Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by elicash 1179 days ago
I'm not the person you're responding to, but you clearly are laying out a version of facts that is being contested. You're saying she "hijacked" the event rather than attempted to de-escalate an already out-of-control situation, and maybe even suggesting that doing so is out of the normal responsibility of deans.

She clearly failed. And I think she should have enforced existing policy rather than think her speech would be effective (although not 100% sure the best way to carry that out in the moment). But we both agree that part of her role in her position is to act in that moment. I think the two of us even agree about what she should have done. We just disagree about whether she acted in good faith.

2 comments

If Tirien Steinbach was acting on good faith to de-escalate, she wouldn't stop saying "is the juice worth the squeeze" to the speaker ad nauseum. I watched the 9 minute video of her speaking uninterrupted. In fact she loves asking "is the juice worth the squeeze" so much to the point that it becomes a subtitle in her Wall Street Journal article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/diversity-and-free-speech-can-c...).

That's not a good faith attempt at de-escalation in that moment nor do I believe she was ever trained to de-escalate in such a manner. It's a prepared, written piece of dramatic, performative theater and she wanted a stage to deliver her thoughts.

She said it twice, and then a third time only when the speaker asked her to explain what she meant by the phrase. Here's the full context of that second time:

> When I say “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” that's what I'm asking. Is this worth it? And I hope so, and I'll stay for your remarks to see, because I do want to know your perspective. I am not, you know, in the business of wanting to either shut down speech, because I do know that if they come for this group today, they will come for the group that I am part of tomorrow.

Sounds like good-faith to me. That said, by nature I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I find most people say what they think.

She had prepared remarks. Obviously what she did was not in good faith (from the perspective of the invited speaker).
I'm not sure I understand the problem with preparing remarks. Preparing remarks seems like a good thing. It was known that students were upset with the speaker in advance.

I just wish the remarks would have been different than what they were and focused on enforcement of the rules, rather than the failed attempt at de-escalation.