This incident at Yale is regrettable but watching the anti-racists tear up the white feminists does reflect the strains in the Democratic coalition.
The flailing NY Times coverage opens with a laugh line:
A Black Student at Yale Was Napping in a Common Area, and a White Student Called the Police
"Napping". Hold that thought.
A black graduate student at Yale who fell asleep in her dorm’s common room said she had a disturbing awakening this week when a white student flipped on the lights, told her she had no right to sleep there and called the campus police.
Ms. Siyonbola, 34, who is earning her master’s degree in African studies, said that she had camped out in the common room to work on a “marathon of papers.” On Monday night, she decided to take a nap.
Around 1:30 a.m. on Tuesday, she said, someone came in and turned on the lights, asking: “Is there someone in here? Is there someone sleeping in here? You’re not supposed to be here.”
Hmm. When I am sleeping at 1:30 in the afternoon I am napping. When I am out at 1:30 AM, that is "sleeping". There is a lot more backstory at the Yale Daily News.
In any case, Yale's location exposes it to the New Haven urban crime problem. The Daily Beast ranked it (in 2012), with UPenn, as the most dangerous of the Ivies and 13th most dangerous in the nation. Another college survey site has more on crime at Yale, but here is the summary:
Overall Crime Stats: 266 Incidents Reported
Yale University reported 266 safety-related incidents involving students on or near campus or other Yale affiliated properties in 2016. Of the 2,795 colleges and universities that reported crime and safety data, 2,439 of them reported fewer incidents than this.
Based on a student body of 12,385 that works out to about 21.48 reports per thousand students. In 2016, 1,855 colleges and universities reported fewer incidents per thousand students than did Yale.
New Haven is Connecticut's leading city for homelessness as well (as of 2014), although whether that spills over to people sleeping on campus is beyond me.
As to the target of the current two-minute hate, Sarah Braasch is an accomplished woman:
Sarah has two summa cum laude engineering degrees (aerospace and mechanical) from the University of Minnesota, as well as a JD from Fordham Law, and she is a member of the NYS Bar. Her secularism and women’s rights advocacy (including with Ni Putes Ni Soumises in Paris, France) led her to obtain an MA in Philosophy, to address the sub-human legal status of the world’s women at the source, the philosophical foundations of law.
Doesn't really fit the profile of a typical Trump voter. However, the outrage community managed to get a paper she wrote for The Humanist taken down recently. The Google cache had it as of May 6, 2018 and it is still here. Here is the rationale for the takedown:
We have removed the article “Lift the Veil, See the Light” by Sarah Braasch (published in the Sept/Oct 2010 issue of the Humanist magazine) from our website after it was brought to our attention that it contains racially offensive argumentation. The article was part of a point-counterpoint on the topic of laws barring Muslim women in France from wearing face-covering veils. In the article in question, which argues for the ban, the author equates the small number of slaves who wanted to remain with their owners after emancipation with women who choose to be “slaves” in abusive, misogynistic, or otherwise patriarchal religious traditions. She makes this analogy–which we have judged to be inaccurate and racially offensive–to argue that if human beings are conditioned to accept indignity, suffering, and an inferior position in society then that society has an obligation to make laws to correct that. While the author’s final point is one some humanists might champion, the analogy to American slavery is definitely not.
Well, OK. From "Lift the Veil, See the Light":
WE WERE STUDYING the American Civil War in one of my middle school social studies classes when we were charged with the task of debating the pros and cons of slavery. I know, in retrospect it seems a bit odd to me as well. But, in a sense, what better way is there to learn about any historical subject than to debate it? And rather than debate the subject from the perspectives of late twentieth-century teens, we approached it as if we were abolitionists or southern plantation owners during Abraham Lincoln's presidency.
I was placed on the pro-slavery side of the argument.
Oooh, stop hating, hater! Pretty sure this wouldn't be done today but she says it was the late 80's. The key bit seems to be this:
I read about the trials and tribulations of both escaped and freed slaves. I read about the cruel world waiting to pounce mercilessly upon penniless, illiterate, and uneducated former slaves. About how former slaves were torn from the stability of family and community and the paternalism of the slave owner (including the legal protections afforded slaves). About how former slaves struggled to rebuild their lives in a world that didn't want them.
And then I had a eureka moment. Some--not many, but some--of the slaves didn't want to stop being slaves. A small number wanted to remain with their owners or return even after being freed.
I knew I had just won the debate. And indeed I did. I led our team to victory. The pro-slavery contingent defeated the abolitionists because, in a democracy, in the land of the free, who are we to tell people that they can't be slaves if they want to be? Who are we to tell someone that she has to be free?
OK, what? Her endpoint is that in France a no burqa law makes women free whether they want it or not and that is a good thing. Isn't that the opposite of the point she is making here?
Well, yes - she switched sides and no longer accepts the :some want to be slaves" view:
It's ironic that I had to acquire that argument from a Time Life book, because I was living that argument. I was a slave who extolled the virtues of being a slave. I was a slave who insisted that I had chosen slavery of my own free will, of my own volition, as a conscious and educated choice. Because, you see, I was a Jehovah's Witness who had been brainwashed from birth to believe that God had created me subhuman--below man. I had been indoctrinated to accept this truth as part of God's divinely ordained scheme for mankind (not humankind), to serve the men in my family and community, and nothing more. I had been inculcated to wait patiently for my post-Armageddon blessings in the hereafter or suffer the dire consequences in the here and now, including demonic attack.
I decided that I didn't want to hate myself anymore, no matter the cost. Even if it meant rejecting God's plan for me. I chose to claim my humanity, my personhood, my human and civil rights. While I was still a teenager myself, I walked away from everything and everyone I had ever known. I made a new life for myself. A human life, not a subhuman, slave life. It was anything but easy and at times seemed like an impossible choice. I know that death and even suicide sometimes seemed easier. And now I think that maybe it shouldn't have to be that hard to be human. Maybe we should make it a little easier to reject slavery.
She has become an ardent feminist but that won't help her now. The outrage community has decided she is a racist and a hater, so away she goes. Let's see what Yale does.