Blow by blow of appalling administrator behavior via @TheFIREorg: 'When Colbert hadn’t apologized, Cosgrove sent an email to Yale Law’s entire second-year class to “condemn in the strongest possible terms” the assertedly “pejorative and racist language.”' thefire.org/how-yale-law-s…
Such a public email, at odds with the facts, is indeed an administrative sanction of the student, and was unwarranted. This indicates the falsity of the claim by this elite law school that 'nothing was done' to the student.
I am confused because Yale Law School says "at no time was any... disciplinary action taken in this matter" but the deans required meetings and they sent an email to all of the student's peers falsely claiming his email was racist and "condemning" him and "addressing" his actions
Any normal person would experience what this student was put through as a disciplinary act and as threatening. Just imagine if the police had a defendant in custody and acted this way (a hypothetical which should not be obscure at a law school).
Today, Yale Law School releases the attached statement. What I cannot understand is: 1) the lack of more forceful *acts* to protect free expression, 2) the claim that facts in this case are "partial" when there is tape, and 3) the sudden concern for proper law-like procedures.
Could not the members of the Diversity Office also have originally done this: "I will not, however, act on the basis of partial facts reported out in a charged.. environment, as that would be a disservice both to members of our community and to the norms of our profession."
Let's just observe this indisputable fact: a *dean* at Yale Law School drafted (unasked) an apology note for a student to sign and tried to pressure him into doing so. This is the sort of act we roundly condemn when the police or totalitarian governments engage in variants of it.
More cogent analysis of this case (reflecting many of my own thoughts, too) via @BenjaminBadejo
Yale law student said that 'the media had constructed a “narrative of victimhood that privileges the reputation of the Federalist Society and the veneer of free speech over the emotional and physical well-being of students and administrators of color.”' yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/10/1…
If Yale law students think that written words (especially like those at issue here, for which there is no evidence of racism anyway) can threaten their "emotional and physical [!] well being," they will have a hard time being lawyers. This safetyism culture is corroding.
This case is absurd. Colbert's persecutors are circling the wagons because they are in the wrong. The record includes emails and audio tape. Colbert is owed an apology by his peers and, most important, by the Yale administration that has misrepresented this case from the outset.
Yale Sterling professor of law, Roberta Romano, noted that the administration's actions are "in direct and total conflict with what you stated." "Please correct the record," she added. "I would not want to have to do it for you." freebeacon.com/campus/convuls… via @aaronsibarium
The claim appears to be that, since the student who inadvertently caused offense didn't feel obliged to apologize or converse on terms offered by the offended, they had no choice but to denounce him to authorities? nhregister.com/news/article/Y… This strikes me as petulant and immature.
More analysis of the Yale Law School case, via @aaronsibarium. "Yale is sending the message that referring to Popeyes chicken and ‘trap house' might be punishable and maybe even illegal," @VolokhC said. freebeacon.com/campus/we-have…
"If ‘harassment' can be something as mild as that, then expressing views some find offensive will be even more clearly harassment."
What Yale administrators should have done is tell the complaining students that there was no perforce evidence of harassment and stop right there.
I am pleased to see that my concerns in this case are shared by others on the left, including @BrianLeiter and Martha Nussbaum, let alone commentators on the right. Defending free expression should not be seen as ideological.
This essay, by Trent Colbert at @Yale Law School via @JoinPersuasion, is extraordinary.
"I don’t believe that the now-common ritual of compelled apology, complete with promises to “grow” and “do better” helps anyone, or is even intended to."
In new work from #HNL in @NatureComms, we explore the ability of simple AI to affect the capacity of creativity of human groups. This work continues a stream of work we inaugurated in 2017, studying “hybrid systems” of humans and machines. 1/ nature.com/articles/s4146…
The primary obstacle to finding good ideas is normally not that innovations are hard to evaluate, but rather that coming up with an original idea that pushes the boundary of available ideas is hard. This is a challenge that groups can both mitigate and amplify. Distinctly, since AI can alter group behavior, AI might also affect creativity. 2/
Innovative ideas can enhance the immediate welfare of a population and even modify the course of human evolution. However, finding such valuable ideas often involves exploring a large pool of possibilities – which can be a challenging process for both individuals and groups. 3/
Human beings have both friends and enemies, and they can track such connections. Why? It’s not hard to see why we evolved the capacity for friendship, but why do we have a capacity for animosity, and how might it shape our social networks, potentially for the better? 1/
In new work in @PNASNews, @Amir_Ghasemian and I explore “The Structure and Function of Antagonistic Ties in Village Social Networks.”
At the population level, the existence of antagonism has important implications for the overall structure and function of human groups. #HNL 2/
Just as friendship ties can impose costs (ranging from the demands our friends place on us to the risk of infection that social connections entail), antagonistic ties can offer benefits (ranging from enhancing our overall access to novel information or reducing our membership in overly siloed groups). We show how this plays out. 3/
People copy the thoughts, feelings, & actions of those to whom they are connected. Understanding social network structure & function makes it possible to use social contagion to intervene in the world to improve health, wealth, & learning.
In a large randomized controlled field trial in 24,702 people in 176 isolated villages in Honduras, published in @ScienceMagazine on May 3, 2024, we showed how social contagion can be used to improve human welfare. #HNL @eairoldi science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
To exploit social contagion, tools are needed to eficiently identify individuals who are better able to initiate cascades. To be maximally useful, such tools should be deployable without having to actually map face-to-face social network interactions. science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
I have some thoughts on this fine statement by @Yale President Peter Salovey regarding desire by some students to impose "ideological litmus test" for access to a shared Yale space.
Salovey said: “Those protestors asked individuals who wished to pass through or enter their area, which is a shared campus space, to agree with their political viewpoints. This action is unacceptable and antithetical to the very purpose of a university.”
It’s is quite right to reject this impulse, but where might students have got this sort of idea?
The background for this statement is pro-Palestinian protests and certain recent actions by some protestors.
For the removal of doubt, I wholly support the right to protest and am sympathetic both to Israel and the civilians suffering horribly in Gaza. I have no problem with the tents or public art.
But protest that stops others from using the campus crosses line into civil disobedience and is distinct from free expression.
The problem with the otherwise commendable statement by President Salovey is that the students’ impulse to have a litmus test is part of a broader pattern of such actions at Yale (violating its liberal tenets). We have procedures and bureaucracies that do just this -- which may have given the students this very idea!
In "hybrid systems" of humans and machines, how will AI (whether simple or complex) affect not just human-machine interactions, but human-human interactions in the presence of machines?
Will AI change human ethical behavior? 1/
In new work in @PNASNews, we showcase a novel cyber-physical system of people driving cars via the internet in an experimental diorama. This system allows us to explore how forms of AI affect existing human norms of cooperation and coordination. 2/ pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…
Hiro Shirado (), @shn_kasa, and I tested how AI might affect norms of reciprocity using a novel cyber-physical lab experiment where online subjects (N=300 in 150 dyads) drove robotic vehicles remotely in a game of CHICKEN. #HNL 3/ shirado.net pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…
If you hide people's wealth, you can make the economic gradient in happiness go away, in part by making poor people relatively happier.
New (somewhat dispiriting) experiments spearheaded by @Nishi_Akihiro in @NatMentHealth #HNL 1/ nature.com/articles/s4422…
A lot of the economic gradient in subjective well being (SWB) with respect to wealth has to do with the invidious comparisons people can make with those around them. 2/
One classic study reported that most people prefer to choose A (current yearly income is $50,000 and others earn $25,000) over B (current yearly income is $100,000 and others earn $200,000).
People would rather be relatively rich and absolutely poor!