[1478] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Message from President Vest
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kai-yuh Hsiao)
Mon Oct 6 15:42:15 2003
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:39:27 -0400
Reply-To: eepness@MIT.EDU
From: Kai-yuh Hsiao <eepness@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031005230147.045e67c8@po9.mit.edu>
Just speaking for myself as a curious observer (and alumnus, and
former student government member), I have a few thoughts on the
message that President Vest sent to the community yesterday.
Having now read the original email in addition to this response, it
doesn't appear to me that the original email was, as stated, "mean
spirited". I find it unlikely that the author(s) of the email had any
genuinely harmful or malicious intent towards any people or groups of
people, but rather that it was most likely an attempt at humor.
That said, I can also see how such language can, indeed, be offensive
to members of the community. For any given issue, there will always
be people who are sensitive to it because of their background. And
it's important to remember that when doing any kind of public
communication.
As they are used in the email, the stereotypes and the language seem
to be there in a satirical way. The tone is one that mocks the
stereotype itself, a stereotype already being intentionally
perpetuated by TV, movies, music, and mass media today. I have little
firsthand experience with the images referenced in the email, but I
know what they refer to because I can hardly get through an evening of
TV without seeing at least one image of, for instance, a trash can
fire, graffiti, or police running around a poor neighborhood.
Race is certainly a troubling matter in America, but I don't think we
at MIT can, or should, stifle all such references in our speech. Not
when these images permeate our entertainment.
Rather, I see these issues as an opportunity for constructive
discussion. If MIT is truly a community of scholars, then we can find
a way to reconcile images perpetuated by mass media with a sensitivity
to those who are affected by them.
If we really do value speech, humor, and thought here, then what we
need is to have open-minded dialogue on the topic. Every piece of
humor runs the risk of offending somebody. I think ideally the answer
is neither to punish the author and stifle humor, nor to ignore the
offended parties, but to open a forum where both parties can make
their thoughts clear, and hopefully both sides will come away with a
little more understanding.
If this genuinely happened for every case where someone spoke and
someone was offended, I think the world would already be better off
for it. I don't think anybody at MIT is incapable of compassion for
the rest of the community, given the opportunity to learn and discuss.
The lessons learned from such opportunities will make an enormous
difference over time.
In fact, I see a lot of discussion happening all over campus and on
email lists as a result of this issue now. But the problem is that
it's not open-minded discussion. It's defensive discussion. When
people feel threatened, they will get defensive. And I worry that
this is because the email initially sent by President Vest is somewhat
accusatory in its tone.
Words like "outrageous and mean spirited" and making veiled threats
like "[administration]... will deal swiftly and fairly with those
responsible" do not open a floor for discussion, but rather they can
cause people to feel like their lifestyle and their freedom of speech
are threatened. This leads to an environment that neither promotes
learning nor understanding.
I would have preferred to see the topic opened by an email reminding
that a compromise has to be found between the extremes of offending
people and stifling expression, and that it can only be done on a
case-by-case basis after conversation by the affected parties.
I realize that when people are offended, they also become more
defensive, and if President Vest, or the people he was speaking for,
was very offended, then it is possible that his email came off a
little more rigid and unilateral than perhaps necessary. But it's a
matter of self-restraint. Understanding will only come about when
both sides have the self-restraint to allow for mutual discussion,
instead of forcing the other side into a defensive corner. It takes
trust, and faith in people, to believe that they can learn and
understand, but the alternative, a community of blind distrust, is far
more dangerous.
With that in mind, I for one would like to see someone in the
administration re-affirm that both sides do have merit, and that these
issues _are_ worth considering on a case-by-case basis, with both the
intent of the author(s) and the level of offense/tastelessness kept in
mind. I think if a representative of the administration consistently
took the lead to initiate discussion along those lines, the MIT
community would already be more at ease with itself than it is now.
The discussion is already happening, all around us. It takes
leadership to make it a dialogue of equals instead of a pitched
battle.
Anyway, thanks for listening. I'll just sit here and wait to get
attacked by both sides for my centrist view. =)
Kai-yuh Hsiao
MIT Class of 1999
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 11:04:15PM -0400, President's Office wrote:
> Please post or forward the following message from President Vest.
>
> ===============================================
> October 5, 2003
>
> Thursday evening a small group of MIT students held what they termed a
> "Ghetto Party" in their residence hall. This event was advertised in
> advance by an e-mail message that I have read and find to be outrageous and
> mean spirited in its derogatory references to poor people and its overt use
> of racial epithet and negative stereotyping.
>
> Our community draws strength and joy from its diversity in many dimensions,
> including that of race. We have a broad tolerance for speech, humor and
> thought. But unthinking and demeaning behavior such as this party and its
> advertising can invade our collective soul and destroy our ability to
> pursue our mission of learning, growth and leadership. Students on this
> campus, whether minority or majority, and whether directly involved or not,
> should not be subjected to such an environment.
>
> I will be further troubled if, as a preliminary investigation indicates, it
> turns out that no one who read the invitation pointed out to their peers
> how hateful and harmful its language and racial implications
> were. Passivity amplifies the mean-spirited actions of others.
>
> Race in America remains a troubling matter, but we look to the leadership
> and good will of talented young men and women who are privileged to be part
> of great institutions like MIT to move us beyond this and improve our
> world. It is sad and disappointing when even a few choose to take the
> opposite path.
>
> MIT's administrative and student governance systems will deal swiftly and
> fairly with those responsible for this event. But we all must move equally
> swiftly to pull together, to learn the lessons of this matter, and to work
> together in mutual respect and common purpose to live up to our potential
> as friends, colleagues and leaders.
>
> --Charles M. Vest
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
