I recently posted an article on my Facebook page about the antics of Cornell University student Letitia Chai, during a practice presentation of her thesis on how best to integrate refugees into host communities to help them successfully adapt to their new living situation. The thesis was a final requirement for a course titled "Acting in Public: Performance in Everyday Life." The syllabus was fairly lenient in its guidelines about the students’ attire, suggesting that students should "dress appropriately for the persona [they] will present." Chai turned up for her presentation in a button down shirt and cut off jean shorts. I use the word “antics” deliberately. What kind of persona she was attempting to portray in a presentation that was ostensibly based on the plight of refugees in a host country is still mystifying.
In response to an innocuous query from her professor about her choice of attire, indicating that it was not very professional, and would be distracting to the young male students, and asking whether her mother would approve of her choice, Chai said "I think that I was so taken aback that I didn’t really know how to respond.” I would not think the student should have been so unprepared to answer her professor’s question. I would assume that her thesis defense would have included a Q& A session where she would have to spontaneously field questions from the audience regarding her presentation and be able to articulately defend her position. Her reaction displays her complete disregard for a perspective that differed from her own, as well as her arrogance and immaturity in failing to see her professor's advice as well meant constructive criticism.
An article on the online website https://www.nationalreview.com by Kyle Smith, defended the professor’s position, arguing that part of the professors’ role was to prepare their students to take on adult responsibilities in the real world. As one online commentator pointed out, the way a person dresses not only shows self-respect, but also respect for their audience, and in Chai's case, for the gravity of the subject matter she was presenting on. A male international student in the class commented that a speaker has a "moral obligation" to dress in a conservative fashion while presenting their thesis. There are those who question whether a male who presented in his underwear would have been similarly admonished but the standard of appropriate behavior is not and should not be gender specific. The student did not specify that it was a female’s moral obligation to dress conservatively, simply that it was a general principle. The student's comment, however, caused Chai to leave the room in tears, choosing to see it as a sexist criticism that belittled her status as a human being. Her response unfortunately would only strengthen the perception of women as emotionally weak and incapable of handling the pressures of a professional career.
Rather than offering any sort of explanation for her stylistic choices, Chai returned to the classroom, determined to give the “best damn speech of [her] life” and began removing her clothing down to her bra and underwear, issuing a command to the rest of the class to do the same. I have taken speech classes in school and undergone further training in public speaking later in life. Nowhere in such training has it been suggested that removing one’s clothing is an effective speechmaking technique.
One of the arguments in support of Chai’s choice of attire was that not all students would be able to afford the cost of formal clothes, especially if they were attending the university on scholarship. Chai’s family lives in Korea. Education is a high priority in Asian societies and families make enormous personal sacrifices to ensure their children access to the best educational opportunities. By the student’s own admission, her mother is an educated professional, and likely a member of at least the middle class. Chai’s background does not indicate that she suffered from any economic hardship. In addition, it was never stipulated that the students wear formal clothes for the presentation, only that they are appropriate.
An article on the online website https://www.nationalreview.com by Kyle Smith, defended the professor’s position, arguing that part of the professors’ role was to prepare their students to take on adult responsibilities in the real world. As one online commentator pointed out, the way a person dresses not only shows self-respect, but also respect for their audience, and in Chai's case, for the gravity of the subject matter she was presenting on. A male international student in the class commented that a speaker has a "moral obligation" to dress in a conservative fashion while presenting their thesis. There are those who question whether a male who presented in his underwear would have been similarly admonished but the standard of appropriate behavior is not and should not be gender specific. The student did not specify that it was a female’s moral obligation to dress conservatively, simply that it was a general principle. The student's comment, however, caused Chai to leave the room in tears, choosing to see it as a sexist criticism that belittled her status as a human being. Her response unfortunately would only strengthen the perception of women as emotionally weak and incapable of handling the pressures of a professional career.
Rather than offering any sort of explanation for her stylistic choices, Chai returned to the classroom, determined to give the “best damn speech of [her] life” and began removing her clothing down to her bra and underwear, issuing a command to the rest of the class to do the same. I have taken speech classes in school and undergone further training in public speaking later in life. Nowhere in such training has it been suggested that removing one’s clothing is an effective speechmaking technique.
One of the arguments in support of Chai’s choice of attire was that not all students would be able to afford the cost of formal clothes, especially if they were attending the university on scholarship. Chai’s family lives in Korea. Education is a high priority in Asian societies and families make enormous personal sacrifices to ensure their children access to the best educational opportunities. By the student’s own admission, her mother is an educated professional, and likely a member of at least the middle class. Chai’s background does not indicate that she suffered from any economic hardship. In addition, it was never stipulated that the students wear formal clothes for the presentation, only that they are appropriate.
Chai claimed that she was striking out against sexist and patriarchal dress codes and that her mother, as a feminist, gender and sexuality studies professor, endorsed her actions. Chai’s actions were more similar to those of a toddler indulging in a temper tantrum than a young adult pursuing higher education at a prestigious university. While many young people believe that it is possible to live in an environment where they are free to choose how they present themselves, which apparently includes how much or how little to wear, it demonstrates how little they know about life in the world outside their own privileged existence. If Chai was living in a truly patriarchal environment, as she believes, she would have been exhorted to return home and apply herself to learning housekeeping skills to please her future husband and in-laws, rather than pursuing an advanced degree.
Smith’s article includes an observation from his colleague that very logically points out that if the young woman felt that she was truly a member of the human race, why would she stop at her underwear? Which stage of humanity is she referring to? The Bible and creationism claim that Adam and Eve, the first humans, were naked in the Garden of Eden until eating an apple from the Tree of Knowledge, made them conscious and ashamed of their nakedness. A study of the evolution of modern man reveals that the existence of clothing was initially not because of societal strictures but as a protection against the elements.
Smith’s colleague continues, “If being expected to wear a normal amount of clothing constitutes an unfair, sexist double standard, why not stroll around campus in a bikini at all times, not just when delivering a thesis?” Of course at Cornell, where temperatures are frigid most of the year, that may be just as illogical as a woman claiming that she is a victim of a sexist patriarchy while delivering a presentation on an important issue dressed like a Victoria's Secret model.
I was challenged by a Facebook poster for equating Chai’s removal of her clothing to the actions of a stripper. Yet I must stand by my analogy. The definition of a stripper is “one who removes their clothing in a sexually provocative manner” or a woman, in this case, "who gets paid to perform by taking her clothes off on stage." The classroom was the stage for the student's presentation, while Chai's "payment" was the amount of public attention her performance garnered, both in the classroom and through online viewing. Her intent was certainly to provoke an emotional response from her audience or she would not have taken such an action.
Chai claims that she wants to raise awareness about the prevailing mindset of oppression in today's society. If Chai truly believed that she was in the right, why did she command her classmates to also strip to support her? Is that not also oppressive to those who do not agree with her views? The irony is that she has no appreciation for how fortunate she is to be able to pursue a higher education and to have the range of choices she does in a democratic, capitalist and liberal society as a nonwhite woman from an educated family. Her entire focus seems to be instead on promoting her self-proclaimed victimization, rather than advocating for the refugees she has studied in her thesis, who have escaped political, religious, economic and sexual persecution in their home countries and who are often viewed as an unwelcome burden by the countries they flee to. From the comments from other posters about her speech, it appears that she was relying on her exhibitionism to cover up the deficits in the content of her presentation. Chai states, "I am not responsible for anyone’s attention because we are capable of thinking for ourselves and we have agency." Her selfishness undermines the relevance of her subject matter.
Her behavior is very similar to that of Michelle Wolf, the comedienne who hosted the White House Correspondent's dinner on April 28th of this year. Both women took full advantage of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression, with Wolf breezily proclaiming "I know as much as some of you might want me to, it’s 2018 and I am a woman so you cannot shut me up." Yet neither woman's presentation had the gravitas to give them credibility.
It’s a well-understood premise that men of all ages respond to visual stimuli. As the daughter of a feminist and gender studies professor, this is something Chai should have been aware of. For her to deliberately choose to dress in a manner that drew attention to her figure and then to proceed to further create conditions that enhance such stimuli shows that she was either oblivious or indifferent to the message it was sending to her audience. Society has imposed rules and strictures on what constitutes appropriate conduct between the sexes. However, sex remains a basic human impulse. Restricting daily interactions to one gender as in prisons and the Catholic Church does result in instances where men are victimized by other men. But those are exceptions, and not what tends to happen in the society at large. The rise of the MeToo movement is evidence that women are much more at risk of harassment and predatory sexual behavior by men than men are by women. The difference is that now women have the power and ability to protest such behavior and see it publicly condemned. Wolf said she had worked in a lot of male-dominated fields but had never been sexually harassed, perhaps because she had the ability and confidence to set and enforce strong boundaries and because she adhered to an accepted dress code in the workplace.
Her behavior is very similar to that of Michelle Wolf, the comedienne who hosted the White House Correspondent's dinner on April 28th of this year. Both women took full advantage of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression, with Wolf breezily proclaiming "I know as much as some of you might want me to, it’s 2018 and I am a woman so you cannot shut me up." Yet neither woman's presentation had the gravitas to give them credibility.
It’s a well-understood premise that men of all ages respond to visual stimuli. As the daughter of a feminist and gender studies professor, this is something Chai should have been aware of. For her to deliberately choose to dress in a manner that drew attention to her figure and then to proceed to further create conditions that enhance such stimuli shows that she was either oblivious or indifferent to the message it was sending to her audience. Society has imposed rules and strictures on what constitutes appropriate conduct between the sexes. However, sex remains a basic human impulse. Restricting daily interactions to one gender as in prisons and the Catholic Church does result in instances where men are victimized by other men. But those are exceptions, and not what tends to happen in the society at large. The rise of the MeToo movement is evidence that women are much more at risk of harassment and predatory sexual behavior by men than men are by women. The difference is that now women have the power and ability to protest such behavior and see it publicly condemned. Wolf said she had worked in a lot of male-dominated fields but had never been sexually harassed, perhaps because she had the ability and confidence to set and enforce strong boundaries and because she adhered to an accepted dress code in the workplace.
Yes, women should have control over what happens to their bodies and be free to express themselves any way they want, but that does not absolve them from using good judgment and common sense. The latest generation of feminists takes an almost militant sense of pride in placing the onus of responsibility for appropriate behavior solely on male shoulders. A woman who has true control over her body makes conscious choices when it comes to the situations she puts herself in. She would not allow herself to do things that lowered her inhibitions or deliberately made her physically vulnerable. Chai could confidently expose her body in the classroom because it was a safe environment in a westernized society that had laws that punished sexual predators.
However, she would have not had the same protection in a less evolved culture, nor could she rely on that protection once she stepped out of the classroom. If the impression left by her behavior in the male mind was that she did not care about showing a sense of self-restraint in her appearance, what would stop one of her less “socialized” male classmates or peers from acting on his primitive impulses, which could lead to a far more traumatizing outcome? In her call for solidarity, she shows no understanding of the challenges faced by women who do not have access to the resources that she has for redress. In many remote rural areas in India, for example, there is no running water or indoor plumbing, so when the women go to fetch water for their families or to relieve themselves in the fields, they are often sexually assaulted -even though they are fully clothed.
However, she would have not had the same protection in a less evolved culture, nor could she rely on that protection once she stepped out of the classroom. If the impression left by her behavior in the male mind was that she did not care about showing a sense of self-restraint in her appearance, what would stop one of her less “socialized” male classmates or peers from acting on his primitive impulses, which could lead to a far more traumatizing outcome? In her call for solidarity, she shows no understanding of the challenges faced by women who do not have access to the resources that she has for redress. In many remote rural areas in India, for example, there is no running water or indoor plumbing, so when the women go to fetch water for their families or to relieve themselves in the fields, they are often sexually assaulted -even though they are fully clothed.
The young woman was subsequently approached by the Title IX office at Cornell. Title IX is a federal law that deals with cases that involve civil rights violations based on sexual discrimination, including harassment, sexual assault or rape. Although she said was not actively pursuing a case against the university, it would be a travesty of justice to the real victims of such incidents for her to implicate the professor or the university as perpetrators of sexual harassment simply for cautioning her that her actions in exercising her right to self-expression could have consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment