Photo by Craig Warga – Bloomberg Finance LP / Getty Images
November 5th marked the boiling point in a week long controversy surrounding cultural appropriation at Yale University. Yet, in reality, this controversy illustrates a much larger debate on the role of the University.
The controversy began with an email sent by Associate Master of Silliman College Erika Christakis. The email was a response Yale asking students to be thoughtful about the cultural implications of their Halloween costumes. This notice from Yale was therefore similar to UBC’s Oct. 23 media release titled “When Halloween costumes cross the line”.
Dr. Christakis’ email questioned the Universities right to dictate what students should and shouldn’t wear on Halloween. “I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation” Christakis wrote, “Yet I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students” she continued. Furthermore, Christakis argued that there seems to be no room for a “child or young person to be a little obnoxious, inappropriate, provocative or offensive” and, furthermore, Universities have “become places of censure and prohibition”.
The response to the email was explosive. More than 740 Yale undergrads, graduate students, alumni, and faculty signed on to an open letter telling Christakis that her “offensive” email invalidates the voices of minority students on campus. Those offended by Christakis’ email have called for a formal apology from her and her husband, Nicholas Christakis who is Master of Silliman College. Some have also demanded the resignation of both professors. According to those protesting the email, such an offense violated their safe space at Yale.
“It’s not a home. It is no longer safe for me. And I find that incredibly depressing” said one student in a verbal confrontation with Nicholas Christakis, “This was once a space that I was proud to be a part of because of the loving community.”
In order to promote healthy discussion both Nicholas and Erika Christakis invited all signatories of the open letter to lunch on Sunday. Many rejected the invitation. One student, in the Yale Herald, criticized the invitation and argued that Nicholas Christakis “needs to stop instigating more debate.”
The controversy has grown since. The university hosted an open forum on allegations of institutional racism on campus, Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway was confronted in a three hour long impromptu about the lack of administrative response to the incident and 100 students encircled Nicholas Christakis in the Silliman College Courtyard accusing him of racism, insensitivity and demanding an apology for his wife’s email.
Despite this pressure, Erika and Nicholas Christakis have refused to apologize for the email. “I apologize for causing pain, but am not sorry for the statement. I stand behind free speech. I defend the right for people to speak their minds” stated Nicholas Christakis to the students who confronted him in the courtyard.
During this confrontation in the Silliman Courtyard one student argued that Christakis should step down because being a master is “not about creating an intellectual space” but rather “creating a home”. Therefore, the incident at Yale University has illustrated a debate relevant to all academic institutions, UBC included. Is it true that a University has to choose between being an intellectual space, circulating and encouraging free speech and discussion, or a ‘safe space’, which prohibits discussion in order to provide a more comfortable environment for students? Furthermore, if this dichotomy between intellectual and safe space does exist, to which does the University pledge her allegiance?