Steven Stoft: microaggressions vs. mega-aggression is apt. And I agree with you on the author's assertion of conformity then and now. There's no doubt some overlap because we humans are social creatures, thus primed for conformity. The differences in social and technological circumstances are only one reason why these movements aren't th…
Steven Stoft: microaggressions vs. mega-aggression is apt. And I agree with you on the author's assertion of conformity then and now. There's no doubt some overlap because we humans are social creatures, thus primed for conformity. The differences in social and technological circumstances are only one reason why these movements aren't the same, however. Among other considerations is the fact that universities are endorsing many of the "radical" demands of students and faculty.
I completely agree. The Yale Halloween-Costume incident where the woke were taking the side of the administrators, who had egged them on, and demanding that a faculty member act like a parent and protect them from other students, was so inverted compared to my experience that I still find it incomprehensible.
It is a position driven by liability management on the part of universities and colleges. More change is provoked by tort than protest at the university level.
I think you're first sentence -- about the administrators -- may be right. But the second -- about "change" -- is not so obvious. Torts can not explain why a small minority of students behaved so badly toward Erika and Nicholas Christakis. And it can't explain why Handa felt his "precious few years at college," and his "job hunts and long after" were in danger of being "ruined" if he spoke his mind.
But perhaps it is the behavior of the students, egged on by faculty, which makes the administrators fear legal action. Does that sound possible?
It absolutely doesn't have to do with the bad actions of the students. I meant to suggest it informs the decision making by the administrators in response to those bad actions.
Steven Stoft: microaggressions vs. mega-aggression is apt. And I agree with you on the author's assertion of conformity then and now. There's no doubt some overlap because we humans are social creatures, thus primed for conformity. The differences in social and technological circumstances are only one reason why these movements aren't the same, however. Among other considerations is the fact that universities are endorsing many of the "radical" demands of students and faculty.
I completely agree. The Yale Halloween-Costume incident where the woke were taking the side of the administrators, who had egged them on, and demanding that a faculty member act like a parent and protect them from other students, was so inverted compared to my experience that I still find it incomprehensible.
It is a position driven by liability management on the part of universities and colleges. More change is provoked by tort than protest at the university level.
I think you're first sentence -- about the administrators -- may be right. But the second -- about "change" -- is not so obvious. Torts can not explain why a small minority of students behaved so badly toward Erika and Nicholas Christakis. And it can't explain why Handa felt his "precious few years at college," and his "job hunts and long after" were in danger of being "ruined" if he spoke his mind.
But perhaps it is the behavior of the students, egged on by faculty, which makes the administrators fear legal action. Does that sound possible?
It absolutely doesn't have to do with the bad actions of the students. I meant to suggest it informs the decision making by the administrators in response to those bad actions.
OK, Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
Thanks for helping me express it more clearly.