The fact that this inconsequential squabble gets discussed so much and gets portrayed as the fight between David and "Goliath The Man", instead of being seen as a public tantrum being thrown by a spoiled kid living a cushioned life inside a cocoon made out of hopes and dreams, makes me sick to my stomach.
I'm impressed by your incredible level-headedness, sir.
Leaving snark aside, it seems telling that both your leveller's bias, and your repellent pride in same, are entirely compatible in your own mind with the sort of "let's all be grown-ups here, shall we?" pose you take one comment later. "Unbiased" and "level-headed", it seems, mean exactly what you define them to mean, and you define them to mean being entirely in agreement with how you yourself regard these matters. I find this rather marvelous, or would if it weren't so lamentably common.
"If the common good justifies killing X agent, then it must be ok for a doctor to kill a patient in their sleep, take his organs and save three people with his two kidneys and heart."
Also, what Yale did wasn't right, and the students just defend themselves... If, for example, you were robbed wouldn't you care? "Oh but there are thousands more people poorer than me, I shouldn't bother".
Isn't that a variation of a semantic shift fallacy? [1]
I'm really interested in this sentence/concept - is there a term for this or anywhere I can read more about the concept behind this statement?
Oh, I wasn't aware that you knew the author of blog post and software. Was he really very spoiled as a child?
(I'm assuming you knew him, based on your comment, because surely you're not blanket-judging everyone who goes to a top-tier or Ivy League school as a coddled little brat with a silver spoon and an insular view of the world? Such a judgment would not even be correct to first order.)
What is making you sick to your stomach, anyway?
If it is the time spent on this project, how many hours did any of them actually spend? I think it's fun to go out to a bar with friends, and I even like entertainment where I do nothing other than sit or stand in the audience. I don't think those activities create much value for society, and I'm not even helping some classmates save time when picking out their classes, yet I don't think that's making anyone sick to their stomachs.
If it is the defiance of superiors, the two categories of crimes you mentioned are specifically relevant. Whether its a student, a gang on a bus, a soldier or a priest committing the crime, it isn't only about the force used at the time of the assault, but the complicity of the authorities that are in the habit of operating without oversight from the people they presume to serve.
When you describe the students as "spoiled", and the issues they think important as inconsequential without coming down on a side, it makes it sound like it would be better if they were paralyzed with awe over their good fortune, or at the very least deferential to the closest thing they can find to patrons. What is a "cocoon of hopes and dreams"? I think it is an objection to the students being idealistic, but the alternatives to serving ideals that I can think of are being self-congratulatory, or seeking for validation from superiors instead.
As for academic dishonesty[2], how do you think entire labs publish fraudulent papers other than through deference to authority? It seems less likely that some PhD candidate tricks everyone else in the lab, than that a PhD candidate slowly comes to the realization that his PI is sloppy and then that he is actively twisting or manufacturing results. What does the candidate do when his career would be interrupted if he becomes known for blowing the whistle on someone who gave him a position. How about the consideration that his career will be significantly tarnished if the person he trained under becomes known as a fraud? In such a case, it's probably just a lot easier to keep it in perspective as a case of academic honesty, rather than complicating it with trying to figure out who he owes your loyalty or respect to.
And finally, the third possibility for bellyache I can think of is that people are paying so much attention to this issue. That one shouldn't take much time to address. The issue is a pretty good proxy for describing the difference between a society (and economy) that is permission based or not. Hacker News is a community for people who see themselves as hackers, entrepreneurs, and innovators. While it is difficult to prove that disruption is always good, or even good on balance, that it is is pretty close to being the identifying major premise for a community like this.
In a very general sense I'm not sure that course ratings don't discourage diverse educational experiences and students from choosing classes best tailored to their individual talents. On the other hand, I also assume Yale students are sophisticated enough to take the ratings for what they're worth, and either way I'm saying that it is an issue worth considering, not one that makes me sick to my stomach to hear discussed.
The fact is, we live in a society where it is virtually required to stand up for ones self. Regardless of rape, fraud, bribery, etc. every person in a democratic society needs to stand up for what they feel is right. If you feel that it is wrong that fraud is happening, go ahead attempt to make a difference, you'll make the NEWS as well.
The reason that this is making NEWS is that these kids are willing to stand up for themselves even if it gets them kicked out of school (which by the way is not exactly a minuscule event).
It seems to me that you are attempting to compare a dispute amongst intellectuals with the rabbles of society. This is not a fair comparison, the fact is you are right everything you listed should get the attention they deserve and believe it or not they do. Would you really like to sit on Hacker News and just read about rapes all day, or plagiarism? It is not NEWS because there is little that can be done, we have systems in place (and continue to improve systems) to minimize "bad behavior."
In this case, Yale is actually abusing those systems (in many peoples eyes) and that is why it is making NEWS. Yale has an issue with seemingly abusing its power, this in my opinion, is wrong for the same reasons as rape, fraud, bribery, or plagiarism, it reduces our freedoms and "cheats" us. In this case, the ones being cheated are the Yale students, in the case of plagiarism it's perhaps the company that hires the plagiarizing student (or the student body when he fails at his job).
My point, is that you are so quick to make the assertion that this is a "minuscule altercation" without truly taking the time to consider that each altercation such as this is a battle for ones personal freedoms (similar to battling against plagiarism, bribery, fraud, or rape).
I do consider rape a far more extreme version of reducing ones freedom, but it is still so horrible because it takes away choice and in turn ones freedom.
Why you felt the need to use that idea to bash on (your stereotypical view of) ivy leaguers is beyond me.
And I agree, in Asia, it's very absent. I used to be surprised when I'd see an interview with some very hard rock band in Asia and they'd spend the interview quietly bowing and talking more or less like the proper primped pop-idol they just had on. It felt like the rock image was just a costume rather than being the free spirit of the person coming out. I've seen so many occasions in Asia where a situation called for an American style go fuck yourself response and it never appeared. I think a great many of the social ills you find in Confucian countries could be resolved with a sprinkle of American style rock and roll.
You're right though, taking that kind of life approach in Asia can be a life destroyer. In America there's enough of a critical mass of people who have and understand that kind of approach to life, and accept it in others, that you can be that way and find enough of a support network to still live a good life.
Europeans, in my observation, have a different kind of attitude. It's more of a fuck the old guard, fuck the status quo attitude that's probably informed by the last couple hundred years of European history. It can take on many of the same kinds of symbols and stylings as the American rock n roll way, but I think it has different goals and expected outcomes.
I also agree that the American attitude, while good for some things, can become boring and tiresome when it turns into stupid contrariness for the sake of being oppositional.
Similar demonstrations can happen against, for example, the principal of a university or school in other countries. The students protest even when they risk being expelled.
The US seems mild in comparison...
Yes. The American backed/sponsored slaughter of innocent men, women, and children across the Middle East and Africa in the name of profit, power, and greed doesn't seem to cross your mind. Also, it's clear that as an American you have free speech, but Americans who speak too freely might not wake up to see tomorrow [1] [2]
[1] http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-killed-michael-hastings/535... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/22/white-house-dro...
Beyond that - Saddam killed roughly 10 [1][2] times as many people as were killed as a direct result of the invasion of Iraq - and most of those deaths we're as a result of sectarian violence - not direct action by the US Forces.
When it comes down to it, war is messy business - regardless of the causes of it - I was opposed to the war in Iraq - I rightly predicted it would turn into my generations Vietnam - but in the end, the die is cast.
In re your first link - I wouldn't call global research a unbiased or objective source by any measure, period. [3]
In re your second link - show me a single country that guarantees the rights of its citizens when outside of the nominal borders of its country, and when those citizens are committing what would amount to acts of war against their country of citizenship.
I believe strongly in the right of free speech, and I've seen very few cases in my own country where those rights have been abridged or denuded in any way.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project#Body_co... - [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein'... - [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca
State-sponsored slaughter of innocent people in the Middle East and Africa is a pastime enthusiastically practiced by Canada and all of the "important" European nations (UK, Germany, France, and to a lesser extent Scandinavians) not just by the US.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_role_in_the_Afghanista... - [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_rel...
But, irrespective of all that - Afghanistan is in Asia.
I'm wondering if you could point to any indication of Canadian Forces slaughtering innocent people in the Middle East or Africa in the last 10 years? Curious, more than anything else.
I'm pretty sure that the innocent men, women and children who have been killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not systematically slaughtered, and in fact I do believe that the American military made every reasonable effort to minimize civilian casualties.
> across the Middle East and Africa
Can you go into more detail what, exactly, you mean by that? Two countries -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- is hardly "across the Middle East," and neither of them is in Africa.
> in the name of profit, power, and greed
I thought our activities in the Middle East were in the name of preventing future terrorist attacks.
Oh America, the land of the free and the home of the brave!
edit: Of course let's make it clear that America means the United States of America here. In Brazil or Chile people just would not care!
good work, sir!
Then again, people do keep asking if I am American...
I did find myself wondering about what students protest about these days, and found this example (from 2009):
"Students who occupied their university for three days to save its cleaners from being deported claimed victory today. Up to 60 students at the School of Oriental and African Studies (Soas) in London took over the principal's office on Monday."
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/jun/17/soas-occupa...
Students protesting to try and protect some of the least powerful people in our society - now that's a student protest.
Edit: Here is a recent example from France where students protest against a deportation of someone to Kosovo:
(note that it's the law in the UK, not some worthless university document)
(Oh I'm sorry, did I just libel Her Majesty's judicial system? How careless of me. I should watch what I write).
> (Oh I'm sorry, did I just libel Her Majesty's judicial system? How careless of me. I should watch what I write).
guess I missed the bit of the US constitution where other people's databases were considered protected speech.
Look, this is getting old. We had a massive libel reform which, while not as revolutionary as many people wanted, still made significant changes, and you are doing the thousands of people that worked hard to make that happen a giant disservice. Please read up on the status quo before making cheap jabs.
We're sidetracked, but that's pretty much the definition of libel tourism, and the UK is notorious for it:
http://www.economist.com/node/12903058
The UK routinely finds libel judgements against non-Britons, outside of Britain, having essentially no connection with the UK. It's an extremely broken system responsible for widespread legal harassment outside of Britain (examples in article).
It's not enforceable in the US obviously. There's a US law that explicitly prohibits that, provoked by a particularly egregious case.
Over 10 years ago, I ran a site which collected community anecdotes of the interview process at various universities, mostly focusing on Oxbridge colleges. The aim was to open up information that was often passed down between alumni of private schools where there was a tradition of attending those colleges -- leaving people like me, with no alumni to talk to, in the dark about what the interview process would be like.
I got several threatening letters from deans at the various colleges, and had a long process of trying to decide what to do. I didn't make any money off the site and couldn't afford legal help, so I ended up taking down a couple of the anecdotes when one college was particularly nasty, but for the most part ignored the threats. Ended up handing the site over to someone else as I was focusing on my university work and less involved in the admissions phase of things, and I'm happy to see it's still alive :)
(This section of the 1986 act, BTW, was introduced in response to anti-apartheid protesters disrupting speeches by members of the South African government, in order to require universities to stop such protests. It's not at all a pro-free-speech law.)
It's standard privileged American stuff. It's great that this guy can push back, but try being a Spanish-speaking factory temp trying to push back and get proper training and safety equipment, or try being a waitress at a bar trying to push back against harassing customers and mistreatment from management. Some people's lives depend on buckling under; they don't get to do the pushing because they will lose their jobs.
Let's set aside for a second the high-end schools' tendency towards legacy admissions, which clearly isn't going to be biased towards the children of the upper class who are certainly not predominantly white and loaded (that smell is not the dog, folks, it's sarcasm). Have you seen the demographics of Yale[1]? Even just racial demographics put WTFs to this[2]. 7% of Yale students are black--16% of Americans born between 1992 and 1996 are black (and overwhelmingly poor). 9% of Yale students are Hispanic. 14% of Americans born between 1992 and 1996 are Hispanic (and are comparatively only often poor). Does that seem like it makes sense to you if certain populations weren't getting advantages based on external factors?
"They pick the best" often comes up as a possibility to answer that. Because they sort of do, social signaling aside (and Haufler is white and male so he's a few rungs up that ladder too). But isn't it funny how "the best" generally also correlates to "white or Asian and rich"? SAT scores against income[3] are pretty indicative; SAT against racial demographics[also 3] likewise. This is not hard: non-Asian minorities are overwhelmingly more likely to be really-goddam-poor than whites and Asians and are much more likely to score like shit on the signaling tests that are your ticket to the upper-crust-signaling environment of a Yale. (And, as mentioned, even poor whites are more likely to have the social signals that are attractive to groups that select for "their type of people"--like, you know, most societal gatekeepers.) The conflation of economic and social advantages what makes these people privileged.
Crack babies don't get into Yale[4]. Children of illegal immigrants don't get into Yale. People who grow up in extreme poverty don't get into Yale. That doesn't make people who get into Yale bad but it does mean that they have advantages that need to be recognized over the girl who didn't get the opportunity to learn English or the guy who didn't get the opportunity to grow up in a safe environment where school was valued. Or, y'know, their kids when it's their turn to not be even remotely close to the "right stuff" for Yale.
And this is what the guy you dismissively shat on for no good reason understands: that it's important for us, as people with incredible luck and massive advantages, aware that no, not everyone has these advantages, and so it behooves us to do right by them, too. What Haufler did is cool and it sucks that his amazingly selective private school got frowny at a student for a similar project, but as injustices go, this shit's pretty small--if he's of a mind to, he's gonna walk out of college into a job making no less than the eighty-eighth percentile of individual income in this country[5]. Having your kids be nearly guaranteed to do no better, and probably worse, than you did, in a system designed to keep you where you are? That's pretty big. That's what he's saying. That's what's actually important.
--
[1] http://oir.yale.edu/yale-factsheet
[2] http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop3.asp
[3] http://domesatreview.com/content/sat-test-demographics-incom...
[4] Oh please please please be the person who thinks two counterexamples invalidate statistics please please please it's been too long. Please and thank you.
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_S...
No, I wasn't. I don't pretend to know anything about this student. I suppose I could put him into a box and make a bunch of assumptions based on the obvious stats, but that's not how I view people. Every individual has their own life story. So, when I see a woman, a Hispanic person, etc. I don't see a victim or someone who's disadvantaged. You have a different view and that's fine.
This kind behavior is probably more typical in the US than in Asia, but even more so in, let's say, France or the UK. I would say that many European countries have more individualism and freedom of expression than the US.
Living for 3 years in US, loved the country and its infrastructure/legal system, country, people all of it.
It is not perfect but still is one the best we have.
Do you think NSA and military are ''bad'' you did not know what the other countries counterpart do (hint... worse and mean)
With the whole populism thing..
Japan (and to some extent China) are undeniably successful countries/cultures. Yet I'd guess that if a student acted this way there, he or she wouldn't be able to find a job. How do we know that having undue respect for hierarchy is objectively a bad thing?
I'd say China in the late Qing Dynasty would be a good data point for it being a bad thing. Or a compare-and-contrast of Spain and the Netherlands in the early modern period.
With respect to Japan, yeah, we think of it as super-hierarchical. Then again, Japan had two major hierarchy-toppling social revolutions pretty recently. First the military-imperial apparatus toppled the feudal nobility during the Meiji Restoration. Then General McArthur toppled the military-imperial apparatus during the American occupation. So, perhaps the slope of the long term trend line is as important as the current value?
(Also, it's not just Asian countries, there are some Western countries where your life would be ruined as well.)
Would you consider being investigated by the FBI as a possible terrorism threat[1] a long-term repercussion?
[1]: http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html
I've now spent more of my adult life outside the States than in the U.S., and I've also come to the opinion that the U.S. is one of the most amazing places in the world.
Sometimes it's hard to point to exactly why America is so amazing. And the answer, maybe, is on display here.
An undergraduate student at an elite university just innovatively, publicly, aggressively pushed back against the Dean.
He cited his values and reasoning for doing so. He took care to make sure his work wouldn't damage their physical resources or break the letter of the law. And then he openly acknowledges they could punish him, and welcomes the attempt.
And it's not really even a big deal. It's just standard being-an-American stuff.
All kinds of bad things in the States. And sometimes the spirit of defiance can get tired or come across overbearing. But it's really cool that it's a regular, run of the mill occurrence for people to push back against norms and restrictions in American society without any fear of long-term repercussions.
It's also really, really, really weird. Seriously, stop and reflect on this for a moment. I spend a lot of time in Asia, and doing this in just about any Asian country would ruin a lot of your life prospects.
And for us, it's just a matter of course. How strange. And wonderful.