Paul L. Caron
Dean


Tuesday, May 31, 2016

The Perils Of Writing A Provocative Email At Yale

Yale University LogoThe Atlantic, The Perils of Writing a Provocative Email at Yale:

Last fall, student protesters at Yale University demanded that Professor Nicholas Christakis, an academic star who has successfully mentored Ivy League undergraduates for years, step down from his position as faculty-in-residence at Silliman College, along with his wife, Erika Christakis, who shared in the job’s duties.

The protesters had taken offense at an email sent by Erika Christakis.

Dogged by the controversy for months, the couple finally resigned their posts Wednesday. Because the student protests against them were prompted by intellectual speech bearing directly on Erika Christakis’s area of academic expertise, the outcome will prompt other educators at Yale to reflect on their own positions and what they might do or say to trigger or avoid calls for their own resignations. If they feel less inclined toward intellectual engagement at Yale, I wouldn’t blame them.

Nicholas Christakis will continue on as a tenured Yale faculty member. Erika Christakis, who gave up teaching at Yale last semester, recently published a book, The Importance of Being Little: What Preschoolers Really Need From Grownups. She has no future classes scheduled.

The controversy that culminated in this week’s resignations began last October, when Erika Christakis was teaching a Yale class called “Concept of the Problem Child.

An expert in early childhood education, she’s long been critical of ways that adults deprive children of learning experiences by over-policing their behavior. When Yale administrators sent an all-students email advising Yalies to avoid “culturally unaware or insensitive choices” when choosing their Halloween costumes, Erika Christakis responded with an email of her own, acknowledging “genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation,” lauding the “spirit of avoiding hurt and offense,” but questioning  whether students were well-served by administrators asserting norms rather than giving them space to shape their own.

“Have we lost faith in young people’s capacity—in your capacity—to exercise self-censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you?” she asked. “What does this debate about Halloween costumes say about our view of young adults, of their strength and judgment? Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It’s not mine, I know that.”

Many students were outraged by the email, particularly a portion that Erika Christakis attributed to her husband: “Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offense are the hallmarks of a free and open society.”

Student critics responded, in part, by circulating a petition that accumulated scores of signatures from Yale students and alumni. “You ask students to ‘look away’ if costumes are offensive, as if the degradation of our cultures and people, and the violence that grows out of it is something that we can ignore,” the petition stated, adding that “we were told to meet the offensive parties head on, without suggesting any modes or means to facilitate these discussions to promote understanding.”

The petition assumes that offensive Halloween costumes beget violence; proceeds as if Nicholas Christakis simply advised students to ignore all offensive costumes; acknowledges in the next clause that, in fact, he also declared, “or tell them you are offended;” and most bizarrely, concludes as if Ivy League students advised to “talk to each other,” the most straightforward of human behaviors, somehow need further counsel on “modes or means to facilitate these discussions,” as if they are Martians unfamiliar with talking to classmates—even as they put forth a persuasive petition aimed at those same classmates.

Soon after his wife sent her email, Nicholas Christakis found himself standing on a campus quad surrounded by protesters. He attempted to respond in person to their concerns. After watching videos of the scene, I noted the core disagreement between the professor and the undergraduates. Christakis believed that he had an obligation to listen to the views of the students, to reflect upon them, and to respond that he was persuaded or articulate why he maintained a different view. In short, he believed that one respects students by engaging them in earnest dialogue.

Many students believed that his responsibility was to hear their demands for an apology and to issue it. They saw anything short of a declaration of wrongdoing as unacceptable. In their view, one respected students by validating their hurt feelings.

Their perspective was informed by the idea that their residential college is akin to a home. At Yale, residential colleges have what was then called a “master”—a professor who lives on site and is responsible for its academic, intellectual, and social life.  “Masters work with students to shape each residential college community,” Yale stated, “bringing their own distinct social, cultural, and intellectual influences to the colleges.” The approach is far costlier than what’s on offer at commuter schools, but aims to create a richer intellectual environment where undergrads can learn from faculty and one another even outside the classroom. ...

When Yale’s history is written, they should be regarded as collateral damage harmed by people who abstracted away their humanity. Yale activists felt failed by their institution and took out their frustration on two undeserving scapegoats who had only recently arrived there. Students who profess a belief in the importance of feeling safe at home marched on their house, scrawled angry messages in chalk beneath their bedroom window, hurled shouted insults and epithets, called for their jobs, and refused to shake their hands even months later, all over one email. And the couple’s ultimate resignation does nothing to improve campus climate.

What a waste.

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/05/the-perils-of-writing-a-provocative-email-at-yale.html

Legal Education | Permalink

Comments

Perhaps all Yale admin should resign, and the students get a tuition reduction based on the savings of not paying their salaries and benefits. After all, it seems as if the admin has abandoned and abdicated their job responsibilities and turned them over to the student mob. Yale is getting what it deserves for having a spineless administration. The students creating this ridiculous ruckus should have been expelled.

Posted by: ruralcounsel | May 31, 2016 4:38:59 AM

"(T)he outcome will prompt other educators at Yale to reflect on their own positions and what they might do or say to trigger or avoid calls for their own resignations. If they feel less inclined toward intellectual engagement at Yale..."

Of course, we all know that this admonition solely applies to cases where educators take "positions" that Progressive orthodoxy considers offensive, or where the offended are members of protected groups. No additional reflection, a sense of fair play, or even fact checking, continues to be required when it comes to attacking Conservative or Libertarian worldviews and/or teaching the privileged a good lesson in “moving on” or “getting over it”.

Posted by: MG | May 31, 2016 7:21:14 AM

@Ruralcoounsel,

True fact: in 2014, Yale paid it endowment fund managers nearly three times what it spent on financial aid; it was something along the lines of $480 million versus $180 million. The NYT covered it with barely-concealed mirth.

Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | May 31, 2016 9:25:56 AM

Oh, Oh. Does this mean my career as a schlepper three bill retail theft lawyer is toast after all of the pithy but true things I have written on this blog.. I don't know what I am going to do when I loose 37K in Schedule C income.

Posted by: Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King | May 31, 2016 2:48:51 PM

Yale is getting what it deserves for having a spineless administration.

They'd have plenty of spine if it did not disrupt their peer signaling. The real problem is that the dynamics of academic institutions (and, one suspects, corporate and governmental institutions) are such that the people who rise to the top follow Andre Agassi's old dictum. We live in the Age of Hollow Men.

Posted by: Art Deco | May 31, 2016 5:38:10 PM