Fundamental moral axioms cannot really be debated (in the sense of rational argument based on logic and evidence); they can only be accepted or rejected.
Furthermore, if you can't agree on them, nothing that rests on them (that is, any question of should rather than is) can be debated either.
What's the consequence, then? War of all against all, as the Yale students seem to want? Or we learn to coexist with people who have different fundamental moral axioms from us?
I vote for option B.
Do I think the students that are the focus here are out of line? Sure. I think there is a real lack of balance, perspective, and proportion in their revealed values.
OTOH, I think that finding a loud minority of university students behaving in a sophomoric manner to be decidedly unsurprising.
So we argue about 'privilege' like that can make a difference. Its at root, the majority vs minorities. The game will always be slanted toward the majority, because free market etc.
I'm in favor of peaceful coexistence, and treating everyone fairly. But I'm only one. The market (there are markets even in non-commercial/social transactions) will dominate the game.
I'd be more interested in following the dialog, if there was one. We have folks making up rules on every side; inventing new words and theories and constructs. And shouting down folks from other viewpoints. Its all designed to impede real dialog.
Economics doesn't factor into law. SCOTUS on the matter of Equal Protection has already spoken so economies adjust to legal realities (not vice versa).
"So we argue about 'privilege' like that can make a difference. Its at root, the majority vs minorities. The game will always be slanted toward the majority, because free market etc."
Privilege in racism is the concept that you and I based on our ethnicity can take certain conditions for granted. For example, I'm white so I rarely feel need to change my behavior when a police patrol car passes me on the road but a person of color is acutely aware of the situation and must act above/beyond what the well adjusted citizen should act (more polite, more timid). Privilege is the freedom to not notice a power disparity since you have all the power or the social norms in your favor to acquire it. Markets don't factor into it either. Markets are the affect of social orders not their cause.
"We have folks making up rules on every side; inventing new words and theories and constructs. And shouting down folks from other viewpoints. Its all designed to impede real dialog."
Okay, I'm not going too mean here but do you realize that POC aren't a position of power, right? If I get caught with a blunt I'm more likely to get a slap on the wrist since I'm white versus a person of color who may get a judge who'll throw the book at them. Just by being white I have a statistically better chance of lesser sentence for just about any crime.
Just because POC say mean things to you on Twitter or to your face doesn't equate being shouted down. They (and you) have a right to not associate nor to consider any ideas if they (and you) so wish. So, please don't assume the "truth is the middle." It's time for people to just accept that the truth in this matter be it racial equality or LGBT (emphasis on the T imo) rights is very clear. The only debate should be on how best to handle the injustices in question.
That's all fine theoretically. But in the end, a theatre showing films of interest to a minority will close, if they haven't got enough population to support them. Markets squeeze folks out all the time. All the laws in the land won't change that.
Training, oversight, education can all make a difference. I'm with you on what's right. But its tilting at windmills to try to legislate much of it.
Labeling is part of identifying problems which is necessary to figure out what needs to be fixed.
"But in the end, a theatre showing films of interest to a minority will close, if they haven't got enough population to support them. Markets squeeze folks out all the time. All the laws in the land won't change that."
Again, your example isn't even applicable to the real world problems that pose POC and other minorities. Can you actually stay on topic?
"But its tilting at windmills to try to legislate much of it."
And yet even George Will of all people in an interview on Econtalk (years ago) said that affirmative action may have done some good considering the time it was enacted.
So, I think you're in the minority here in terms of opinions.