Yale lecturer resigns over campus climate of 'censure and prohibition'

Erika Christakis wrote an email suggesting students should be allowed to wear what they want, even if it is deemed offensive, but the email sparked protests. Some critics are concerned cultural sensitivities may have gone too far on campus.

Ryan Flynn/New Haven Register/AP
Yale University students and supporters participate in a march across campus to demonstrate against what they see as racial insensitivity at the Ivy League school on Nov. 9, in New Haven, Conn.

A Yale professor who argued for students’ right to wear culturally insensitive Halloween costumes and triggered outcry on campus has announced her intentions to resign from teaching at the university.

The issue began last October, when the university’s Intercultural Affairs Committee sent out an email to students instructing them to avoid wearing racially insensitive costumes for Halloween such as Native American headdresses, turbans, or blackface.

In response, Erika Christakis wrote an email to students living in the Silliman College residence where she was an administrator, arguing that students should be allowed and even encouraged to wear costumes, even if it is offensive.

"Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious, a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive?" she wrote. "American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition."

The e-mail triggered an outcry among some minority students and others, and many demanded Ms. Christakis, also a lecturer on early childhood development and her husband, fellow Silliman master Nicholas Christakis, step down.

On Nov. 9 dozens of students marched in protest against what they see as racial insensitivity at the Ivy League school.

The protests came amid a backdrop of unrest on campuses across the country, political correctness, and handling of racial complaints.

Some critics have expressed concerns that cultural sensitivities may have gone too far on campus, as The Christian Science Monitor reported last month:

But many of the student’s expressions also shifted the conversation to another debate: whether college campuses are becoming “places of censure and prohibition.”

As Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic wrote: “It ought to be disputed rather than indulged for the sake of these students, who need someone to teach them how empowered they are by virtue of their mere enrollment; that no one is capable of invalidating their existence, full stop; that their worth is inherent, not contingent; that everyone is offended by things around them; that they are capable of tremendous resilience…”

The fundamental issue is plotting that point at which offense becomes unacceptably invasive to others, and that is a target that moves as society changes.

In July, Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis, who writes about gender identity and sexual politics, was investigated after a sexual discrimination complaint was filed against her following an article she wrote about student-professor relationships.

The Monitor reported in July, 

But “free and unfettered” speech is increasingly coming up against a new generation of students, some of whom have an expectation that they have a right not to read or hear ideas that differ from their worldview or make them uncomfortable.

What began in the 1990s as political correctness – a desire not to offend others – has now morphed into what one academic observer calls “empathetic correctness” – a desire never to be offended. Even celebrities have weighed in on the debate, with comedians Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher saying the environment at college makes it almost impossible to do their routines without someone becoming upset.

On its website, the university said Christakis decided not to continue teaching in the spring semester.

"Her teaching is highly valued and she is welcome to resume teaching anytime at Yale, where freedom of expression and academic inquiry are the paramount principle and practice," the school said. 

This report contains material from the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.