Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it may be possible to persuade me to have some sort of general policy but I’m not sure as a practical matter it will make much difference to what I suspect all schools have now under some other name.

Specificity is good if there is consensus on it. And if St Albans can figure out some model as you say, great! I am just very skeptical that can be done with anything more than probably exists today in most schools’ conduct codes.

And yes, the trap house invitation may be dumb to us but evidently not unusual speech among younger folks. But look at the reaction — and the expectation of school involvement so quickly. Yes, law students are not high school students, and they aren’t middle school kids either. Standards probably need to be different - at least as to punishments. But within a couple of days an administrator decided that email was so racist it warranted official condemnation in an email to the entire class. No due process, no sense of proportionality , etc..

I am concerned that —

1) use of terms like “hate speech” and even “racism” that are undefined (or defined in manners on which there is no consensus) can become more divisive, and can have spillover effects in the judicial arena;

2) I appreciate policies in theory can help predictability/ reign in extremism etc, but they also often create heightened expectations of swift and intemperate actions. As the Yale case illustrates, the DEi executive was concerned a private solution there would make his office look ineffective. I understand the reference to one joke potentially leading to expulsion doesn’t require it, but in the real world the parents whose kid is the target of that joke will likely press the school for the harshest possible sanction because of it. What about self-deprecating humor?

3). The effect on the hearer standard really isn’t workable. There must be some degree of reasonableness as a measure. I can think of romantic break ups in which very hateful language is used and not forgiven by a teenager. Or where a teenager feigns hurt as a grudge against another student. Will you draft guidance on transphobic statements? I personally know some trans people who think language demanded by major LGBTQ groups embracing the non-binary can be hostile to real trans people and the other way around too.

4) the draft SA policy is reported as expecting students, parents faculty report on of others’ behaviors. Will there be discipline if they fail to do so?

What if someone shows a Dave Chapelle video at s party? Is that violence?

There was a time when a parent would call a parent and say, “I need to talk to you, do you know what your child did today?” My mother did that in the late 1960s when my sister (white) was dating a black guy snd some other kid harassed her. And you know what? That kids harassment stopped. Maybe that was not a soft,teachy moment - but it worked. And I have several such stories. Sure, a threat of expulsion should be a greater deterrent - and that’s fine in general. But anyone who thinks this is easy and you know it when you see it is probably capturing only a fraction of the universe of what will be alleged as harm.

Can you answer an honest question? Are you actually a parent of a current STA student? I believe you are not and that you have latched onto this argument for the sense of arguing it.

What does it matter? It was very well said. If PP isn't a STA parent I wish he/she was.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it may be possible to persuade me to have some sort of general policy but I’m not sure as a practical matter it will make much difference to what I suspect all schools have now under some other name.

Specificity is good if there is consensus on it. And if St Albans can figure out some model as you say, great! I am just very skeptical that can be done with anything more than probably exists today in most schools’ conduct codes.

And yes, the trap house invitation may be dumb to us but evidently not unusual speech among younger folks. But look at the reaction — and the expectation of school involvement so quickly. Yes, law students are not high school students, and they aren’t middle school kids either. Standards probably need to be different - at least as to punishments. But within a couple of days an administrator decided that email was so racist it warranted official condemnation in an email to the entire class. No due process, no sense of proportionality , etc..

I am concerned that —

1) use of terms like “hate speech” and even “racism” that are undefined (or defined in manners on which there is no consensus) can become more divisive, and can have spillover effects in the judicial arena;

2) I appreciate policies in theory can help predictability/ reign in extremism etc, but they also often create heightened expectations of swift and intemperate actions. As the Yale case illustrates, the DEi executive was concerned a private solution there would make his office look ineffective. I understand the reference to one joke potentially leading to expulsion doesn’t require it, but in the real world the parents whose kid is the target of that joke will likely press the school for the harshest possible sanction because of it. What about self-deprecating humor?

3). The effect on the hearer standard really isn’t workable. There must be some degree of reasonableness as a measure. I can think of romantic break ups in which very hateful language is used and not forgiven by a teenager. Or where a teenager feigns hurt as a grudge against another student. Will you draft guidance on transphobic statements? I personally know some trans people who think language demanded by major LGBTQ groups embracing the non-binary can be hostile to real trans people and the other way around too.

4) the draft SA policy is reported as expecting students, parents faculty report on of others’ behaviors. Will there be discipline if they fail to do so?

What if someone shows a Dave Chapelle video at s party? Is that violence?

There was a time when a parent would call a parent and say, “I need to talk to you, do you know what your child did today?” My mother did that in the late 1960s when my sister (white) was dating a black guy snd some other kid harassed her. And you know what? That kids harassment stopped. Maybe that was not a soft,teachy moment - but it worked. And I have several such stories. Sure, a threat of expulsion should be a greater deterrent - and that’s fine in general. But anyone who thinks this is easy and you know it when you see it is probably capturing only a fraction of the universe of what will be alleged as harm.

Can you answer an honest question? Are you actually a parent of a current STA student? I believe you are not and that you have latched onto this argument for the sense of arguing it.

What does it matter? It was very well said. If PP isn't a STA parent I wish he/she was.

It matters because many of their comments sound like Fox News talking points that Tucker Carlson also argues. Same points. It appears to me that they are a right wing parent that has hijacked this issue to further their own agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it may be possible to persuade me to have some sort of general policy but I’m not sure as a practical matter it will make much difference to what I suspect all schools have now under some other name.

Specificity is good if there is consensus on it. And if St Albans can figure out some model as you say, great! I am just very skeptical that can be done with anything more than probably exists today in most schools’ conduct codes.

And yes, the trap house invitation may be dumb to us but evidently not unusual speech among younger folks. But look at the reaction — and the expectation of school involvement so quickly. Yes, law students are not high school students, and they aren’t middle school kids either. Standards probably need to be different - at least as to punishments. But within a couple of days an administrator decided that email was so racist it warranted official condemnation in an email to the entire class. No due process, no sense of proportionality , etc..

I am concerned that —

1) use of terms like “hate speech” and even “racism” that are undefined (or defined in manners on which there is no consensus) can become more divisive, and can have spillover effects in the judicial arena;

2) I appreciate policies in theory can help predictability/ reign in extremism etc, but they also often create heightened expectations of swift and intemperate actions. As the Yale case illustrates, the DEi executive was concerned a private solution there would make his office look ineffective. I understand the reference to one joke potentially leading to expulsion doesn’t require it, but in the real world the parents whose kid is the target of that joke will likely press the school for the harshest possible sanction because of it. What about self-deprecating humor?

3). The effect on the hearer standard really isn’t workable. There must be some degree of reasonableness as a measure. I can think of romantic break ups in which very hateful language is used and not forgiven by a teenager. Or where a teenager feigns hurt as a grudge against another student. Will you draft guidance on transphobic statements? I personally know some trans people who think language demanded by major LGBTQ groups embracing the non-binary can be hostile to real trans people and the other way around too.

4) the draft SA policy is reported as expecting students, parents faculty report on of others’ behaviors. Will there be discipline if they fail to do so?

What if someone shows a Dave Chapelle video at s party? Is that violence?

There was a time when a parent would call a parent and say, “I need to talk to you, do you know what your child did today?” My mother did that in the late 1960s when my sister (white) was dating a black guy snd some other kid harassed her. And you know what? That kids harassment stopped. Maybe that was not a soft,teachy moment - but it worked. And I have several such stories. Sure, a threat of expulsion should be a greater deterrent - and that’s fine in general. But anyone who thinks this is easy and you know it when you see it is probably capturing only a fraction of the universe of what will be alleged as harm.

Can you answer an honest question? Are you actually a parent of a current STA student? I believe you are not and that you have latched onto this argument for the sense of arguing it.

What does "for the sense of arguing it" even mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it may be possible to persuade me to have some sort of general policy but I’m not sure as a practical matter it will make much difference to what I suspect all schools have now under some other name.

Specificity is good if there is consensus on it. And if St Albans can figure out some model as you say, great! I am just very skeptical that can be done with anything more than probably exists today in most schools’ conduct codes.

And yes, the trap house invitation may be dumb to us but evidently not unusual speech among younger folks. But look at the reaction — and the expectation of school involvement so quickly. Yes, law students are not high school students, and they aren’t middle school kids either. Standards probably need to be different - at least as to punishments. But within a couple of days an administrator decided that email was so racist it warranted official condemnation in an email to the entire class. No due process, no sense of proportionality , etc..

I am concerned that —

1) use of terms like “hate speech” and even “racism” that are undefined (or defined in manners on which there is no consensus) can become more divisive, and can have spillover effects in the judicial arena;

2) I appreciate policies in theory can help predictability/ reign in extremism etc, but they also often create heightened expectations of swift and intemperate actions. As the Yale case illustrates, the DEi executive was concerned a private solution there would make his office look ineffective. I understand the reference to one joke potentially leading to expulsion doesn’t require it, but in the real world the parents whose kid is the target of that joke will likely press the school for the harshest possible sanction because of it. What about self-deprecating humor?

3). The effect on the hearer standard really isn’t workable. There must be some degree of reasonableness as a measure. I can think of romantic break ups in which very hateful language is used and not forgiven by a teenager. Or where a teenager feigns hurt as a grudge against another student. Will you draft guidance on transphobic statements? I personally know some trans people who think language demanded by major LGBTQ groups embracing the non-binary can be hostile to real trans people and the other way around too.

4) the draft SA policy is reported as expecting students, parents faculty report on of others’ behaviors. Will there be discipline if they fail to do so?

What if someone shows a Dave Chapelle video at s party? Is that violence?

There was a time when a parent would call a parent and say, “I need to talk to you, do you know what your child did today?” My mother did that in the late 1960s when my sister (white) was dating a black guy snd some other kid harassed her. And you know what? That kids harassment stopped. Maybe that was not a soft,teachy moment - but it worked. And I have several such stories. Sure, a threat of expulsion should be a greater deterrent - and that’s fine in general. But anyone who thinks this is easy and you know it when you see it is probably capturing only a fraction of the universe of what will be alleged as harm.

Can you answer an honest question? Are you actually a parent of a current STA student? I believe you are not and that you have latched onto this argument for the sense of arguing it.

What does it matter? It was very well said. If PP isn't a STA parent I wish he/she was.

Anonymous wrote:That article makes conservatives sound awful, not St Albans. It is not a conservative value to abide by racist jokes. If you are part of the St. Albans community, you would trust the administrators and teachers who devote their lives to the education of boys. If you were part of the community, you wouldn’t want your Jewish or black peers to be made to feel lesser. That idea is not radical. Men of honor wouldn’t promote racism or anti-semitism in the light of day. Trump so ruined the politics of Republicans. I also think highly of the Head of Landon, at whom the article takes shots.

Stop stirring the pot. The DEI policy at STA is hardly controversial. If you don’t like it, best go elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That article makes conservatives sound awful, not St Albans. It is not a conservative value to abide by racist jokes. If you are part of the St. Albans community, you would trust the administrators and teachers who devote their lives to the education of boys. If you were part of the community, you wouldn’t want your Jewish or black peers to be made to feel lesser. That idea is not radical. Men of honor wouldn’t promote racism or anti-semitism in the light of day. Trump so ruined the politics of Republicans. I also think highly of the Head of Landon, at whom the article takes shots.

Stop stirring the pot. The DEI policy at STA is hardly controversial. If you don’t like it, best go elsewhere.

Those folks have nowhere else to go. That’s their predicament. I suppose Prep if you are Catholic, at least in name, but what self respecting Cave Dweller would stoop to such a boorish and cultish level. Possibly Landon but that’s not a name brand outside of the beltway. STA has been synonymous with the Establishment for generations. Trying to put it through a Woke grinder has serious pucker effect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it may be possible to persuade me to have some sort of general policy but I’m not sure as a practical matter it will make much difference to what I suspect all schools have now under some other name.

Specificity is good if there is consensus on it. And if St Albans can figure out some model as you say, great! I am just very skeptical that can be done with anything more than probably exists today in most schools’ conduct codes.

And yes, the trap house invitation may be dumb to us but evidently not unusual speech among younger folks. But look at the reaction — and the expectation of school involvement so quickly. Yes, law students are not high school students, and they aren’t middle school kids either. Standards probably need to be different - at least as to punishments. But within a couple of days an administrator decided that email was so racist it warranted official condemnation in an email to the entire class. No due process, no sense of proportionality , etc..

I am concerned that —

1) use of terms like “hate speech” and even “racism” that are undefined (or defined in manners on which there is no consensus) can become more divisive, and can have spillover effects in the judicial arena;

2) I appreciate policies in theory can help predictability/ reign in extremism etc, but they also often create heightened expectations of swift and intemperate actions. As the Yale case illustrates, the DEi executive was concerned a private solution there would make his office look ineffective. I understand the reference to one joke potentially leading to expulsion doesn’t require it, but in the real world the parents whose kid is the target of that joke will likely press the school for the harshest possible sanction because of it. What about self-deprecating humor?

3). The effect on the hearer standard really isn’t workable. There must be some degree of reasonableness as a measure. I can think of romantic break ups in which very hateful language is used and not forgiven by a teenager. Or where a teenager feigns hurt as a grudge against another student. Will you draft guidance on transphobic statements? I personally know some trans people who think language demanded by major LGBTQ groups embracing the non-binary can be hostile to real trans people and the other way around too.

4) the draft SA policy is reported as expecting students, parents faculty report on of others’ behaviors. Will there be discipline if they fail to do so?

What if someone shows a Dave Chapelle video at s party? Is that violence?

There was a time when a parent would call a parent and say, “I need to talk to you, do you know what your child did today?” My mother did that in the late 1960s when my sister (white) was dating a black guy snd some other kid harassed her. And you know what? That kids harassment stopped. Maybe that was not a soft,teachy moment - but it worked. And I have several such stories. Sure, a threat of expulsion should be a greater deterrent - and that’s fine in general. But anyone who thinks this is easy and you know it when you see it is probably capturing only a fraction of the universe of what will be alleged as harm.

Can you answer an honest question? Are you actually a parent of a current STA student? I believe you are not and that you have latched onto this argument for the sense of arguing it.

What does it matter? It was very well said. If PP isn't a STA parent I wish he/she was.

You’re sockpuppeting yourself. You’re not a STA parent, and you’re not a fake new poster pretending that you support your prior post.

Also, you fundamentally lack any meaningful understanding of spillover effects, or much anything else you wrote in there.

We are a close family, and we have lots of thoughts on this difficult issue, as do many others in the community. None of them are even half-wittedly addressed by you abstract and internally incoherent rambling. Be gone.

Anonymous wrote:Why do I have a hunch that the person/people posting on here critical of DEI, CRT, or whatever boogeyman the right wing is now decrying, are concerned because their kids might repeat some of the racist/homophobic/anti-Semitic/sexist crap they often say around them?