Bullied by Yale students, Erika and Nicholas Christakis resign their residential posts

In October of last year, Erika Christakis, child development expert and associate master of the Silliman residential college at Yale University, sent an email to students in response to a dean’s email about a big fracas involving “inappropriate” Halloween costumes. Christakis discussed the difficulties of determining whether costumes were potentially offensive and warned about the dangers of impeding free speech. It was a pretty innocuous letter (read my post about it here), but it ignited a huge reaction among students, an explosion whose fuse—black students’ feelings of University oppression—had been smoldering for a long while. As I wrote at the time:

Unfortunately, this rather tame letter set off an explosion.  740 Yale students, alumni, faculty and staff signed an open letter to Christakis, accusing her of “invalidating the existences” of marginalized students and disrespecting their cultures and livelihoods. Her husband, the college’s master, met with the protestors, who demanded that he apologize for the email (he wouldn’t). As the Washington Post reports, some Silliman students say they can’t bear to live in the college any more, and others are drafting a letter calling for the resignation of both Nicholas and Erika Christakis.

And her husband Nicholas, a professor of Medicine and of Sociology, as well as co-Master of Silliman, was horribly beleaguered by students holding him accountable for his wife’s email, cursing and shouting at him (see the video here).  That was the beginning of a huge round of protests by students at Yale, with the University by and large capitulating to the now-familiar list of non-negotiable student “demands.”

There was a petition by faculty supporting Nicholas and Erika Christkis, but only 49 faculty signed it. That’s a pathetically low number! And the students called for the Christakises to resign, saying that they had created an “unsafe space” at Silliman, and ruined their “home. As the Yale Daily News reported, at graduation this year some students refused to accept their diplomas from Nicholas Christakis’s hands.

The students won. In December, Erika decided to withdraw from her teaching post at Yale, and Nicholas Christakis took a one-semester sabbatical. There’s little doubt that they did this to avoid further student harassment.

Now, according to a new article by Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic, as of Wednesday both Nicholas and Erika have resigned their residential positions at Silliman College. As the article notes, “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.”

Now I can understand, and find it admirable, that the Christakises would step down if they felt they could no longer be effective residential heads. Many students really disliked them, as the diploma incident above notes. But the problem is this: the immature and bullying students should not have reacted that way. By all accounts Erika and Nicholas were great housemasters and excellent teachers, and now their skills are lost to Yale because of bullying students. As far as I can see, Yale itself has done little to support them. As for the faculty petition, The Atlantic notes this:

Some activists nevertheless cast the couple as symbols of what was wrong with Yale, an injustice noted by a group of faculty members who came to their defense. “In the case of the Christakises, their work has been more directly oriented toward the social justice than the work of many other members of the Yale faculty,” they wrote. “For example, Nicholas Christakis worked for many years as a hospice doctor, making house visits to underserved populations in Chicago. Progressive values and social justice are not advanced by scapegoating those who share those values.”

With regard to Erika Christakis’s email, the faculty members declared themselves “deeply troubled that this modest attempt to ask people to consider the issue of self-monitoring vs. bureaucratic supervision has been misinterpreted, and in some cases recklessly distorted, as support for racist speech; and hence as justification for demanding the resignation of our colleagues from their posts at Silliman.”

But relatively few humanities professors signed that letter of support. [JAC: As is often the case, scientists are more willing to sign such petitions. Don’t ask me why.]

And when drafting the letter, the physics professor Douglas Stone found himself warned by faculty colleagues that he was putting himself at risk of being protested.

At Yale, I encountered students and faculty members who supported the Christakises but refused to say so on the record, and others who criticized them, but only anonymously. On both sides, people with perfectly mainstream opinions shared them with a journalist but declined to put their name behind them due to a campus climate where anyone could conceivably be the next object of ire and public shaming. Insufficient tolerance for disagreement is undermining campus discourse.

So we have a campus where people are publicly afraid to speak their minds, terrified of student reaction. Yale has indeed allowed a climate of intolerance to grow: a culture of hatred and public shaming.

And so, two great resources for Yale students, and two dedicated teachers, give up a lot of their duties in light of the bullying they faced by students. Shame on the Yale students for their immaturity and Authoritarian Leftist ideology, and shame on the Yale administration for not supporting the Christakises. I urge you to go back and read Erika’s letter to the “Sillimanders”, and see if you find anything in it that would justify such a student response, or anything that would brand the couple as racists. As author Friedersdorf says at the end of his piece, “. . . the couple’s ultimate resignation does nothing to improve campus climate. What a waste.”

Amen.

Physics explains it all

Reader Pliny the In Between has a new cartoon, “Time Dilation,” on his/her site Evolving Perspectives (click to enlarge):

Toon Background.002

Making these cartoons is no easy job; in another new post, Pliny explains the work behind creating the characters and making the panels. It’s far more complicated and laborious than you’d imagine!

Readers’ wildlife photos

Stephen Barnard in Idaho is sending lots of photos, for the owls and the eagles on his property have young about to fledge. Plus he saw BABY COYOTES. So here’s the latest installment:

Desi (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) taking off from the nest. When they take off they launch into the air and then drop to pick up air speed. I guess it’s easier than flapping wings.

RT9A0053
Great Horned Owlets (Bubo virginianus). I thought there were only two until today. [May 23]

RT9A0102

I was lucky to capture this fledgling (one of three) in flight. They’ve been out of the nest for a couple of days and are a little clumsy, especially on the landings, but rapidly improving. The adults were watchful. I got some pretty good digiscoped video of one taking off.

RT9A0239

This is a freeze-frame from a 4K digiscoped video of an adult taking off.

owl freeze frame May 24

RT9A0202

RT9A0226

Coyote pups! (Canis latrans):

The one in profile was super bold — much more so than his siblings.

RT9A0442

RT9A0476

RT9A0475

RT9A0448

And two videos:

I was lucky to capture this fledgling Great Horned Owl (Bubo viginianus; one of three) in flight. They’ve been out of the nest for a couple of days and are a little clumsy, especially on the landings, but rapidly improving. The adults were watchful. I got some pretty good digiscoped video of one taking off.

A Black-billed Magpie (Pica hudsonia) was an unwelcome moocher at the
eagle nest.

Friday: Hili dialogue

It’s Friday, and about noon I’ll head to the American Humanist Association meeting downtown. That means that posting will be light here until Monday, and then on Wednesday I go to Boston for a week or so. Like Maru, I do my best.

On May 27, 1703, Peter the Great founded the city of St. Petersburg (named Petrograd by the Bolsheviks and now restored with its original name). Also on this day, but in 1937, the Golden Gate Bridge opened in California, linking San Francisco and the Marin Headlands.

Those born on this day include Julia Ward How (1819), composer of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” and, in 1907, biologist, environmentalists and writer Rachel Carson. On May 27, 1923, Henry Kissinger was born: the old warmonger and Nobel Laureate for Peace (!) is 93 today.

Notables who died on this day include John Calvin (1564), Robert Koch (1910; the Father of Microbiology and discoverer of the organisms causing tuberculosis, anthrax, and cholera), and Jawaharlal Nehru (1964), a great secularist and one of the architects of modern India. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is chewing out Andrzej for not meeting her needs. Sometimes she’s a bit of a jerk!

Hili: Can we stop working and go for a walk?
M: I just have to finish this paragraph.
Hili: Your life is divided into paragraphs.
P1040303
In Polish:

Hili: Czy możemy przestać pracować i pójść na spacer?
Małgorzata: Muszę dokończyć ten akapit.
Hili: Wasze życie jest podzielone na akapity.

Lagniappe: here’s Gus in a photo called “Chat Eau”. He’s drinking from the backyard pond but, curiously, ignores the goldfish in there

IMG_4962

Pair of misplaced glasses mistaken for art

The latest book I’m reading is by the New York Times‘s film critic A. O. Scott: Better Living Through Criticism: How to Think About Art, Pleasure, Beauty, and Truth. It’s a mixed bag, but, to give him credit, Scott’s taken a hard look at the value of his own profession, asking what the purpose of criticism is, whether it is itself an art form, can there be any nonsubjective standards of taste, and so on. The book does make you think, and one of its subjects is this: “does something mundane, boring, or trivial become art at the moment when it’s called art?”  We all know of all-white paintings, heaps of trash mistaken for artworks, and so on.

The latest one of these, reported by The Independent (and BuzzFeed), is amusing but also disturbing.  A 17-year-old boy named TJ Khayatan pulled a prank at the San Francisco Museum of Art, putting a pair of glasses on the floor and, in other places, a wastebasket and a baseball cap. While all of them elicited reactions from the viewers, who often saw them as art, none was as effective as the glasses. To wit:

art-glasses

grid-cell-14081-1464199492-4

Khayatan photographed the people admiring his “art” and posted them on Twi**er, where they went viral.

Question: If those glasses were put on the floor by an artist, and given a title and a fancy explanation, they would constitute an “installation” that could be worth many thousands of dollars. What, then, is the difference between this prank and the kind of “art” that doesn’t differ much from it, like all-white paintings or the work below by Christopher Wool, “Blue Fool,” that sold for over $5 million at Christie’s. 

modern_art_sold_for_bank_11

All of us could do that stencil, but none of us would earn even $50 for it. Clearly an artist with a name is more likely to produce puzzling stuff that would be regarded not just as art, but as VALUABLE art. But what about those glasses?

I am ambivalent. I can see the worth of Serrano’s “Piss Christ”, and barely see the artsiness of Warhol’s soup cans, which to me are a commentary on art rather than real art, but “Blue Fool”? It may be intended as art, but it doesn’t move me or engage my emotions. Others, no doubt, will have a fancy explanation of what it means.

I know there are many artists among the readers, so do explain to me why a pair of glasses put on a pedestal by an artist is considered “art,” but a pair of glasses on the floor is not—at least not by critics. The public, long used to puzzling artworks and unsure of their own ability to analyze things, clearly thinks that the glasses do constitute art.

h/t: Grania

DePaul President responds to the Yiannopoulos affair

I had already written to the President of DePaul University about the suppression of free speech shown in this morning’s video, but before he responded (if he even does), I got an email from a member of the DePaul faculty, who, among other things, enclosed a letter that President, Rev. Dennis Holtschneider, sent to the University community. The faculty member, who will remain anonymous, said this:

I have forwarded the message sent by DePaul’s President Holtschneider yesterday morning. This is the latest in a line of other messages sent by him to the DePaul community, all affirming the importance of free speech at DePaul. I would appreciate if you could publish a follow-up post to allow other WEIT readers to know that the actions of a subset of DePaul’s students does not necessarily reflect the stance of the institution, its administration, or its faculty on free speech and are, in fact, in direct opposition to it.

Done. Thanks to this person for contacting me! And here’s the President’s letter, which, to my delight, affirms the value of free speech and says that the University will not tolerate further disruptions (my emphasis). Like me, he’s not down with Yiannopoulus’s message but strongly in favor if allowing it to be issued without interruption:

From: “Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, C.M.”
Subject: Tuesday’s speech and protest
Date: May 25, 2016 at 11:15:55 AM CDT

Dear Members of the DePaul University Community,

I am writing from France, where Fr. Udovic and I are leading a mission trip to introduce our trustees to the life and legacy of St. Vincent de Paul. Because today is a free day, a number of us are spending the day in Normandy, touring the museum, walking the famous beaches of the D-Day landings and standing silent before the rows and rows of graves honoring the men and women who gave their lives so others might live in freedom.

I tell you this because I awoke this morning to the reports and online videos of yesterday’s speech by Milo Yiannopoulos and the accompanying protest. I was sorry to see it.

Mr. Yiannopoulos and I share very few opinions. He argues that there is no wage gap for women, a difficult position to maintain in light of government data. As a gay man, he has claimed that sexual preference is entirely a choice, something few if any LGTBQ individuals would claim as their own experience. He claims that white men have fewer privileges than women or people of color, whom he believes are unfairly privileged in modern society — a statement that is immediately suspect when white men continue to occupy the vast majority of top positions in nearly every major industry.

Generally, I do not respond to speakers of Mr. Yiannopoulos’ ilk, as I believe they are more entertainers and self-serving provocateurs than the public intellectuals they purport to be. Their shtick is to shock and incite a strong emotional response they can then use to discredit the moral high ground claimed by their opponents. This is unworthy of university discourse, but not unfamiliar across American higher education. There will always be speakers who exploit the differences within our human community to their own benefit, blissfully unconcerned with the damage they leave behind.

Now that our speaker has moved on to UC Santa Barbara and UCLA, we at DePaul have some reflecting and sorting out to do. Student Affairs will be inviting the organizers of both the event and the protest — as well as any others who wish — to meet with them for this purpose. I’ve asked them to reflect on how future events should be staffed so that they proceed without interruption; how protests are to be more effectively assisted and enabled; and how the underlying differences around race, gender and orientation that were made evident in yesterday’s events can be explored in depth in the coming academic year.

As this proceeds, I wish to make a few matters crystal clear.

*   Yesterday’s speaker was invited to speak at DePaul, and those who interrupted the speech were wrong to do so. Universities welcome speakers, give their ideas a respectful hearing, and then respond with additional speech countering the ideas. I was ashamed for DePaul University when I saw a student rip the microphone from the hands of the conference moderator and wave it in the face of our speaker.

*   I was alarmed when I watched individual students on both sides intentionally provoking the others with inflammatory language, but I was proud when I saw students — many students — working to calm each other, and at times, even hold people back from hasty decisions. Many of our students understood that protests only work when people conduct themselves honorably. I wish to thank all of them for self-monitoring the crowd’s behavior. The experience could have been a far worse experience had they not done so.

*   I wish to thank our Student Affairs staff, Public Safety team, Student Center employees, Chicago police and temporary contract safety personnel. They were thrust into an unexpected and challenging situation that we must examine for hard learned lessons.  I am grateful that the situation was calmed and dispersed without serious injury to anyone’s person. I know the staff, too, are reflecting on these events and what might be learned for the future.

*   On behalf of the university, I apologize to the DePaul College Republicans. They deserved an opportunity to hear their speaker uninterrupted, and were denied it.

Here in Normandy, I expected to be moved by the generosity of those who gave their lives on the beaches early on June 6, 1944. I did not expect, however, to be shocked when I realized that most of the soldiers were the same ages as our students today. The rows on rows of white crosses in the American cemetery speak to the selflessness of the human spirit at early adulthood to lay down their lives for a better world.

I realize that many of yesterday’s protesters hold similarly noble goals for a more inclusive world for those traditionally held aside by our society. I realize also that these young soldiers died for all the freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech and assembly. We honor their sacrifice best if we, too, remember and honor all the rights of human freedom, even as we fight for more freedom and justice for all.

God bless you.

Rev. Dennis H.

Here’s the iguana!

Stephen Knight spotted an iguana when checking into his hotel in Tulum, Mexico. I put up the quiz earlier, and now here’s the reveal. Did you find it?

26 May 2016 061351 GMT-0500

Iguana1

Iguana2

Iguana3

This appears to be a black spiny-tailed iguana, or Ctenosaura similis. Readers can correct me if I’m wrong, as it may be a green iguana.

Iguana5

Saudi man shoots obstetrician for helping his wife deliver her baby

Okay, pin this on Western imperialism if you can. According to Newsweek, a Saudi man shot a doctor in Riyadh for helping his wife deliver a baby:

Saudi authorities have arrested a man for shooting a male doctor who had helped his wife’s delivery, after arguing that a female doctor should have overseen the birth.

The doctor, Muhannad Al Zabn, delivered the baby in April at the King Fahad Medical City in Riyadh, Gulf News reported.

The father offered his thanks to the doctor and asked to meet him at the hospital to show him his appreciation in person for the delivery.

The pair proceeded to meet in the hospital garden to talk about the delivery when the father unveiled a firearm and shot at the doctor, seriously wounded him.

The father ran from the scene but Saudi police later arrested him. Health workers transferred Al Zabn to the hospital’s intensive care unit but he is now in a stable condition.

It’s not clear from the piece exactly what transgression the doctor committed: was it touching the women, or simply overseeing her delivery? Newsweek reports that while many people on social media take the doctor’s side, others don’t. Regardless, we see someone seriously injured because of a religious dictate separating men and women. Or was this really the fault of the West? Perhaps Robert Wright will tell us.

h/t: Russel

Milo again proves his point as DePaul students go nuts and prevent him from speaking

Let nobody say I’m a fan of Milo Yiannopoulos, an editor of the right-wing website Breitbart and a professional provocateur. He’s embarked on a “Dangerous Faggot” tour in the U.S. (he’s gay), going from college to college talking about feminism, regressive Leftism, and politics. Or rather, attempting to talk, for his mere presence on U.S. campuses apparently constitutes a macroaggression, creating not just a massive unsafe space but an Unsafe Black Hole that sucks in every Authoritarian Leftist within a five-mile radius.

As I posted before when Milo tried to speak at Rutgers University, more often than not leftist students, including enraged blacks, feminists, and Authoritarian Leftists of all stripes, try to shout him down, either getting up on stage, cat-calling, blowing whistles, holding signs, or smearing themselves with fake blood. And that is inside the auditorium. His speeches are often stopped by the shenanigans of his opponents, who cannot fathom that the proper thing to do is let him speak, counter his assertions with demonstrations outside or questions inside, to give opposing talks or write opposing articles.  And so, as this happens at place after place, Milo’s opponents make his points for him, showing their immaturity and unwillingness to tolerate ideological viewpoints they find objectionable.

This last week, another group of students scored an Own Goal at Chicago’s DePaul University. Here’s a video snipped to show when the disruptions began (after 20 minutes of his talk, at 46:20), and when one woman mounts the stage to hijack Milo’s talk (57:30). If you think the videos are taken out of context, you can watch the entire two-hour fracas by going back to the beginning.

Apparently the students think that censoring someone who questions their values, and hijacking the event, is the best way to spread those values. But it doesn’t work, and never has. All it does is show that Milo is right in one respect: many students are entitled, spoiled, and unwilling to engage in civil discourse.  I wonder how they’d feel if someone behaved like that were they to give a speech.

Shame on DePaul for not stopping this kind of nonsense—and I’m referring to the student disruptions.

 

Robert Wright’s rant against New Atheism

On his Templeton-funded “MeaningofLife.TV” site, Robert Wright fulminates about New Atheism (click on screenshot below). I’m pleased to see that both Krauss and I are included on Murderers Row along with the remains of the Horsepersons (sadly, Wright identifies me as a “paleontologist,” which is bizarre.) His beef: New Atheists lack “intellectual humility,” instantiated by their belief that “we’re sure that God doesn’t exist”. But that’s not true: we think it highly probable that God doesn’t exist, which is the scientific attitude. (See The God Delusion.)

We’re also said to be advocates of “scientism” and that we see no good products of religion. The “scientism” accusation is a canard, and I’m sure that most of us accept that religion can sometimes motivate good works. The claim is not that, but, on balance, that religion is inimical to human progress.

Screen Shot 2016-05-25 at 11.52.29 AM

As he’s done so often, Wright argues (25:50) that there may be some teleological force behind the universe—something that may, for instance, have created the laws of physics. Although he, like John Horgan, claims to be a nonbeliever, they both fit Dennett’s definition of “believers in belief”: those who say, “Well, I see no need for religion, but it’s really good for all those Other People.” In fact, he’s loath to find any endemic problem with religion; when religion behaves badly, it’s often caused by people who criticize religion (43:30)! The lesson: we should stop criticizing religion, and I think Wright would be really happy if we’d do that.

The bit goes on if you click on the section called “the holy war against religion.” Here Wright takes out against antitheism, the attempt to dispel religious notions held by others.

As I said, MeaningofLife.tv was begun last year with a grant from the Templeton Foundation, and I’m sure they love the attack on New Atheism. So long as somebody attacks the antitheists and also leaves room for the possibility of the divine, as Wright does, the money will keep coming. I just found out that Wright also has an 18-month position as a Visiting Professor of Science and Religion at the Union Theological Seminary, with the mission of finding compatibility between science, spirituality, and religion. Wright’s position is, of course, funded by Templeton. 

UPDATE: At lunch I watched an hour of the 90-minute Union Theological Seminary debate between Wright and Lawrence Krauss, and I recommend it. There’s an epic quarrel about the question of “how do you get a Universe from nothing?”, and that alone is worth the time.

 

h/t: candide001

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 40,937 other followers