University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
time.com
time.com
With the aspirations of "civility and mutual respect" along with "rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement", I would hope any truly egregious edge cases disappear.
In the middle, I think people have the right to remove themselves from discussions—civil or otherwise—that they don't want to listen to or engage. But that right doesn't limit others' ability to have those selfsame discussions in public or private venues, nor require others to give you advance warning about it.
And finally, U. Chicago has the right to set degree requirements. If you are unable or unwilling to meet those requirements (e.g., not participating in discussions), then you have no place at that institution. After all, the "real world" won't hold your hand.
So...
Trigger Warnings ("A trigger warning is advance notice about subject material that may be difficult for certain students to read, hear or see.") U. Chicago says they "don't support" them. I think actively discouraging them in every case seems extreme, but the institution simply can't be required to provide trigger warnings in every case for every individual. In other words, a lack of trigger warning doesn't mean you won't be triggered.
Safe Spaces ("A safe space is a place they can go to avoid those subjects or heal after confronting them.") U. Chicago doesn't condone the creation of safe spaces. Similarly, I think this stance is extreme. Safe spaces may be necessary for individuals. But U. Chicago is under no obligation to provide them for you or excuse you from other discussions as a result.
In other words, U. Chicago isn't a place for people who don't want to discuss issues that make them uncomfortable. Which, on its face, seems reasonable to me.
Viewed in this light, the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness is actually a softening of extremism: allowing for, rather than actively silencing, diverse political discourse.
This is in stark contrast to neighbor Chicago school DePaul, who last month blocked[0] Jewish conservative minority voice Ben Shapiro from speaking.
The extreme position here is blocking and preventing free speech and ideas through safe spaces and trigger warnings. Dismantling these, as the U of C has done, is worth celebrating. I hope they are the first of many.
edit: I believe that students are also consumers. The two are not mutually exclusive. Tuition is pretty high these days. I guess the difficult part is finding the right balance.
For that matter, if the speaker is invited by a student organization that the complaining student is not a member of, why should that student complain? Just don't go.
Protesting the speaker's existence is difficult to intellectually justify as a healthy exchange of ideas, including critique.
These days, what we see is a lot of the latter -- up to and including attempting to prevent attendance of the event -- and very little of the former.
I would say that the students certainly do have the right to complain and protest as long as it is not violent and not terribly disruptive. Complaining and protesting is PART of the open exchange of ideas. Physically blockading events is not, shouting down speakers while they are speaking is not, and in general throwing an adult-sized tantrum until you get your way is not.
DePaul claimed they blocked Shapiro from speaking due to "security concerns"[0]. In particular, students in favor of safe spaces and trigger warnings threatened to riot, block the doors, and prevent student access to the event. DePaul capitulated to this bullying by banning Shapiro.
Related: California State University-Los Angeles planned on hosting Shapiro to speak, but demanded[1] the student group which invited him to pay $600 to the university in security fees. When the student group refused, the university blocked his speech.
I'm not aware of this happening to speakers holding majority political viewpoint; it affects the minority viewpoints primarily. Frame it in terms of race: imagine a modern campus saying, "We allow blacks to speak, but only if they pay hundreds of dollars to provide security against the white riots that will inevitably arise."
[0]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/1/ben-shapiro-b...
I'm a grad student at DePaul at the loop campus so I don't really follow much of what is going on with the undergrads at the main campus, but it seems to me that the administration is taking a hard stance because of people like Milo who are mostly there for shock effect and not because they are saying anything of substance. His speech was successfully protested and he wasn't invited back.
Who gets to create the definition of 'hate speech'? You, I assume?
> ...and not because they are saying anything of substance.
Because he's not substantive to you and people who agree with you, right?
Free speech is great as long as it's within acceptable boundaries!
There is zero difference. "Hate speech" is a phrase invented by modern progressives to describe disagreeable views. It has zero meaning outside of pop liberal circles.
I'm not entirely familiar with the US usage of the term, but that doesn't seem right to me. The pre-WW2 British Public Order Act (1936) was enacted to stop attacks by British Facists on Jews, and part of it was a ban on the "use [of] threatening and abusive words"[1]
It has zero meaning outside of pop liberal circles
That certainly isn't true. In many countries there are laws against it[2]
Should creationist students lobby to remove the teaching of evolution from the curriculum? I understand that it's not an identical situation, but the general point is that students are putting a certain level of trust in the university to educate them, and having a line-item veto on the manner that that's done leads to insanity if you actually apply it equitably. If students knew exactly what they needed to learn, going to college would be largely irrelevant.
The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment (most people stop taking classes after getting a degree), and below that is probably education for employment (if I see someone with a degree taking a class just for the education, it's usually related to something they want to do for their job).
Universities are aware of this but pretend that's not the case, which is problematic. It'd be like if grocery stores started pretending their purpose was to provide an area for debate, and every time you wanted to get a gallon of milk you had to both pay for it and argue with the cashier about politics for 5 minutes. You don't want to do that? What, are you afraid of being exposed to new ideas?
I don't mind discussing things, but sometimes you just want a gallon of milk (or degree). Of course, you could go to the convenience store down the street, but they only carry cheap milk powder.
>The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment
Sure, theoretically. In the real world, not so much. Want to be a lawyer high up in a corporate firm? Get a research position doing the kind of work PhD's do? Good luck going down that path by going to a trade school.
Heck, look at the example of Susan Finley. After 46 successful years at NASA, they demoted her - because she didn't have a bachelor's degree.
If universities want to be mainly about debate and a free exchange ideas, they should give up their monopolies on the things most people are going there for (monopolies they really shouldn't have in the first place).
Perfect example! Law is one career where you can learn everything you need to know by reading books (ok, maybe all of them are that way..). Yet legislators (many lawyers themselves) in several states have introduced new laws to limit licensure only to those who have degrees. This would've excluded notables like Lincoln, Jefferson, Darrow, Marshall.
"I see on your C.V. you've written 'The United States Declaration of Independence' -- nice job! Oh but no JD? Tsk. Next!"
EDIT: though he was awarded 'honorary' degrees from several institutions. Would those pass muster these days? ;)
I'm not going to reject the ideal of college as a place to expand intellect because one common use is as a trade school.
There are plenty of wider discussions to be had about this whole thing. Ensuring that faculty are good teachers, which includes the empathy to broach difficult subjects with sensitivity and moderate debate. The provision of welfare services to students to assist them to make the most of their studies.
Listening to a minority whose refusal to engage and demand that others cave in to their views harms society - and in many instances harms the very people making the demands. Victims of sexual assaults need a justice system that is better at understanding issues of consent, victim blaming and the harm victim may be put through by a trial - and how to weigh that up against the right to confront your accuser. Ethnic minorities need a society better educated in history, understanding of cultural differences and similarities who continue to be more progressive and accepting than previous generations.
Avoiding exposure to ideas that challenge your own is not a good strategy for becoming an effective researcher.
You may say they have, by setting up trade schools, whatever they are. If the trade schools are not doing enough, that's the problem of the trade schools, rather than of the universities. If the trade schools can provide good enough education, employers will recognize credentials they provide. If employers don't recognize them, there must be something missing from their education. The piece missing may well be what universities want the students to learn: communication with those you don't like.
This is rather disingenuous. According to an article in the NYT [1] she just had her job title changed in 2004, from 'Engineer' to 'Engineering Specialist.' Her salary and status did not change. See the excerpt below:
Instead, Ms. Finley, who never finished her degree, fell
into a newly created classification: engineering
specialist, an hourly position.
Her overall pay did not change, and she is now eligible
for overtime.
> But the change still irks Ms. Finley; she must mark down her arrival each day, her half-hour of lunch and the time she leaves to go home.
> “It’s a demotion,” she said. “No one wants a demotion. We want to be treated like we deserve. But it’s true. I don’t have a degree.”
Nathalia Holt, a science writer who wrote a book about Finley and others, also considers it a demotion:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/the-women-who-brought-...
For many occupations, a trade school will not provide that. If trade schools expand to provide credential for many more fields, then maybe this will be a valid response. Until then it's not.
Many/most professional jobs treat university degrees as non-negotiable entrance criteria. Some go to the enormous trouble to punish professionals who are otherwise productive but have "gotten by" with extensive experience instead of a degree once it's discovered that they never had one.
This is most certainly not the case at the University of Chicago. If you want a degree, even a prestigious one, there are far easier options (even in Chicago... See that school in Evanston ;)
Students choose the U of C because they want to be challenged by ideas, they want to spend four miserable years pummeling their brains with the totality of human endeavor, at 1000 pages per week, lest they never have such chance again in their lives.
The degree itself matters to me very little, but the way that school changed my life will stay with me always.
One of those skills is the ability to think critically about a variety of topics. My assumption is that University of Chicago believes that in order to develop those critical thinking skills, it is a REQUIREMENT to learn an environment with a free and open exchange of ideas.
Students that want the credential BUT they do not want to complete one of the requirements of that credential should reconsider whether the credential is right for them or perhaps find another university.
To use your grocery store/gallon of milk analogy, a more accurate version would be if I went to a grocery store and asked for a gallon of milk, but demanded that it be zero calories and made from tomatoes. The store owner would tell the customer that they can buy tomato juice or water, but there is nothing labeled as MILK which meets their requirements.
I don't think that's actually the case. In my experience, employers care whether or not a person is generally competent (often using degrees as a type of signalling, even if that's not accurate), if they can justify the hiring purchase to others (IE, do they have a decent defense if you're a terrible employee), and whether or not you would excel in that particular job (hence asking you questions about it and your work style in general).
I can't think of a case where an interviewer was attempting to see if the candidate was able to think critically about a variety of topics (topics not connected to the particular job). I don't know of any example of, say, a programmer getting interviewed and being asked how they would interpret a particular piece of literature, or being particularly interested if they frequented a political debate group. Such things are almost never considered particularly important when resume suggestions are given.
However, if you have examples of something like this I would be interested in hearing them.
Rather, I think the experiences you are "supposed" to get in a traditional 4 year university education - such as discussions about literature and other topics not directly related to your degree - are widely believed to improve your ability to think in ways that perhaps aren't directly quantifiable, but nevertheless provide significant benefit to your employer.
These benefits can manifest, for example, in employees that are able to handle disagreements among themselves rather than running to their manager every time they butt heads. Or employees that are simply able to learn new systems without extensive hand-holding through every step of the process.
This is going to get buried, but I feel like I need to write it somewhere.
The biggest argument I've seen /for/ safe spaces is that, outside of them, it is very possible for a certain type of conversation to be drowned out. Safe spaces, by limiting some types of conversation, can allow other types of conversations to foster.
In a purely "free speech" environment, someone can just yell their opinion on repeat, talking over everyone, etc. A safe space can allow certain topics room to talk that they might not get otherwise.
I agree with the concept that UoC should not have to _provide_ safe spaces or trigger warnings, but I feel like both can have their place for an exchange of ideas (safe spaces) or to prepare people for something they're uncomfortable with (trigger warnings).
Viewing them solely as a political attempt to stifle free speech reads rather privileged, based on the above notion I gained elsewhere. I can't quite describe why, which is disappointing to myself - but perhaps safe spaces are needed in order for minority topics to gain the room they need to be discussed.
Safe spaces only work if you set up a safe space for every possible viewpoint, or you ban any form of interaction within the safe space.
But if you're trying to discuss native american problems and someone just keeps interjecting that focusing on native american problems is racist - then you're not really getting anywhere either - was sort of my point.
I don't think they exist to stifle opposing viewpoints, but to at least attempt sane discussion on certain topics that would otherwise not get the opportunity to be discussed.
There's no need for safe spaces just a professor who can allow for ideas to be exchanged in class whether they are hurtful or not and keep the discussion civil and moving forward.
What I don't like about the concept of safe spaces–and I say concept because I have never actually experienced one– is that I would prefer universities, which often have connections with government, to have as few censorship powers as possible.
Go to any public university in the South, and you can hear essentially the same sentiment in your post, coming from young conservative white kids who don't want to question the way they were brought up or learn about other cultures, gay rights, etc.
I think the idea of a university is that it's good for the intellectual development of both the conservative southern kids and the trigger warning kids if they occasionally have to struggle with new ideas outside their comfort zone.
Then we could save Universities for art and intellectual pursuits, spending an increasing amount of time there as our children grow up and eventually leave the house. As a dad of young children right now I feel a tinge of melancholy as I realize that in not too many years my children will move on and my life will become much quieter. How great would it be if instead I could look forward to that time when I'm able to engage with others who are at a similar stage in life for an indefinite period of challenging and rewarding study? People who have had enough life experience to actually have something to share and some real differing opinions and experiences? People who are not in a hurry to get a degree and get on with life? That seems to me to be much closer to the ideal of what we would like for a University to be.
There's some, limited support for this kind of continual growth, but not nearly as much as there should be.
There's more to any given job, or any given career path, than the hard skills required for it. Arguably much more.
I realize we can quickly slip down the rabbit hole of debating what the primary purpose of a college education is supposed to be. I'd rather not do so. Even if we believe that the primary purpose is job preparation, we should acknowledge that developing critical thinking skills serves that purpose well.
> It'd be like if grocery stores started pretending their purpose was to provide an area for debate, and every time you wanted to get a gallon of milk you had to both pay for it and argue with the cashier about politics for 5 minutes. You don't want to do that? What, are you afraid of being exposed to new ideas?
You have this precisely backwards. Grocery stores are designed and advertised as being for groceries: they're not debate areas that people decided to start using to pick up milk. A more relevant analogy would be people going into a church just to rest their legs in a pretty building, and then complaining about the guy droning on about God. We would quite clearly place the blame in that case on the people expecting the church to accommodate their ideal of "a pretty building to sit down in", in contradiction to the original and stated goals of the church.
The real issue here is people using "safe spaces" and "triggers" and "microaggressions" and what have you to block people from making the choices they want to make. Like you, they seem to think that someone speaking about something they disagree with is about them. It isn't.
All you have to do is be tolerant, and mind your own business like any other adult.
If someone else wants to buy tomato juice, why should you care?
It is a clever metaphore, but I don't think degrees are like gallons of milk at all. It is more like Louis Vuitton bags.
There are USD$600 LV bags, and there are others that cost twice or even 3 times as much. But, as many people that would love to snatch a USD$100 bag as there might be, LV cannot sell to them; if they did, all the > USD$1k customers would never buy LV again. Then the < USD$1k customers would begin to ask why they cannot have a 50% discount in the first place. And before long, LV would be selling at Walmart, competing with the (much more experienced) other players in the $20-$30 bag market.
Degrees are the same. Lots of people who only want a job want those. But the people who already have one like to believe that their degree says something about them; among other things, that they have the ability to dispasionately discuss subjects they find personally offensive. Every successful university has to stay in speaking terms with their alumni, if not for no other reason than to have then send their kids to the same university when the time comes.
At the end of day, University of Chicago is branding itself as "the place to study if you are an actual adult". Sometimes you want to sell regular milk, but sometimes you want to sell organic, grass-fed, free-range milk. And it is a good thing to have both options available.
That's an ideal that was never really true. Historically, a major function of universities has been being places where white male elites could congregate and maintain their power by excluding others: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-di....
I'm not a supporter of the movement to stamp out uncomfortable ideas from universities. But let's not look at things through rose-colored glasses. Even with space spaces, universities today are much closer to the ideal than they were 50-100 years ago.
Yes, all those slave-owning Greeks and Arabs were really the pinnacle of open discourse and the pursuit of enlightenment. There was definitely no social model they intended to enforce on others, and their universities were bastions of openness. Truly.
There is nothing "post-modern" about this either. My ideologies are as modernist as they come, and it's clear to me that the ancient Greeks were in no way in favor of some platonic ideal of open, free discourse. They didn't let allow women or slaves in their open, free discourse, and even if they did, but shouted them down (as antagonists of safer spaces are doing in this thread, the University of Chicago, and virtually every other space, because oppression is the default, liberation is something you have to actively build), that would not make the discourse any more free or open. You're not being "anti-postmodern," you're just being willfully blind of savage inequities in the institutions you're holding up as examples. If you didn't want that contradiction examined you shouldn't have spoken up. (And don't even think about complaining about being called out for this -- what do you want, some ``safe space'' where you can just pat yourself on the back with other slavery apologists?)
Many people do not agree with that and not just reactionaries. A majority of philosophers (natural + unnatural) and religions in history would have explained their world by cycles. There are a great many events, many disturbing to the happy-go-lucky narrative that the Progressivism Forever hypothesis fails to explain.
I take the point that Cthulhu swims slowly leftwards but without understanding why it is that he does so it is dangerous to extrapolate for the next 300 years.
Sure it was. In the 1960s and 70s, for example, when Universities were a hotbed of free speech and civil liberty activism:
It is true that there were significant student protest movements at many universities in the 60's and 70's.
I don't think that this invalidates the OP's point that "historically, a major function of universities has been being places where white male elites could congregate and maintain their power by excluding others".
Look over the last 200 years or so of universities in the US. It's only since the 1950's that non-whites and females started attending in significant numbers.
Even if we take 1970 as a cut-off where that is no-longer the majority case, the OP's point is still valid.
Take, for example, the Yale Halloween controversy, where supporters of this ideal fought hard to protect white male students from the idea that their costumes were mocking others because it might make them uncomfortable wearing them, and that violated their free speech somehow.
Or take the conservative activist who was so outraged at a left-wing poem in a newsletter that he barged into the office of a professor involved with it, demanding to know who "approved" the offending article and refusing to leave, and how groups like FIRE and all the other vocal supporters of the free end open exchange of ideas insisted his actions were a valent stand for the freedom of student speech.
I disagree. To me, political correctness is about not limiting other people's opportunities through stereotyping them. Making jokes about gangstas when the black guy is around or talking about terrorists like they're all muslim reinforces stereotypes and makes it harder for people of that demographic. Political correctness isn't about preventing offense, it's about not limiting opportunity, and in my opinion, the 'hacker' crowd that's supposed to be all about meritocracy should be strongly for political correctness. Trigger warnings don't fit into this - you're not claiming someone is something they're not (directly or indirectly).
I like what the U of C has done here, but it's not about PC.
It's nice, though, that you just declare me wrong by fiat, without any evidence to support the definition that you believe (or even what the definition is).
You're taking an underhanded approach here. "Marginalized" "Socially Disadvantaged" are just buzz words to distract from the definition. Attempting to create a victimized group (straw man) to try to make political correctness a good thing to protect the straw man is disingenuous.
Political correctness is and always will be lying or deciding not to say what many people recognize or experience as truth out of a perceived fear of political rejection, ostracism or whatever dreamt up consequences. The problems continue because ignoring, hiding, refraining from voicing actual problems means that they will never be addressed.
This is political correctness imposed on another person and in this case worthy of a civil rights lawsuit. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/03/student-facing-50-...
> Political correctness is and always will be...
Horseshit. Like any movement, some people go too far. But as a counter-example, in one of his shows, Dara O'Briain heard someone in the audience yell out "Yeah, fuck PC!", to which he replied "Yeah, fuck those people and their manners". The bulk of PC behaviour is very good, it's just the extremes that stand out, like with anything.
And seriously, quoting a Fox News article in support of what you have to say? You do know that their 'Fair and Balanced' slogan is just an ironic joke that they use? I use the relatively neutral Google to support my argument, and you use the frothy, proven liars of the extreme right wing Fox News? Yeah, I'm the one taking the underhanded approach here...
How about an "arms limitation treaty" between the left and the right in the US? Both sides will give up most of their empirically unsupported, subjective, and intellectually dishonest tactics for muddying the waters and suppressing substantive debate. The left can give up trigger warnings while the right can stop denying climate science.
What we need in the US is a "Groupthink Potlatch." We should have a reality TV show alternative to the mainstream debates where two high profile contestants destroy their own side's intellectually dishonest bullshit. The winner is the one who gives away or destroys the most of their own side's intellectually dishonest bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch
(Is that cultural appropriation? Heh.)
The other day I read an article where the headline said "Scientists explain why despite global warming, there is more ice in the antarctic." Then in the text it said "Scientists can't explain it."
So don't just think that things are conclusive because you've been reading articles. The "warmest july on record" isn't really all that impressive to me considering the record isn't that deep when it comes to the age of the earth.
Unfortunately, the combination of these two things makes it nearly impossible to be a climate-scientist who disagrees with the herd. Even if you could overcome the massive cultural hurdle, you have society and the government to deal with as well.
Which makes me skeptical, but I still think that it's safest to heed the precautionary principle.
But that's not what trigger warnings are for... it's not just about mild discomfort. They're to prevent panic attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger
Whether trigger warnings are effective or not is a different matter, but of course if you portray them as being about being offended or mild discomfort that they sound utterly stupid.
Trigger warnings seem like the same strategy only elevated on an institutional level. So while they do prevent panic attacks, they would actually do the traumatized more harm than good.
The other thing is that people can develop phobias against almost everything. So no matter how many trigger warnings the university put up, there could always be one group which finds their particular triggers not marked up well enough.
Successful treatment often actually involves confronting the fear, little by little, until it no longer causes discomfort:
"Exposure therapy is a type of cognitive behavioral therapy[118] that involves assisting trauma survivors to re-experience distressing trauma-related memories and reminders in order to facilitate habituation and successful emotional processing of the trauma memory. Most exposure therapy programs include both imaginal confrontation with the traumatic memories and real-life exposure to trauma reminders; this therapy modality is well supported by clinical evidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#...
Uncontrolled exposure is more likely to worsen the anxiety than extinguish it.
I mean, are you really arguing that the clinical approach to trauma is to surprise the patient with the topic in the middle of important everyday tasks?
Obviously, trigger warning provide a useful tool for people to manage their own exposure to these panic attacks. If this was not the case then no-one would ever suffer from PTSD as it would be instantly self-healing!
> Avoidance in the form of 'trigger warnings' may actually worsen the underlying problem for people with PTSD because avoidance can strengthen the underlying fear.
The argument is that active avoidance is bad because it makes the ensuing panic attacks worse when they do happen and makes it harder for exposure therapy to work. Your post is addressing a strawman.
I repeat myself: "Obviously, trigger warnings provide a useful tool for people to manage their own exposure to these panic attacks."
This allows for simple acts such as taking anti-anxiety medication beforehand or sitting at the end of a row to allow you to leave a lecture unobtrusively if you need to.
I'm sure no true Scotsman would have a problem with that definition...
This would be for however long is needed to seek the treatment to return to a stable enough level of mental health to return to university.
I had a fear of heights that bordered on panic attacks. I worked out of the 29th floor of a building for the first time in my life and felt like half of the day was spent thinking about how high I was.
I was looking for housing and every highrise I had to look out the window and feel a wave of intense panic. So I chose a highrise, and made myself look out the window all the time. Took some time, but I definitely don't have the same reaction I used to. I'm actually totally fine.
That might have been the original intent of a "trigger warning", but their sheer prevalence today indicates that this is either no longer true or else we have nothing less than a massive public health emergency that we should be dropping everything else to work to address.
This is really frustrating for someone with a genuine allergy because you feel drowned out by all the "fake" allergies that are just preferences and as a result sometimes people take allergies less seriously because they assume your "allergy" is just a preference, or just generally take it less seriously. For example, if someone asks you if something contains gluten, knowing nothing else, what would you estimate are the chances they are actually seriously allergic to it? These days, with the popularity of avoiding gluten in the west, maybe below 50%. This is a scary situation for anyone with a genuine allergy.
I'm sure it's just as frustrating for people with genuine PTSD or other situations where real mental health trauma could occur, to be drowned out and lumped in with all these folks who merely experience mild discomfort at discussing a topic.
So, a plea -- if you don't genuinely suffer from a serious physical or mental health response to a situation, but merely mild discomfort, be honest and just say you don't like something. You're making it worse for people with genuine problems when you lie and call it a genuine medical problem.
If you're not sure, a good rule of thumb is if you haven't been to or plan to soon go to a doctor (or really want to, but can't for some reason eg financial) to discuss the problem, it must not be disturbing your life enough to count as a real malady.
This whole topic feels a bit... I dunno... fabricated? astroturfed? I mean are these things really an issue outside of maybe a few humanities departments in super-liberal private colleges?
It's an election year folks.
I spend a lot of time in SF and LA, and in both places, the types of people who demand trigger warnings (and, related, talk about microaggressions and other imaginary offenses) are pretty common.
That also happens to be where a huge chunk of HN commenters/readers are based.
It is our reality. I do celebrate the news that outside of the SF/LA metro areas this cancer has not yet reached, but my day-to-day is very much affected by it.
But your statement:
> They're to prevent panic attacks.
Seems to counter the arguments in the link:
> Richard J. McNally, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, while writing for Pacific Standard,[13] discussed the merit of trigger warnings noting that "Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder" while citing several academic studies conducted on PTSD sufferers.
Right, but I'd assume this is probably done in small increments or doses? A person who's finding themselves exposed to said triggers may not be able to control how much of it they get in certain situations, which could arguably leave them off worse after the event.
All of these responses seem reasonable. If a student has such a unique life experience that they are not capable of completing standard university coursework, then the onus is on them to make that known to professors or administrators and come to some compromise. It is not the responsibility of the university to label and restructure its courses to acknowledge that there is a tiny fraction of the population that cannot participate in their education without severe distress.
Anything could be a trigger. Anything involving criminal justice could be a trigger for someone falsely (or rightfully!) imprisoned. A rape scene could be a trigger for a rape victim. Certain feminist literature could be a trigger for someone whose life was ruined through a false rape accusation. Someone who was recently dumped or cheated on could be triggered by discussing relationships. Perhaps a physics class triggers someone afflicted by severe existential angst -- entropy always increases? Domestic violence, child abuse, war, general violence, bullying, racism, torture -- many of these, things every college student should consider and think about before graduating -- are all triggers for someone.
So we should really put a trigger warning on every course. Better, let's make that trigger warning describe roughly what's going to be in the course and what students can expect out of it. Better yet, maybe put the grading scheme, reading list, and the rest of the administrative information about the course in it. We could call it some kind of nonsense word so as not to offend the people who hate trigger warnings or the people who love them. How about "syllabus".
Course syllabi already have a generally accurate description of course content so students may choose whether or not to expose themselves to any given material or prepare themselves.
The fact that a course is a college course and discusses human interaction at all should serve as enough as a trigger warning for anyone -- there could be triggering material in it. Period. Even if a class is about cold war economics, a student could bring up rape or racism in discussion.
Having said that, I'm not sure a trigger warning is necessarily a good idea. It's a pretty serious situation and I don't think that you could come up with a blanket solution that would work.
This is where you lost me. It just sounds like such a "republican-dad" kind of thing to say and I don't even get what it means. Can you clarify and give examples?
I wouldn't even know where to start.
How about: a belligerent country invades your sovereign and abuses and kills the populace. That's happened repeatedly, to millions of people, throughout history.
College professors (based on my experience and popular wisdom) are less likely to fill that "parenting" role. You are expected to be responsible and to take the initiative.
When you land a job, you are expected to perform. They expect that you will need help remembering to do your work, or to show up on time, or to be responsible for yourself.
Today, it seems, that the "college experience" is being overthrown by the PC police. This is what some colleges are teaching those entering the workforce:
Saying "Where are you from" is racist
Saying "America is a melting pot" is racist
Saying "Hey, can you guys help me look at this problem" is sexist\misogynist
Telling a woman in leadership “I love your shoes!” is bad
Referring to your co-worker’s girlfriend as “girlfriend” instead of “partner” is homophobic
And on and on and on.
And then these kids enter the workforce with an older generation who thinks the above list is absurd. There is going to be conflict and they older generation will wonder what happened to the youngins. They are incapable of living without finding ways to point to their victim hood or oppression.
They will be at your job soon. Publicly shaming you or reporting you to HR for using the wrong word or asking "Did you and your girlfriend do anything fun this weekend?"
Sources:
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27028/
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27984/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-codd...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise...
note to readers: victimhood and oppression do exist and I am not trying to belittle the very real experiences of many people in our society.
Be careful on that slippery slope!
Really, you're not willing to be mindful of your language to respect someone else's wishes? Also, "fee fees" really shows your level of thought and respect for other people so maybe I didn't need to even ask.
It therefore behooves you to learn how to deal with unpleasant topics and "mean" people in general in a constructive and adult way while you are at university, rather than creating formalized institutional barriers that create artificial "safe spaces" to shield you from such things, and thus allow you to avoid learning to deal with them.
Trigger warnings do not belong into lectures. If you can't bear to hear the material you do not belong anywhere near an university.
Safe spaces are areas created by fascist people who want to shut down any dissenting opinions and stifle free speech.
Destroy PC culture once and for all. Congratulations, University of Chicago, a step in the right direction.
The university is here to stimulate the mind. An exchange of ideas, a wealth of information that enriches your thinking. The university should be the source of the most controversial ideas, not shield people from them. It is a place where ideas are manufactured by people who have a love for learning and freely playing with ideas.
However, triggers have changed from a thing individuals are warned of that they have a personal responsibility to avoid, to something the world is supposed to avoid for people.
"I was triggered" has become an argument some groups make as a way to say something inappropriate happened. This is non-sensical, because the idea of triggers is that something random sets someone off because of a past experience. We can't remake the world because strawberries set you off!
What's worse, this use of triggers as a preemptive is a very small step away from certain groups censoring others.
Triggers are a great idea, but only if being triggered is not be an argument against something being done, and not if it is a phrase that holds any power as a preemptive. That is that part that needs to change, the preemptive, nothing that triggers anyone is acceptable part. I just can't see how that part can or will be changed.
The "real world" will eat you alive if you can't discuss topics which make you uncomfortable.
"Trigger warnings" are a form of censorship. "Safe spaces" are a form of self-segregation. Both are anathema to the academy.
To address the proposed censorship policy first, universities are the birthplace of free speech. Free exchange of ideas is absolutely essential for the transfer and furtherance of human knowledge. Both instructors and students must be able to state their ideas without fear of reprisal.
With regard to so-called "safe spaces," in my experience they are little more than ethnic enclaves with University funding. Whatever their original underlying rationale, "safe spaces" formed based on race, nationality, ethnic identity have become the norm.
Further, universities are not supposed to be comfortable. They are designed to confront our deepest beliefs, to intermingle people of vastly different backgrounds, and to teach not only technical skill, but the ability to cooperate with those with whom we have little in common. They are supposed to submerge people of different backgrounds in the same environment.
If you are comfortable, you are doing it wrong.
Finally, who determines who deserves a "safe space" and what requires a "trigger warning"? Inevitably the answer is the ever-expanding administration. The concept that these hired bureaucrats should be policing faculty speech is both inane and dangerous.
This new brand of political correctness ends with the shattered careers of educators. It ends with students educated about a reality that doesn't actually exist.
It ends with censored education.
To the Yale protestors (who were widely supported at UChicago) the entirety of university housing at Yale was meant to be a "safe space," so it was incumbent on the university to fire professors who voiced unwelcome opinions in that space.
To many of the people who are angry about this letter, "safe space" means a support-group-like room in a specific place at a specific time, which doesn't interfere with the rest of the university's operations.
I suspect it is the former which Dean Ellison meant to attack. I find it hard to believe that he's trying to shut down, for example, group therapy programs for LGBTQ youth offered by the psychology arm of the university's student health system. But I do appreciate him sending the message, "we're not going to fire professors because you don't like what they said."
That's one way it's relevant, to answer your first sentence. The fact that Yale fosters this family-esque relationship with peers, faculty, and deans is one of the contributing factors to extremely emotional response of the protesters, right or wrong. This fact was glossed over in almost all media reportings.
It's unfortunate that the term has been somewhat taken over and always incites such ferocious debate on HN and other communities on the internet. I doubt anyone here is against there being LGBTQ support or Narcotic Anonymous groups on campus.
It's one of the surest tells that a movement is wrong when they refuse to use the regular meanings of words and start redefining them in their own usage. People who are right never have to resort to such contrivances.
They almost certainly didn't learn it in high school, from their peers in high school, or from their parents. (Although that may be changing.)
They learned these things at the university, from professors, and from fellow students who learned from the same professors.
In other words, academia brought this situation upon itself by teaching these things to students -- -- so I'm rather leery of analyses which blame millennials for pushing a self-indulgent worldview on universities. If the same ideas had been taught to previous generations of students, they too would have advocated trigger warnings and safe spaces.
I know what all of these things mean, and I didn't learn any of them from college, I learned them from reading blog posts and things online.
After all, words are just irrelevant symbol strings on top of a meaning, right? If you're not really racist, it shouldn't matter if you only ever refer to people of the global majority by slurs. The surest tell a movement is wrong is when they refuse to use the regular meanings of words.
If you're instead trying to show which American political tribe you belong to, the concerns you mention become very important.
It's really hard to actually create a safe space. You have to actively intervene to prevent (or provide redress for) the "wrong" kinds of speech. I can totally see why a university would not think safe spaces were worth it, or even consistent with their goals.
But trigger warnings are a really simple common courtesy. There was a popular meme spread around the Fourth of July to be considerate of veterans who may be distressed by the sound of fireworks. If you think this is a consideration worth extending to a veteran, it seems perfectly consistent that you'd want survivors of rape or abuse to know that a discussion of rape or abuse was coming up.
While some trigger warning like the ones you mentioned are valid, the term has been perverted to include all sorts of things[0] where you could get in trouble for talking in public about insects or needles.
It's an impossible task to list out and educate people on everything that might possible trouble or offend. Once you open that door, there is no finite end to a list of triggers.
>It's an impossible task to list out and educate people on everything that might possible trouble or offend. Once you open that door, there is no finite end to a list of triggers.
It's not necessary to exhaust the full list. Analogously: it's impossible to list out and educate people on every form of negative externality, but we still have laws to address the big ones, and that helps.
I'd argue we pretty much already have this. Most people are aware of when a delicate topic is delicate and will treat it as such or avoid it, depending on the context. Trigger warnings seem to be a hammer in search of a nail, or more likely to me, something that was perhaps well intentioned at one point that is now just a means of attention seeking.
I agree it is, but right now it's very difficult to have the discussions necessary to draw those lines—supporters of trigger warnings only want to discuss the cases where they're clearly justified (fireworks & veterans) and pretend all uses are similarly valid, and critics of trigger warnings only want to discuss the cases where they're clearly not (slimy things), and pretend that all uses are similarly invalid. Determining where the lines should be drawn will be a long, complicated, painful discussion, but currently there's no way to have that conversation. If your opinion is somewhere in the middle, most internet commentators will lump you into the all-for or all-against group.
When something is 1) subjective or very hard to measure and 2) used as an emotional bludgeon then then people are going to call "shenanigans" and even start to exhibit knee-jerk doubt about such things. Often, this is a tragedy, as the issues may well be both real and difficult to discuss.
The quality of such debate and discussion has been hurt by the "Eternal September" nature of online discussion. The internet gives everyone a voice, especially if you have time to waste. Hence, clueless Freshmen and middle-schoolers have disproportionately loud voices online.
Yes, but students shouldn't expect that warning before a class on horror films. If you're unable to see graphic imagery, you should drop the class.
Similarly, students shouldn't expect to be warned about a discussion of slavery in a course about the American civil war. And you really shouldn't be able to get a degree in American history if you're unable to study the civil war.
Since blood leads, this is, in my personal estimation, done primarily to increase immediate viewer count, not avoid - and thus retain in the more distant future - discomfiting sensitive current viewers.
from the list:
- Pregnancy/childbirth
- Death or dying
- Slimy things
It's very difficult not to dismiss this as infantile.
Which is, in turn, why many people don't take these things seriously. Of course, perhaps there is a justification for "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" in colleges, but the issue of whether those 1) belong in the classroom as opposed to elsewhere on campus, and 2) should be a feature of colleges at all, is completely derailed by things like this.
Maybe you should try having more empathy for oppressed groups and individuals rather than writing off anything you can't immediately connect to your own experience as infantile.
None of the items I listed involve oppression or special subgroups of people. They are basic components of the human condition.
An inability to deal with the basic aspects of being alive is, ipso facto, infantile.
You're inserting your own value system, via the word "basic." It's indisputable that anything is an "aspect" of "being alive," but whether something is too "basic" to warrant consideration is entirely your construction. It is reactionary to dismiss oppressed peoples' self-descriptions of their oppressions. It would be progressive of you to listen to the oppressed and learn how to be a better ally. Do you want to be reactionary and backwards-thinking or progressive and forwards-thinking? How do you want to be remembered?
This is going to sound like a bad joke.
Fear of needles are more legitimate than might appear at first blush. Those of us with a needle phobia will experience a sudden drop in blood pressure, precipitating unconsciousness. In some cases this leads to death, making it one of the few phobias that can outright kill you.
I had the good fortune to undergo desensitization via allergy shots.
Because they are involve quite similar problems (safe for whom and from what? Warnings for which specific of the billions of potential PTSD triggers?) and are typically advocated for together, by the same people, as linked demands, to serve similar broad purposes.
> But trigger warnings are a really simple common courtesy.
No, they aren't. They are neither simple, nor are they, in fact, a common courtesy (whether or not you think they should be a common courtesy.)
> There was a popular meme spread around the Fourth of July to be considerate of veterans who may be distressed by the sound of fireworks.
There were actual several different ones, most of which were variations on combat veterans with signs at their homes asking for consideration and restraint.
> If you think this is a consideration worth extending to a veteran, it seems perfectly consistent that you'd want survivors of rape or abuse to know that a discussion of rape or abuse was coming up.
(1) Expecting people to, proactively and without knowledge of the particular trauma experienced by or triggers relevant to the audience, provide "trigger warnings" is exactly the reverse of the kind of specific and personal request for consideration at issue in the meme, and
(2) Triggering with PTSD is, in fact, quite complicated, but most often (AFAIK) involves sensory stimuli that are associated with the instance(s) of trauma producing the condition, such as sights, sounds, smells, etc. that were present during the trauma. Discussion of the class of event that relates to the trauma may be areas of strong emotional context and political sensitivity to many people (whether or not they are victims of that particular kind of trauma), but nothing I've read of actual PTSD and triggering suggests that they are particular likely to be triggers in the strict sense, even to victims of the trauma under discussion -- even to victims that do have PTSD and do have genuine, identifiable triggers.
(3) Proactive trigger warnings not based on the real known specific triggers applicable to a specific audience, if one isn't to give priority to certain type of traumas and certain presumed triggers associated with that trauma as "more deserving", quickly turn everything into a mass of warnings, most of which are irrelevant even to people who have PTSD originating in the type of trauma the warning is focused on.
The point of extending the courtesy of trigger warnings isn't that you will, with 100% certainty, prevent anyone from entering a state of psychological distress. That's obviously not attainable.
But let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There's really obvious stuff that instructors could warn about, but aren't. After I posted a similar sentiment on Facebook, a TA told me about their professor showing porn (featuring torture) in class. Who could have known that the majority-female class she was showing this to would contain some rape victims that left the classroom in tears?! Totally out of the blue, that.
Now, I don't expect anyone to know that aging wood with thin brown flaking paint is evocative of the assault I experienced; that would be ridiculous. But of course descriptions of assaults themselves are going to be evocative.
In short, there's really easy low-hanging fruit here, and I hope people aren't so turned off by the unattainable goals of safe spaces and 100% trigger coverage that they don't extend the courtesy of warning for really obvious, foreseeable triggers.
One of the most effective ways of learning is to hear and consider ideas opposed to the ones you currently hold. But these kinds of things (trigger warnings and safe spaces) act to prevent this. It inhibits learning. Sheltering people's preconceptions is the perfect way to prevent them from learning to think independently, which is opposite to the reason for going to school. Or at least, used to be.
Second, what the hell kind of professor shows porn to their class!? The warning required in that case is that the professor is unfit to teach, and/or the course offered is unworthy of any curriculum. I'm not a prude, and I can imagine perhaps some sort of graduate criminal psychology class where that might be justifiable, but it seems some sort of written description would do just fine even then.
Trigger warnings do not prevent the consideration of any particular idea. They help students choose the best time to engage with the material in question. If you've been warned that a particular piece of content is potentially disturbing, you can schedule your reading (or viewing) for when you're ready- so afterwards you can actually think about it instead of attending to your screaming autonomic nervous system.
< One of the most effective ways of learning is to hear and consider ideas opposed to the ones you currently hold.
< Second, what the hell kind of professor shows porn to their class!?
Am I missing some joke or sarcasm? I'm normally pretty good at detecting it in text. How can you advocate for learning to explore all ideas, even if they may seem opposite to what you (or others) may hold and at the same time say its repugnant that a teacher would show a taboo idea in video form?
I recognize this is an unpopular view. To go even further down the unpopular path, I also maintain that many of our colleges and universities have failed in their evaluation of what a formal education should include and exclude. For example, I have had the unhappy experience of hiring many new graduates who cannot write complete sentences, let alone organize their thoughts into some coherent whole with a beginning, middle, and end. I'm told that kind of thing doesn't matter any more, but I disagree. It reflects their thought process, which affects their ability to make good business decisions.
Also, parent post was about the trauma caused when rape victims were exposed to same without warning. Apparently it's not that uncommon to think this subject is taboo for a reason.
>No, they aren't. They are neither simple, nor are they,
You are mostly right, but there is danger here.
Traditional courtesy and political correctness do overlap a lot -- they tell us to do the same sort of things. They are not the same. As you suggest, personal consideration is not the same as political sensitivity.
But when the backlash against PC comes, that too is a kind of political sensitivity. Fear of being PC can lead people to be offensive when they would otherwise have been polite.
Some other anti-PC things, like use of the term "black people" in preference to "people of color" or "african-americans"; Or describing men and women in drastically different terms, or painting them as inevitably vastly different (to avoid papering over the differences or making them look non-existent) are their own kind of cultural sensitivity. Or in some cases, even a similar sort of language policing that has long been attributed to political-correctness, just on avoiding terms that people view as originating from it.
And I can't help thinking that, like many ideas from social justice, overly moralising a reasonable idea has made it much less palatable that it might otherwise have been.
...Sounds familiar...
"...much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabo...
Why did you not include a trigger warning about the discussion of rape in your comment?
One of the links in the article was to an article by a law professor talking about the difficulty of teaching rape and sexual assault law. The point being made there was that the entire subject has become off-limits -- literally, a large number of her colleagues had simply elected not to teach it anymore.
If your complaint is that, today, students are demanding an abuse of the notion of trigger warnings and safe spaces to effectively prevent exposure to potentially upsetting discussions, and that we are harming the long-term development of students by doing so, then by definition, you believe the corrections you'd get would essentially take the form "bring back all the trigger warnings we had when you started this process".
It's likely that a few obviously triggering things can be labelled as such and good can be derived from that even if we can't or shouldn't label everything.
For example, there are people who were raped by a man with a deep voice and are triggered by men with deep voices. That's a really shitty situation to be in, but it's unreasonably onerous to expect deep-voiced men to warn everyone in the vicinity (perhaps with a sign) before speaking, especially since there are very few people with that particular trigger. Asking people to give a warning before they intend to discuss rape in detail is not onerous, and it helps a rather larger number of people.
Edit: I'd really like to know why this is getting downvoted.
Note that this is a group of people drawn from 4chan and adjacent communities whose primary socialization is voip and online games, all areas known for a "challenging" discussion environment. The line seems to be, in this case, that one can reasonably expect to carve out a "safe space" among family and friends, but not total strangers.
I need to educate myself. What do people use instead of "slave device" in computing?
That’s a great choice, not only reprinting tons of literature, changing tons of code, but also choosing a Nazi analogy instead!
Every word triggers someone, society can’t be expected to adapt to anyone.
And I’ll continue to use Master/Slave, and continue to support the Sinter Klaas and Zwarte Piet tradition in the Netherlands.
There’s something like other languages, which you translate to for documentation or teaching purposes, which means the German material will either have only this one in english (which leads to everyone immediately realizing why), or just using Führer.
That’s not in any way solving the issue.
For every word, there is a context in which it is offensive. Just stop caring about that, instead of trying to do the impossible for no benefit.
The word "master" was also under fire not too long ago. They replaced it with "head". I'm honestly surprised a certain political group haven't jumped at the opportunity to get "head" replaced due to being too phalic.
[0] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464182/Harvard-Univ...
Source: I am a professional high-volume database guy doing this stuff since the mid 1990's and still deeply embedded with it now.
There are projects that have chosen other nouns, and they have ridden the wave of publicity around this, but by my estimation* more than 90% of database-related projects still use master/slave.
*as in I haven't done any formal record-keeping, nor will I.
One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not
to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this
conduct violate the law?”—because the word was
triggering.
[1] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap...
1. What's "reasonable"?
2. Does the meaning of "reasonable" change? (E.g., a criminal-law class vs. a computer science class) To me, this could be redefined as "topic appropriateness".
2. You can't rigorously define the boundaries of context.
With those two axioms, we can conclude that the root of the matter, which protecting the feelings of children who have been catered to their whole lives, is not a path worthy of resource or virtue. These are the same overmedicated people who simulanteously hold the belief they are just specks of dust in the universe while screaming about the importance of their feelings. Too many TED talks, not enough TED debates.
They are of zero consequence when you account for these factors.
> With those two axioms, we can conclude that the root of the matter, which protecting the feelings of children who have been catered to their whole lives, is not a path worthy of resource or virtue.
No, the root of the matter is protecting sexual assault victims with PTSD. Certainly some entitled children have tried to hijack that train for their own petty benefit, but we don't eliminate Medicaid just because Medicaid cheats exist. (Well, most of us don't.)
You're quite right that you can't rigorously define the values of context: something can only work with broad guidelines interpreted on a case-by-case basis. That does not mean that they're completely unaddressable and we shouldn't bother. People are not machines.
To elaborate, we have to talk about the nature of neurons and, specifically, neural plasticity.
Trauma is trauma (regardless of mass media campaigns to favor one type of trauma over another on a monthly basis) and neurons adapt accordingly. (Not always optimally in regards to personal development in an industrial context, mind you) Most importantly, they also heal accordingly. VR/AR experiments show the important of the visual cortex in rewiring the neural systems of paraplegics, allowing them to move their feet. This clearly shows the need of people to experience the world beyond what they have already modeled to be a reality to overcome massive trauma.
If people who have literally endured physical destruction of parts of the spinal column can utilize therapy to reprogram massive regions of the neurology to restore some physical functionality to a previously unrecoverable fate, I'm left with no choice but call into question the entire premise of "the safe space" and what function it is actually serving. (Other than unofficial voter turnout rallies)
Neurons are feisty things and to undermine their amazing abilities by claiming an individual's trauma is beyond neural plasticity is ultimately discrediting the fundamental humanness of the people you are aiming to protect. You are effectively saying "This victim is so broken and so subhuman, not even their neurons work anymore." In essence, you are the one saying people are machines because your altruism has concluded they are incapable of engaging in neural plasticity, and thus, must be denied sensory input via safe spaces to reflect that incapacitation.
Protecting the traumatized from what YOU think they should be protected from ultimately deprives them of the experiences and opportunities that neurons need to adapt to the trauma. No one heals in a jail cell of sensory denial, no matter how well-intentioned the warden. Thus, putting rigid borders on context will always fail, even if you are successful in the feat.
Have a little bit more faith that two billion years of biological evolution knows slightly more about itself than a few hundred thousand Xanga/LiveJournal ex-pats who are spending their 30s in one last angsty hurrah on Tumblr.
I realize this conclusion regarding the necessity of novel and unpredictable experiences to assist in trauma recovery contends against the widespread obsession of pathological altruism; the idea that those who mean well must do anything regardless of efficacy. This explains why Medicaid will always exist, no matter how many ill-willed scammers or high-power lobbyists game the system to their respective favors. Pathological altruism dictates that no cancer can ever be large enough, even as it devours the system whole. This just creates an ecosystem of competing parasites that undermines the legitimacy of that altruism via Poe's Law. Eventually, recruitment drives start to fail as essential outsiders and new blood no longer view your altruism as meaningful. Then it's off to the next monthly flavor of altruism, which is the same as the last one, all made up of the same previous players, but now with slick new branding to attract the freshly unaligned and uninitiated!
We need a trigger warning about trigger warnings.
FWIW, I don't think this is a consideration worth extending to veterans, and I am dismayed by the fact that many vets have embraced the culture of competitive victimhood that has infected much of American popular discourse.
With that said I do think that a professor giving a heads-up to students that they're going to discuss uncomfortable topics (e.g., rape) in class is probably the right thing to do, within reason (e.g., if it's going to be the central theme of that day's discussion).
I'd disagree with that. If it's central to the lecture, it should be essential/relevant to the course. If it's not, there's no reason to bring it up in the first place.
The concept of a trigger wasn't created as something to be avoided. Identifying a trigger is the first step in identifying and dealing with the underlying psychological issue. It's similar with safe spaces. They are things that people need post-trauma to help recovery. It's not meant to be a permanent need or something that should be broadened to the world at large.
Your therapist creates a safe space for you to discuss your triggers.
That seems a bit callous. Care to elaborate? I don't think they are usually framing these as "demands", and I don't see how asking for this consideration necessarily crosses into "competitive victimhood". Also, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, physical stimuli are the type of "actual" triggers than can cause real panic attacks in those with PTSD, unlike verbal discussions of uncomfortable topics which can cause emotional distress but not true panic attacks.
More generally, PTSD is not what most vets have, it's PTS. It's not a disorder to be a bit agoraphobic when you come back from theater, or to drive in the middle of the road, or to have a short temper. These are natural responses to stimuli that dissipate over time. The best way to help people through these acquired reflexes is to treat them as normal people, not as special snowflakes in need of coddling.
Also, people putting signs on their lawns identifying themselves as combat veterans and saying "please be courteous" or whatever else....that's classic passive aggressive behavior that is a demand for all practical purposes.
I don't think veterans are the best example for this point, but I totally understand what you're trying to say. I say this because I've never had someone legitimately and purposefully try to end my life. I have no idea what that feels like. Therefore, there are some topics of discussion that I avoid when I'm around combat veterans.
I think your comment about "special snowflakes" hits the nail on the head. I've been using that phrase for years to describe the type of people that push the "trigger warning" and "safe space" rhetoric at universities and on the Internet. These people, for the most part, are not victims of significant trauma of the type to actually cause the types of disorders for which the term "trigger" was originally defined in the psychological community. These people are living the life of what I like to call "perpetual victim-hood" in order to garner attention and give meaning to their lives. These people choose to take this route because the other paths to a meaningful life are more difficult and require much more effort. Why actually invent something or do meaningful research when you can complain on the Internet and garner millions of followers who throw continuously resonating rhetoric into your own personal echo chamber?
This has become a bit of a rant. I apologize for that. I just get very frustrated with these kinds of things because I believe it stifles the spread of new ideas and hinders progress.
To further muddy things, you should know that explosions themselves don't produce the responses they do just in veterans. High-bandwidth sounds trigger an autonomic response as soon as they hit the brain stem- long before the cortex has a chance to think "I recognize that as an explosion", the brain stem said "HOLY SHIT SOMETHING IS HAPPENING". This mechanism is observed in rape and abuse survivors as well as veterans.
I'm all for being courteous, I just have serious concerns about giving college students the impression that the world around them needs to adjust to them rather than vice versa.
Showing pictures of a massacre
Showing pictures or video from a war
Reading a graphic account of a soldier from war
Showing pictures of mass graves (esp where body parts are identifiable)
Showing pictures or video of a rape (even if a scene from a movie)
Showing pictures of the evidence from a rape
Reading a graphic account of a rape victim
By not making a policy, but encouraging a culture of learning about common triggers, we also encourage a more adaptive approach. If someone is distressed and they let you know, you can decide whether it makes sense to warn about that content in the future.
Now we watch Bachelor in Paradise. I'm not sure it's an advancement.
And at what point does it stop? Who decides what is a trigger warning?
If someone is afraid of wolves. Must I now stop wearing my wolf shirts?
When does it simply turn into censorship and shutting down topics and discussions you don't want to have?
If someone has a personal issue, what gives them the right to force their issues on others? Why must everyone adapt to them?
A more "physical" corollary would be the "ghost" limb sensation for someone who has lost one. That person doesn't lose their limb every time the sensation comes and goes away -- it was lost before and after the incident. It may be painful sure, but who says that recovery and healing is without pain? One of the leading methods of treating PTSD being studied is having combat veterans relive a similar incident through a controlled environment.
But if you know someone with xanthophobia, maybe don't wear a yellow shirt to their dinner party?
I have an issue with safe spaces and trigger warnings. They aren't usually thought of being helpful by many, if not most, professionals. If anything, they are considered actively harmful for the "triggered" individual and increase depression.
They're a feel-good measure so people can believe they are being considerate of others and announce it to the world. "Look how thoughtful and considerate of others I am being!" While letting them deride anyone who claims otherwise as being an asshole.
Maybe some definitions of "safe space" mean "shut down topics and discussions", but trigger warnings are specifically about having conversations, in a considerate way.
That's probably a good idea either way...
Indeed. I see "Trigger warning" and I know I don't want to read what an author has to say.
> If you think this consideration worth extending to a veteran... But I don't. It isn't that I don't feel empathy for the veterans, but I think they should be offered (by the government) a safe place to go so they aren't triggered. This is a yearly event. And I think we (citizens and government) have a responsibility to provide help. The veteran has the responsibility to actually follow through with the help.
Panic/anxiety attacks are not a silly little thing. They were portrayed somewhat accurately in Netflix's recent Jessica Jones (she even uses a common grounding tactic to prevent them, like street names from childhood), and in Love and Mercy, that biopic of the Beach Boys' frontman. Having had close experiences with people who have panic attacks and see them getting triggered by being reminded of certain incidents, I can tell you that panic attacks are not fun, and those suffering from them are not faking, nor are they being whiners. With time, it's possible to get over your triggers, but it's a long healing process. During healing, trigger warnings are the same courtesy as signs saying that people with heart conditions or expectant mothers shouldn't get on certain carnival rides.
But people now on the internet say stupid shit like "triggered much?" for what was once called "u mad bro?" And whether exaggerated or not, it seems that this kind of "triggering" is what UofC seems to be speaking out against. That's not what a trigger warning is for.
If everyone followed your definition, we'd never had problems.
Do they? I only seem to see the latter online when people are being facetious about it. Do you see examples of people saying they were triggered and shouldn't have been and they are not referencing panic attacks?
That said, I do hear some vitriolic defenses of them as well.
Moral of the story: Don't trust anything you read on the internet, I guess.
I'm in close contact with a lot of social justice groups, specifically ones based out of UC Berkeley. It's not super widespread, but there are absolutely individuals who abuse the concept of triggers as a way to give themselves pretext to be cruel to others, to control conversations, or just as something to get righteously indignified about.
This is an issue with the individuals involved and not triggers per se, but just as with other social technologies it's definitely possible to abuse triggers.
It seems to be taken as a given that certain kinds of content are particularly likely to be triggers, but is that actually the case? What I've read suggests that actual causes are varied and unpredictable.
Banning people discussing certain topics in public throughout a university is obviously too costly. Adding a brief note at the start of an article/lecture/etc. saying you're going to be discussing something is perhaps not.
How are you supposed to know the set of topics that could potentially trigger a large classroom of people? And how are you supposed to know what topics will be brought up in discussions or questions asked in a classroom?
If someone is triggered by the topic of war or fire, it could come up as an analogy in any subject. "90s music was like a war on being happy - depressing alternative rock spread like wildfire."
Also, I think the burden of evidence is on requiring trigger warnings for classrooms. Why should they be implemented?
You can't just know beforehand what might "trigger" someone, and you can't account for the majority of the cases. Add into it the fact that you cannot just avoid discussing uncomfortable topics because _some_ people might find it distressing -- sometimes discussing uncomfortable topics is the entire point, especially in academia, what else are you supposed to do?
If this is your normal behavior when a person mentions something undesirable, you need help and should probably get some professional counseling before enrolling in a university.
My problem is that we are catering to people with mental illnesses and making it difficult for anyone to accomplish anything without 'triggering' someone.
Life is tough, brutal, and ugly. It's doing a huge disservice to our youth to not give them the tools to properly cope with it.
Should they never travel abroad where trigger warnings and safe spaces will never be a thing? I traveled around Asia for 2 years when I was younger, and racism and bigotry are pretty normal occurrence.
It's also pretty apparent that it's now being used as a way to silence opposing viewpoints.
If I told you that gun control, atheists, and feminists trigger me, should any speech related to these on campus be banned?
I think one of the strangest things about the new generation is that unlike previous generations, they are actually fighting for more segregation, not less. Even the official BLM political site wants black-only establishments. You have groups that are self-segregating based on race and gender..yet scream for more diversity.
This is not my idea of diversity or freedom.
Universities used to be about the freedom of expression, thought, and open discussions. You can no longer have any kind of discussion if it veers away from the current narrative of the day.
The rise of these recent techniques of protest are more a failure of our high schools and universities to provide sufficient visibility and importance to debate and discussion.
An immutable mind is a weak mind. If you have to silence your opponent in order to win, you really haven't done research. Both of these are at odds with the concept of an institute of learning.
The U of C is explicitly stating in this letter that if you don't agree with their values, don't come to the school.
This seems uncontroversial to me, but I think it's worth affirming that self-segregation is a valid social strategy. I know segregation is a loaded word, but that's because historically it was caught up in the exercise of power differentials.
Robert Putnam concluded (http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...) that diverse societies actually see a decline in civic life because there is more friction and distrust between individuals with different values. So there is such a thing as too much diversity, and diversity must be balanced with cohesion.
Moreover, diversity seen as social mixing is self-defeating since after enough social mixing everyone is the same and there is no more diversity. There is a happy medium whereby people can be tolerant and different at the same time. Indeed, tolerance and difference need each other to exist.
Segregation is abused when there is an exercise of a power differential, whether between individuals or groups.
So I'll strike the balance by saying, "You have the right to segregate yourself from others and hold exclusionary values as long as you do not use force to impose those values on others."
If you disagree with this statement, I'd ask you to examine how many ways you segregate yourself from others. Do you befriend anyone? Do you date anyone? Do you work with or hire anyone? Everyone engages in this behavior because we are social animals and shared values are necessary for society.
In the long term perhaps human society will become universally shared, at which point many of these controversies will be moot. However that is not the case now so we should allow communities of like-minded individuals to form and share values that differ from the values of others. Indeed we should always allow this, because there will always be minorities no matter how homogeneous the dominant culture is.
/s. For the love of God, /s.
Something my father once told me, that has served me well over the years.
There's a lot of money (read: clicks) to be made by manufacturing outrage, and there's far too much to be angry about in this world to be inventing any more of it. Maybe this is something you should be angry about, maybe it isn't. But unless you like being mad you owe it to yourself to think about those questions before making a decision.
For this thing in particular, it doesn't make any sense without context. I'm not at the University of Chicago, and nor is anybody I know. Are "sjw pc trigger-warningers" a problem there? Or is the university being ridiculous? We can argue back and forth forever whether "safe spaces" are good or not depending on your definition -- which definition is the one that is relevant at the University of Chicago? This letter may make perfect sense in the context of current issues going on at the university. Or it may be a load of bull. But, at least from where I'm sitting, I have no context. And whoever uploaded this didn't provide any. What was their purpose? Who knows. Definitely not enough justification for me to worsen my mood about it.
It was a database course, I can only imagine "master/slave" terminology.
So I was wondering, how are Trigger Warning supposed to work? Can the student refuse to do the required reading and claim full credit because might be triggered, seems like it would open loophole.
That was just CS stuff. What about history, that's full of prejudiced offensive language and terminology. Can students avoid doing required work by claiming they'd be triggered?
Is there anyone undertaking an effort to sanitize records to "fix" the triggers. For example take some classic distributed system papers and search and replace master/slave with leader/follower?
I can understand wanting to have safe spaces. But I don't quite follow how trigger warnings resolve themselves in the context of classroom learning. Any recent grads have any experience with how this is handled?
EDIT: I think it was a link like this (even perhaps this exact course, just for last year).
http://15721.courses.cs.cmu.edu/spring2016/schedule.html
---
Concurrency Control III — Optimistic /!\
...
/!\ : Trigger warning: The material presented in this lecture uses explicit language and discusses certain situations in database management systems that may be triggering to some students.
---
Are students allowed to pass without learning and being tested on Optimistic Concurrency Control in databases? If not, what is the purpose of the warning, just to have them mentally prepare for it?
The first example seems like an obvious common courtesy, the second seems pointless. I say pointless because some words are used in everyday life in normal ways that may be "triggering", but that's entirely different from an in-depth discussion of a sensitive topic that's triggering. But that's obviously just my opinion, I'm sure many disagree and that's why this is such a hot button issue right now.
On the one hand, I worry that we're moving towards a mind-police driven society where we actively discourage people from saying anything that goes against the grain of society. Be it by activist groups, or algorithms optimizing for clicks and user retention.
On the other hand, it is important to be courteous to each other and not upset people needlessly. Discussions should give people the option to bud out and not participate, if they feel they cannot do so.
On the third hand, maybe we've always lived in a society where we actively discourage participation by anyone who is perceived as upsetting the group and nothing new is happening.
Then again, I think people should be actively encouraged to entertain stances and opinions other than their own. Being upset and offended can often be a good thing.
Seriously, though, reasonable people should behave reasonably, and a lot of the problems go away. But we aren't talking about reasonable people; we're talking about college kids. I remember myself as I was then, and I was a jerk. I was much more concerned with winning (in whatever form) than being reasonable or nice or considerate. So... yeah, the administration probably needs some guidelines rather than relying on the reasonableness of the students.
I said "needs some guidelines", but that isn't actually what Chicago is doing here. They're stating that they follow some values, and that you shouldn't go there if you can't go along with those values. This is a better approach, because values are actually a better guide than rules (somebody can always find a set of circumstances that the rules don't cover, especially if they want to).
Now it means, "don't say anything that might offend someone."
That said, it is a journalism class, and students who actually become journalists should expect to report on such traumas on a fairly regular basis. So I don't feel that concerned about using the book for journalism class. I'll probably warn students not to read the chapter about autopsies while eating. If I were in another liberal arts/humanities departments, I might take pause (but I have no idea what it's like to be an instructor in any other departments, so don't take my opinion as having any insight to other departments or their proclivities)
Safe spaces are more complicated and (inherently) restrictive and so I understand the discomfort around those too. You can allow controversial / awful groups to exist (Nazis, KKK, etc) and provide trigger warnings for their events. Indeed, I would think that having 'opposition' groups and hosts provide their own sets of trigger warnings would be a fantastic introduction to outsiders.
Consider the example of disability laws: you're required to install a wheelchair ramp/lift if an employee needs it; you're not required to let a quadraplegic person be a lifeguard.
The obvious conclusion there is that we need to work with doctors and patients to understand their needs better, not "this is weird, so no point in trying."
> Trying to accommodate every single mental handicap in society is futile and expensive.
This is exactly the slippery-slope argument I was talking about. Reasonable accommodations.
Universities themselves are never in quite so simple a position as that. Like any large group of people there are conflicts of interest, ambitious power plays, and grandstanding gestures. U of Chicago happens to sit on an end of the political spectrum that allows it this united front. That doesn't mean its day to day is actually more free or open to questioning than a school like Oberlin that aimed to endorse safe spaces and trigger warnings top-down. Any genuine discussion of freedoms vs securities is most likely lost in the scuffle.
Maybe add some headphones so you can't hear anything....
But, in his ten weeks as a leader of the college, Master Christakis has not fostered this sense of community. He seems to lack the ability, quite frankly, to put aside his opinions long enough to listen to the very real hurt that the community feels. He doesn’t get it. And I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my pain (emphasis added)." [0]
From one of the Yale protestors demanding the termination of a professor who wrote an email questioning the need to regulate student Halloween costumes, and her husband for standing by her. FWIW, the student activists at UChicago plastered their Facebook walls with expressions of solidarity with these protestors.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/09/...
That's what I thought at 16 after seeing Animal House and having never visited a college campus. Fortunately someone insisted engineering is a practical degree that I should consider. But had that person not influenced me, I would have just went to Apex Tech which gives you a box of tools and a "diploma" in 6 weeks.
54 percent of students said the climate on campus prevents some people from saying what they believe because they are fearful of looking like assholes.
The actual quote is "54 percent of students said the climate on campus prevents some people from saying what they believe because they are fearful of offending others."
I've had to help a friend having a sobbing panic attack because someone made a stupid rape joke and triggered her PTSD. It's not a laughing matter. But it's not an excuse for censorship, either.
People want to go to a university to grow. Growth is not retreat. Strength is not capitulation. Employees want to know that a graduate has a mental resilience along with the skillsets learned.
The students at the U of C will be fine.
Then I look to the third world there we have things like female genital mutilation, are the women who had that horror put upon them concerned with trigger warnings? Nope. Not as far as I can tell.
Why here, why now? Are modern first world citizens mentally weaker somehow? I posit that it these types of policies may do more harm than good long term.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Obscenity_Enforcement_Act
Recovery is always the goal, not keeping someone continually vulnerable. And over time, in more controlled circumstances, exposure therapy can be an effective part of a person's recovery. But you can bet that he kept his eye out for triggers for a while.
So you believe that 'trigger warning' advocates support the University of Chicago decision then, by not having a formal rule in place in regards to them?
>If a friend asked you, "please don't talk about rape or slavery around me (in cases that you really need to) without giving me an opportunity to collect myself", would you say "sure thing, I'll try and keep that in mind" or "no, fuck off and look after yourself"?
Depends, a friend in a one on one conversation. Sure but I might find the person difficult to talk to as I have to be on eggshells all the time. If I was doing a stand up comedy act? I'd tell them to fuck off because that is tantamount to censorship.
Policy isn't law, by definition. "Hey, we'd really like our employees to be relatively tactful when they bring up things that are very likely to upset some of our students due to their experiences" wouldn't be very hard to say.
Honestly... if you're talking about rape and slavery on a regular basis in casual conversation, you live in a completely different world from mine. I try and keep my friends' preferences in mind while around them - remembering that they don't like talking about certain things is as easy as remembering their hobbies, jobs, or how much milk and sugar they take in their tea, to me.
> If I was doing a stand up comedy act? I'd tell them to fuck off because that is tantamount to censorship.
Funnily enough, I was at the Edinburgh Fringe this month, and made a special attempt to find comedians and acts who I disagreed with strongly. Result? That was really difficult to find - I had more to discuss with the liberal types than anyone who was explicitly trying to be "edgy" or "not PC". Comedians have mostly bought into the "punching up vs punching down" thing as much as anyone else. Turns out it usually makes for better jokes.
That's strictly true but somewhat misdirecting, as much of the controversy arises when they do want it mandated by authority with formal consequences for violations, just that the authorities that they are lobbying are usually not legislators making law.
"there was a time when a man kept his bullshit to himself"
It's not like people were so much stronger back then that no women complained about the normalization of sexual assault, it's that those that did were forcibly silenced. It's not that mental health issues didn't exist, they were just quickly swept under the rug.
How many of them have you asked?
As far as other parts of the world go, I never heard of anyone in Europe talking about safe spaces or trigger warnings and I'm pretty sure they don't waste breath on such stupidities over there so it doesn't seem to be an issue outside the US, though I could be wrong.
Your right to "speech" only applies to the public spaces of the State. So stop trying to expand free speech to mean "freedom to scream at people whenever you want."
Throughout history people washed clothes by hand (at least the ones who had clothes), are modern first world citizens mentally weaker because we'd much rather have washing machines?
There should never be bans of free speech consistent with that of the First Amendment (i.e, you can't shout "Fire" in a movie theater).
I hope that there is a law passed that universities that block free speech as many have, are not allowed to receive federal funds in the form government grants for faculty, and financial aid for students.
Freedom of speech and the First Amendment are two different things (and I'll note that there is no limiting clause in the first amendment), and I think it would be helpful if people realized this. Freedom of speech is a broader principle that is (IMO) a good idea independent of any legal enshrinement of the law.
At any rate, people pay good tuition money to get an education and part of an education is the free exchange of ideas.
[0]: https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne...
How so?
Trigger warnings aren't about bending to the every whim of everyone you encounter. They're about labeling material ahead of time so that people can make a more informed decision about when and how they expose themselves to it. Nothing about this requires changing educational material; it would just mean putting some notice in the class listings and syllabus about what potentially uncomfortable topics are going to be covered in detail.
If all you want to do is inform people about what you're going to discuss, a good syllabus will take care of it. There's no need to put in any warnings. College students should be intelligent enough to work out for themselves what topics they might not like.
Much of this debate seems to center on the platonic ideal of "trigger warning" and "safe space" versus how they actually end up working with real students and real universities.
Being able to face uncomfortable ideas and events is a hallmark of an educated, resilient mind. People who never practice that resilience can hardly be considered having achieved the status that one would normally associate with a liberal university level education.
[citation needed]
But let's not pretend you can have a conversation with people that do not want to have one. The problem is these idiots also want to pass the course they didn't attend and didn't learn anything from or they want the course censored. Either way, by making these demands, they are the ones attacking students who actually put in the work to learn and students that want to actually learn and not get rid of classes or lessons they don't agree with. No matter how you look at it, it ends up in censorship if you begin to entertain the ridiculous censorship demands of students.
If I was the school's president, I would make sure these people who disrupt class and attack other students' freedoms fail for their lack of work and get kicked out for their attacks on education and other students' ability to obtain a proper education.
Have the president say to the student: "You don't want to participate in the discussion? Here's a fucking zero. Now get the fuck out of my class and if it continues, get the fuck out of my university. Most people here are actually here to learn, not disrupt the education of others." That's basically what U of Chicago is saying ahead of time now and what most universities refuse to say because the money is so plentiful right now.
Saying that Mozart can compose anything he wants is different from saying that the symphony has to play it, and that I have to go.
edit: "you can say anything you want in our meeting" in practical terms, if there is a meeting about wage gap, you should be able to state facts that contradicts narrative, and not be afraid that you will be force to apologize for trigerring or even quit university
Let me reiterate that. Because trigger warnings and safe spaces are just code names for censorship, they cannot exist at the same time as a proper education, and the students that want to learn should not be punished by the stupidity of the students who only demand censorship (safe spaces and trigger warnings). That's Ethics 101. Which one would probably be aware of if one's university didn't have trigger warnings and safe spaces instead of education. But if one prefers to get ripped off and not learn, there are now plenty of universities in America that will gladly take one's money and return one some trigger warnings, safe spaces, and little else.
The given student association has a say in who it allows as members and as guests in to their private spaces. This has nothing to do with professors deciding to analyze the work of the Marquis de Sade (sp?). It's more about saying these associations have legal autonomy from the university itself when it comes to governing their private spaces no different than private associations being autonomous from the government in managing their private spaces as well.
"Let me reiterate that. Because trigger warnings and safe spaces are just code names for censorship, they cannot exist at the same time as a proper education, and the students that want to learn should not be punished by the stupidity of the students who only demand censorship (safe spaces and trigger warnings)."
Let me break this down here. When safe spaces are invoked they are only reasonably invoked in private spaces of student associations. This excludes class rooms of any given course on campus. So if the local LGBT students association refuse membership to some alt-right/nrx students or not to attend an open conference or just to simply not interact with specific individuals as a general rule there's no censorship in the sense of banning people from university speaking. You just happen not be free to speak in one private space independent of school functions. It's really no different than a club setting. To argue that this is censorship dilutes the meaning and impact of censorship throughout history and demands that private spaces become public spaces when case law on this matter in the United States is effectively settled (i.e. you have no right to a venue of your choice so long as that venue is private).
As for trigger warnings, this is not censorship, as I've had actual course descriptions that noted there were topics such as incest in the literature discussed and analyzed. Putting such notes in the course description effectively defines it as a trigger warning. No one is stopping the professor because in the vast majority of cases the professor was the one who wrote the description at least my university. And this wasn't some liberal bastion, either. It just happened the professor in question was sensible enough to give an accurate description of the course. Now, if you think trigger warnings are bad because people avoid courses that might cause them major emotional stress (like said talking about the topic of incest in relation to a work of fiction) then you need to show me how that violates the free speech of a professor. Don't give me this high minded bunk about "but you're there to be challenged." Because at the heart of the matter that's up to the student to take a course. If a student refuses to take a course that's not censorship that's a student refusing to take a course. It would be one thing to say that a professor should be forced by administrators to not cover the literature in question or to not offer the course, that is censorship but anything else you try to shoe horn in as censorship has none of the sufficient conditions to satisfy the definition in the most general sense.
In short, private spaces being handled by private organizations as such have the legal authority to refuse to offer their spaces as venues to anyone and for any purpose. That is the law and you can't debate it either way. Nor are trigger warnings (really they're just course descriptions) censorship since the course isn't being halted by the mere existence of them in their course descriptions in the course catalog. Nor is the absence of students who refuse to partake in courses they find troubling censorship as the professor can continue to offer the course. If they don't meet the required minimum to maintain the course that's just a tough break there. I've had courses cancelled all the time for similar reasons on far blander topics of circuitry and logic. So I'm not going to entertain nonsensical and vague definitions of censorship as such. Either produce actual evidence of what I've listed as censorship or admit you're incorrect on the matter.
2. Any offices rented by a student association or other organization by law are considered private. The standing of the university as a leasing organization doesn't change because of it being a university. The same laws apply to it with regard to commercial and residential rentals as any other landlord. Which means the following: if you don't want someone in your office you don't have to let them in. That includes visitors to the university, students, and police officers without a warrant just to name three off the top of my head.
3. Nothing I've said so far applies to professors other than their right to issue content warnings or accurate descriptions for the courses in question. Trust me, I've always approved of accurate course descriptions because the biggest failure of inaccurate ones is the defined list of required books to purchase at the official university book store (which has only so much time and money to get the books in the first place). If a professor can't be bothered to fill in the course description and required reading materials in advance then maybe that professor should get out of the teaching business? Wild idea I know! Which includes trigger warnings on issues which are still even in the public are considered controversial or shocking topics. If that upsets you then I guess you better tell the MPAA and other organizations to stop "censoring" themselves.
I went to UChicago. The letter doesn't say that anyone can say anything to anyone else. Presumably student organizations can choose who to invite or not invite into their meetings.
However, if Organization A finds the speaker invited by Organization B to be offensive they shouldn't expect the university to inveigh on their behalf.
Why would a student need a special space to feel safe/accepted? Doesn't the university already provide students basic safety?
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/14/campus-rape...
Edit: from page 3 "From 1997 to 2013, females ages 18 to 24 consistently experienced higher rates of rape and sexual assault than females in other age brackets."
and from page 4: "However, there was no significant difference in the rates of female students and nonstudents who experienced attempted rape or other sexual assault. This suggests that differences in the rates of completed rape largely accounted for differences in the overall rates of rape and sexual assault between students and nonstudents."
I certainly understand and agree with the need for the university as a whole being a place where students with differing views and identities discuss and debate each other. But it is also necessary to the spirit of inquiry for like-minded people to be able to enjoy the freedom of association and speech. Just as I wouldn't want certain "safe spaces" to overtake the university as a whole, I wouldn't want them to be eliminated either.
A "safe space" is a place where certain speech and actions are prohibited, and people considered likely to participate in them are excluded. This, of course, is true everywhere, but in a "safe space" these restrictions are stronger.
The university enforces a certain code of conduct globally, prohibiting clear abuses. When they prohibit safe spaces, they are saying that their standards of conduct should be sufficient, and that defining a stricter standard is not acceptable because at that point it would be considered censorship and exclusion.
Topics like the Israeli occupation of the West Bank or the efficacy of sexuality conversion therapy are things that can and should be debated in the university as a whole, but is it really the case that an association of Jewish or gay students must entertain hostile discussions of these topics in their private meetings?
Consider the entirely reasonable passage in the UoC Student Manual [0]: The ideas of different members of the University community will frequently conflict, and we do not attempt to shield people from ideas that they may find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even offensive. Nor, as a general rule, does the University intervene to enforce social standards of civility. There are, however, some circumstances in which behavior so violates our community's standards that formal University intervention may be appropriate. The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University.
That clearly says the University will not police the content of debates, without implying that "safe spaces" are prohibited.
[0] http://studentmanual.uchicago.edu/sites/studentmanual.uchica...
The point of contention is and always has been which spaces, why, and for what reasons. The University is clearly not ignorant of the nuances of this debate, and if it wanted to commit itself to rigorous debate, it could do so while respecting that there is a valid rigorous debate to be had about this policy.
Why are certain topics off limits? If someone wants to give a talk about why they believe the Holocaust is justified they should be free to do so, just as I am free to ignore it or go argue he's wrong.
Institutions matter more than shared values sometimes.
To me, that seems not only consistent with the principle of a "safe space," but the definition of it.
NU also supports safe spaces: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-create-inclus...
The existence of an LGBTQ group and their safe spaces is not inconsistent with allowing students to explore the free expression of ideas in the classroom. As the university states, it is not going to tolerate harassment, and there can be a fuzzy line at the extremes. But they are definitely going to protect your right to respectfully state unpopular opinions. Ideas are not off limits; that is the whole point.