”
[/quote]
“I sometimes in my own residence community want to be able to talk about my feelings without debating different opinions and arguing about free speech” != “I only want 100% compliance with my demands at once, no debate, no discussion.”
Your claim that expressing the former statement is somehow thereby “admitting” to the very different latter statement completely misrepresented the student’s words.
But, it is not nonsense, it is exactly the sort of thing to which the Silliman Master or anyone in similar position has a duty to pay close and careful attention.
This just in from the Vice President of the Student Body at Missouri: “I personally am tired of hearing that First Amendment rights protect students when they are creating a hostile and unsafe learning environment for myself and for other students here.”
Oooh! There’s your smoking gun! She couldn’t possibly be talking about last night’s threats of violence against black students, could she?
She was talking here ultimately about students at Yale who have worn blackface to Halloween parties. I imagine that she’s tired of hearing people parrot lines about how the first amendment protects such students.
I’m not clear on what distinction she’s talking about, but there’s an obvious one to draw: a distinction between what behavior should be free from legal consequence, and what behavior should be free from social consequence. Often in these conversations, when someone’s appalling speech is criticized, they’ll retreat behind claims of first amendment protection, hoping that these claims will shield them from social consequence.
I, too, am tired of hearing that First Amendment rights protect students when they are creating a hostile and unsafe learning environment. Of course they should be free from legal consequence, but that has very little to do with the matter at hand.
No, it is nonsense. Tell me this. When you went to college in the last century, as I did, was your Residence Hall Director concerned about your feewings? I seriously doubt it.
If Yale operates that way today, it’s a problem of their own making.
What is your definition of an unsafe learning environment?
Lack of fire alarms and sprinklers? Hazardous waste? Unsanitary bathrooms or kitchens? IMO, hurt feelings do not rise to the same level.
In this context? A learning environment that is full of easily-avoided and unnecessary stressors on students such that they’re distracted from their core job of learning. Stressors that are difficult to eliminate (e.g., stress from traffic) or necessary in a learning environment (e.g., stress from finals) are not what’s being talked about.
Sounds like you are judging things about which you are ignorant. For example, I majored in philosophy, and I make six figures. Do you? If not, doesn’t that make your degree more useless than philosophy?
Philosophy tends to be held up as the supreme example of a useless degree. All I can say is that I seem to be having a very good life, and holy moly, can I ever see the lack of depth and insight in a lot of people who would dismiss my major.