University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’(time.com)
time.com
University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
http://time.com/4466021/uchicago-trigger-warnings/
443 comments
Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas.
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.
[0]: http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7923
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.
[0]: http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7923
> Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas.
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 (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.
Yes, most people go to universities for the credential in order to gain employment. However, the reason why that credential is valuable in obtaining employment is because it implies that the holder of the credential has developed certain skills as part of their education.
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.
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.
> it is a REQUIREMENT to learn an environment with a free and open exchange of ideas.
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.
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.
The idea of a safe space is exactly what you what you said was the problem with free speech though. Any given person's "safe space" will be a place where their opinions are the only ones, so they're not challenged or offended.
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.
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.
It can be, yes.
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.
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.
But wasn't it possible to discuss ideas amongst allies before safe spaces? I think groups like AIM, for example, provide a great forum for such activities. Likewise, I think student advocacy groups are an excellent idea.
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.
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.
The example you are using of someone that keeps interrupting is really not a safe space issue to me but really a professor allowing someone to be rude.
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.
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.
> However, the reason why that credential is valuable in obtaining employment is because it implies that the holder of the credential has developed certain skills as part of their education. One of those skills is the ability to think critically about a variety of topics.
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.
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.
I don't think mcjon was suggesting that interviews for technical positions frequently veer off into discussions about literature.
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.
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.
It seems to me that you have this backwards. Universities serve a purpose in society beyond job training; It's been that way for a long time and they're pretty explicit about that fact (witness the difference in prestige between universities and vocational schools). Someone who wants to go there just for job training and not get exposed to anything beyond their narrow horizons shouldn't have the right to demand their environment conform to their ideal.
> 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.
> 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 problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment
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.
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.
Yep, UChicago alum here, too. It's a weak argument anywhere to claim we should limit free speech simply because most students attend universities for job training, not for intellectual enrichment. But it's an epic fail of an argument at Chicago. The school year opens with an address to the first years from a faculty member on "The Aims of Education." UC is not a lunch counter where students order things to their liking. Rather, the institution sits you down and tells you why you are there. You are encouraged to expand on their thoughts, but never to shirk the responsibilities the University puts on you.
It's pretty much a 'bend over and accept all the learning you're going to do'. Agreed w/ both of you though, that school changed my life in a very, very good way.
I almost wish I could say the same for my university education. I definitely grew as a person in college but I can't say it was really the University that did it. I could have done it anywhere. Now I realize I must not have been challenged enough.
I would be fine with this if it were applied equitably. As it stands, centrist and conservative students have been expected to endure progressive indoctrination, and they've done so relatively quietly up until it their speech and activities began to be prohibited (I believe it was UIC where someone chalked "Trump 2016" on the sidewalks, and students tried to have it prosecuted as a hate crime).
It was at Emory
>The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment
> Go to university and you should expect "free and open exchange of ideas", go to a trade school if all you want is "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).
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).
Law is also the sort of degree that is full of potentially triggering discussion. Law is also the sort of career in which you can't just opt out of the discussion.
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.
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.
> Want to be a lawyer ...
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.
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.
What's the justification for doing this?
Jefferson, at least, graduated from the College of William & Mary.
True, he studied law there but was never offered a "degree".
"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 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? ;)
Get a research position doing the kind of work PhD's do?
Avoiding exposure to ideas that challenge your own is not a good strategy for becoming an effective researcher.
Avoiding exposure to ideas that challenge your own is not a good strategy for becoming an effective researcher.
> Susan Finley. After 46 successful years at NASA, they demoted her - because she didn't have a bachelor's degree
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:
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.
You left out this part:
> 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-...
> 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-...
Look at the way things could be, and ask "Why not?"
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.
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.
[deleted]
Well, if universities are doing so wrong, you would expect people coming out to fix the problem by competing with them, at least in a free market like the States.
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.
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.
But to be a lawyer high up in a corporate firm or get a research position you had damn well better be used to a free and open exchange of ideas. It is part of the "credentials for employment" that you can handle debate and can handle other people having radically different viewpoints and discussing uncomfortable topics.
No such trade schools exist for many professions. Would that they did! In fact, some are rising to the challenge/seizing the opportunity for professions like software development.
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.
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.
> a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment"
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.
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.
I'd argue that a big part of preparing for the working world is learning to think critically and contend with ideas and concepts that may seem strange, foreign, or downright unsettling to you. Because that's what the real world will throw at you. And because doing so will strengthen your intellectual and emotional abilities.
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.
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.
You're right, of course, but I sure wish you weren't. In the world that I dream of we are prepared for an apprenticeship by the time we're halfway through high school and exit the apprenticeship a few years later in to a career. I just don't see any reason that 12 years of schooling isn't enough to get to entry level skill set in any profession.
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.
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.
I agree, and think it's crazy that we as a society give up on mental growth for most people past a certain point. There's an enormous amount of potential that gets wasted because of the erroneous assumption that most people won't grow past a certain point. I think most people would be happier taking new classes, meeting new people, working on new projects, etc. than they would be sitting at home watching TV or reading about celebrities.
There's some, limited support for this kind of continual growth, but not nearly as much as there should be.
There's some, limited support for this kind of continual growth, but not nearly as much as there should be.
Have you tried looking into whether or not your local community college offers any seminar classes? I took a couple seminar classes at university and a couple at a community college and they were great. It's a class format where there is generally a small lecture up front about the course materials followed by a discussion where everyone is allowed to participate and lead the discussion in any direction(within reason of course). From my experience it was mostly young people at university, but had a good mix of ages at the community college. I think I learned more from a single seminar class I took on history than I did from my two years of traditional history classes in college.
If you just want a gallon of milk, got ahead and buy it. No one's stopping you.
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?
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?
Even if what you're saying is true, "safe spaces" are infantilizing. At some point in life you have to learn how to cope with people who disagree with you.
Sometimes it's helpful to analyze our reaction to things if we can find a similar situation where the politics are reversed.
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.
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.
You are arguing for vocational institutions. They already exist, and they are not universities.
I think your description is accurate but your analogy is tragic. What kind of a mess have we got ourselves into that that the University is now comparable with retail?
> I don't mind discussing things, but sometimes you just want a gallon of milk (or degree).
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.
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.
the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness is actually a softening of extremism
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.)
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.)
Climate Science is actually an interesting intersection of these issues. "Safe space"-style rhetoric has been used to no platform people who deny global warming. The government does not fund research into any climate science that looks for an alternate explanation.
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.
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.
I'd love that. The problem is that it's really, really hard to criticize your own tribe. (People who made a habit of criticizing their tribe in the ancestral environment were killed off very quickly).
There are many on the right that agree that climate change is real. But they aren't just going to accept any and all legislation because of it. It's just that type of issue where the most ridiculous money wasting endeavors can be injected in the still of the night. Also not all regulations of industries improve them. Many hinder progress, many make it impossible to have competition in an area and some frankly are just based on incomplete science.
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.
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.
> Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas.
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.
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.
You have a very narrow view of universities and higher learning throughout history. The ancient Greek and Arab traditions in academia were very much that of open discourse and the pursuit of enlightenment through knowledge, not the entrenching of white males or indeed any other majority.
>The ancient Greek and Arab traditions in academia were very much that of open discourse and the pursuit of enlightenment through knowledge, not the entrenching of white males or indeed any other majority
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.
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.
Huh, I had a feeling someone would do a post-modernist-style critique of ancient higher learning academies. Look, no one is saying that ancient societies were perfect; but seeing as they literally invented the concepts of a platonic institute for higher learning and for the gathering of knowledge for human progress, I think we can cut them some slack for being inhabitants of their eras. The same way that, gosh, I hope your descendants cut you some slack for being an inhabitant of a savage era of worldwide conflict, poverty, materialism and food shortage, not to mention environmental degradation.
Why should anyone be cut any slack? We can all clearly see the trend of moral progress and we should all be able to extrapolate from it. Progressivism wins and reactionism loses. But even with a myopic view of history, you have to be truly willfully blind to ignore the liberatory struggles that have existed as long as oppression. Slaves have always revolted.
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?)
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?)
> We can all clearly see the trend of moral progress and we should all be able to extrapolate from it. Progressivism wins and reactionism loses
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.
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.
Ad hominem? Did I get the spelling right?
They will be even better when we don't infantilize minorities by acting like we need the degenerated versions of these concepts.
To be fair, I don't think it's minorities that are asking for trigger warnings. They are groups with political agendas.
That is true. As many of you know there are an unusual number of transgender/sexual in the tech/geek communities and in my experience they get along with those of a conservative or christian bent and often have healthy non-rancorous debates with them. Perhaps they are supposed to be at war and some of them are but I don't see it. I think it helps a lot that people identify as geeks first so in a hackerspace it is assumed we're all in the same tribe, trying to be interesting people doing interesting things.
> That's an ideal that was never really true.
Sure it was. In the 1960s and 70s, for example, when Universities were a hotbed of free speech and civil liberty activism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement
Sure it was. In the 1960s and 70s, for example, when Universities were a hotbed of free speech and civil liberty activism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement
The interesting thing about the FSM speicifically is that was exclusively at Berkeley.
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.
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.
When people call for universities to return to being a place for the free and open exchange of ideas, I think this is exactly what many of them want universities to return to being.
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.
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 assume people like Shapiro collect fees from the school for speaking, so would it be correct to frame the issue as students not wanting their money to go into the pockets of a person that they don't support?
I don't believe so, no.
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...
[1]: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26367/
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...
[1]: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26367/
Do you believe that speakers of hate speech should be allowed on campus? I think theres a big difference between speakers you disagree with and the former.
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.
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.
> Do you believe that speakers of hate speech...
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!
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!
> I think theres a big difference between speakers you disagree with and the former.
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.
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.
"Hate speech" is a phrase invented by modern progressives to describe disagreeable views.
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]
[1] http://spartacus-educational.com/Lpublic.htm
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
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]
[1] http://spartacus-educational.com/Lpublic.htm
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Yeah and ask yourself what merit does Germany have when making a negative comment about islam on a social network will get you a visit and possible fine or jail time. This is thought crime and it's NOT the right direction for the world to go.
I don't think I made any comment about its utility?
Good point, my statement is specific to the US.
That's a pretty strong accusation. If you're going to label someone as a hater, at least provide some references. Otherwise, you come across as the hater, with at least the appearance of making baseless claims.
Have you ever listened to Ben Shapiro? That the content of his talks can be labeled as hate speech is the very problem with the idea of having hate speech be a thing. It rapidly becomes "Anything that disagrees with the majority, regardless of facts."
Which is the "student vs consumer" argument. If you are a consumer, then you complain about how your money is not being spent to match your existing preferences. If you are student, you are there to be exposed to things you disagree with and don't support, so you don't complain when the University provides and pays for speakers (or professors) you disagree with.
That is a good point, and I agree with you when the case is that the idea or person you disagree with is a necessary part of the curriculum/class. But in the case where it's an extracurricular activity or student organization that isn't a core part of the degree, then why doesn't a student have the right to complain?
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.
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.
Most of the times these clubs that pay for speakers are given a stipend to spend on events from the school. When universities bring in people like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos, it is almost always the campus Republican group that pays, in part with the money provided by the school, and in part with money raised by the group itself. Campus Democrats also get money for the exact same purpose.
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.
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.
Why should student A who sees the negative of a speaker have the power of veto over student B who sees the positive of the speaker? What happens when student B complains about a speaker that student A wants to hear? Do we just ban everybody or allow a diversity of opinions?
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.
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.
Why not allow both? The group can have their speaker within whatever guidelines the school has (some schools ban foul language or other school-wide policies), and the other group is allowed to protest. Just like the real world where another company can do what it wants within the law, but I can also protest what and how they do it.
Protesting the speaker's ideas is always fine.
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.
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've seen cases on college campuses of obvious criminal activity, although usually minor, that is excused because they happen during a protest.
> would it be correct to frame the issue as students not wanting their money to go into the pockets of a person that they don't support?
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.
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 University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness
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.
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.
Your definition of political correctness is incorrect. And what you believe about it doesn't make it so.
Google disagrees with you: "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." Nothing in that relates to 'trigger warnings'.
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).
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).
No, political correctness has always been a negative. Your first page google findings are fitting your bias. Like any other political term, it has been written and batted back and forth, occasionally hijacked to try to give it a positive spin.
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-...
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-...
I'm taking an underhanded approach? You're the one that just said "no, you're wrong", with no evidence, then just handwave away some evidence that I present, dismissing it by fiat as well.
> 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...
> 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...
> "A trigger warning is advance notice about subject material that may be difficult for certain students to read, hear or see."
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.
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.
> They're to prevent panic attacks.
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.
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.
It does seem that way. It's kind of how a few people have food allergies, but a larger number of people have foods they refuse to eat despite not having allergies. It's not uncommon to find out that someone who merely has a preference to avoid an ingredient has been fibbing and calling it an "allergy" just to smooth things over socially.
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 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.
very well put
I don't see a prevalence of trigger warnings. I do see a prevalence of people talking about trigger warnings.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't live/work in California.
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.
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.
It does seem like the discussion often assumes they are or will be widespread, which doesn't seem to be happening. I'd like to see numbers, particularly on college campuses, where they are allegedly more common.
I thought I was the only one.
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.
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 read the wikipedia you linked, specifically about trigger warnings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger#Trigger_warning...
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.
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.
There's a difference between exposure therapy (conducted with a trained therapist or just in a deliberate self-directed way), and having a panic attack in the middle of your day because of an unexpected stimulus.
> 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.
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.
tedks(2)
If a person cannot read a piece of literature without having a panic attack then perhaps they are not physically able to take a course in, say, English. It is up to the university to decide what it does with this kind of student: do they choose to not admit or graduate students who are incapable of completing the degree requirements? Do they tailor the degrees to students with special needs and make exceptions? Do they insist these students take a leave of absence and receive treatment before they continue?
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.
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.
Avoidance in the form of 'trigger warnings' may actually worsen the underlying problem for people with PTSD because avoidance can strengthen the underlying fear.
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#...
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#...
Exposure therapy can be effective, but under controlled circumstances as supervised by a professional and prepared for by the patient.
Uncontrolled exposure is more likely to worsen the anxiety than extinguish it.
Uncontrolled exposure is more likely to worsen the anxiety than extinguish it.
I feel like the idea the parent was suggesting is that avoidance behaviour itself can increase anxiety about the topic, and that encouraging it may end up being more harmful than the risk of uncontrolled exposure, especially when the result of such exposure is not necessarily negative.
Classrooms aren't treatment centers. Regardless, your point is a much fairer one to raise than the "intellectual rigor" argument the University is making.
This argument is absurd and yet I see it often enough that I assume it is a standard political talking point.
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!
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!
You glossed over the first sentence:
> 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.
> 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.
A trigger warning is not avoidance. No one is advocating avoidance, that is the straw man here.
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 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.
It's not your right to attempt to "treat" someone of a disorder as someone who isn't their doctor.
If someone has an anxiety disorder of this magnitude then their diagnosing physician would provide the student with the paperwork required to delay their course.
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_(psychology)
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.
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.
If you have a phobia, one natural reaction is to anticipate in which situations the "trigger" will occur and to actively avoid such situations. It's well-known in psychology however that this behavior actually reinforces the phobia and prevents it from healing.
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.
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.
This is a use case, but it's not the use case for universities. Universities employ trigger warnings for subjects that might offend particular groups.
[deleted]
[deleted]
But that's not what trigger warnings are for... it's not just about mild discomfort. They're to prevent panic attacks.
I'm sure no true Scotsman would have a problem with that definition...
I'm sure no true Scotsman would have a problem with that definition...
[deleted]
This is simple.
"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.
"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.
Its not tough at all. So called trigger warnings never existed until recently and very few people had problems. I never heard of anyone breaking down in class due to difficult subject matters in my 5 years at university (or after).
It happens. It happened in a high school class I was teaching once. Out of the blue my student just started crying. I tried to ask her what the problem was, but it made it worse. I later found that it was a PTSD issue, but I never did find out exactly what triggered it (and I don't remember exactly what we were talking about). The student eventually had to drop my course. She wrote me a very nice letter apologising profusely and saying that she thought I was a good teacher, but that she couldn't continue with the class.
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.
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.
That's like saying "What do we need wheel chair ramps for?" I've never seen a person in a wheel chair get stuck trying to access the building. Partially disabled people are a minority, partially people don't pay that much attention, and partially people are self-selected out of such situations. Panic attacks are a disability. Trigger warners are not to censor, but to INCREASE the audience participation. If anything, it's anti-censorship.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't universities been designating their entire campuses as "safe spaces"? Disinviting speakers and silencing students whose world views are insufficiently progressive? Or perhaps these issues are distinct, and I'm mistaken?
Sure, a lot of the liberal-leaning authoritarian-left ones have been. The University of Chicago is about as far from that as it gets.
Sure, my comment wasn't about University of Chicago specifically, but about American universities generally. Thanks for the clarification though, I wasn't aware. :)
> After all, the "real world" won't hold your hand.
The "real world" will eat you alive if you can't discuss topics which make you uncomfortable.
The "real world" will eat you alive if you can't discuss topics which make you uncomfortable.
I think the idea of trigger warnings is a really good one. "Here is a topic not everyone will be able to process. If you don't feel like you can be a part of it, please leave, because we WILL be talking about it." This is a very anti-censorship stance. Tyler Cowan said it best: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/04/why...
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.
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.
Which is ultimately why they are bad. Asking people to "tag" everything that could be offensive is moronic.
> After all, the "real world" won't hold your hand.
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?
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?
It means that, in the "real world" -- when you have a job or are operating a business, or are requesting donations for your non-profit, or otherwise interacting with people on a purely mutually voluntary basis, rather than because you are paying tuition to them and they are obligated to interact with you -- almost nobody cares about coddling your personality quirks and interacting with you in some rules-based circumspect way in order to avoid topics that you find unpleasant, or to otherwise make it easier for you to handle the interaction. (Note that this is an empirical description of how things actually are, not a moral evaluation of how things ought to be. Whether it would be nicer if things were some other way is beside the point.)
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.
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.
Your grade 1-12 teachers are, in some ways, paid to put up with your bullshit. They remind you about homework, listen you your excuses, etc. They understand that in many ways, you are still a child and that you do need help.
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.
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.
>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?"
Be careful on that slippery slope!
Be careful on that slippery slope!
I'm not using partner instead of girlfriend just in case some third party might get their fee fees hurt. This is insanity. The linked articles provide many absurd examples. This isn't a slippery slope, this is stupidity personified.
> I'm not using partner instead of girlfriend just in case some third party might get their fee fees hurt. This is insanity.
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.
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.
How is calling someone's girlfriend a girlfriend offensive?
>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.
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.
Your last sentence pretty much nailed it. I believe that is exactly the message they are sending. I went to UChicago, and this is a core ideal that is part of what makes the school so great.
[deleted]
Quite the opposite, it's really simple.
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.
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.
It's important to acknowledge that the term "safe space" means different things to different people.
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."
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."
I think you nailed it here. My safe space is Alcoholics Anonymous, and having that safe space probably saved my life.
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 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.
Yeah, all these words mean different things to the Social Justice/Progressive left and the rest of us.
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.
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.
You're absolutely correct, and this illuminates an aspect of the controversy that I don't think gets quite enough coverage: where did the social justice/progressive left students learn about the terminology and ideology they advocate?
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.
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.
>They learned these things at the university, from professors, and from fellow students who learned from the same professors.
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.
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.
I'm sure a lot of other people did too, but I suspect the vast majority of college students never heard those things until they arrived at college.
Which is why I'm sure you use the word "colored" (or worse) instead of african/african-american, homosexual instead of gay, tranny instead of transwoman/transman, and similar?
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.
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 we're trying to communicate and understand the world together, what specific words we use don't matter, only that we agree on what they mean. We could even speak a completely non English language.
If you're instead trying to show which American political tribe you belong to, the concerns you mention become very important.
If you're instead trying to show which American political tribe you belong to, the concerns you mention become very important.
Found the sjw.
I think you are right. Here is the page from the Chicago LGBTQ student group on how they implement and create safe spaces for students:
https://lgbtq.uchicago.edu/page/safe-space
While I agree with you, I think it's worth noting that Yale's system of on-campus housing is drastically different than that at most universities. The residential college system offers much closer and personal interactions with a set of deans, faculty, and staff that is reinforced over the entire four years at the school. Whatever one's stance on the Yale controversy, I think it's important to distinguish Yale's housing system from standard college dorms.
I'm personally somewhat familiar with the distinction, but I don't really see how it's relevant. Pretty much every college dorm, including those that are less tight knit and personal than Yale's system, offers a safe space and protection from harassment. If anything, the fact that Yale fosters closer relationships with administrators and faculty should make it _more_ likely that students would take gentle advice from their house master with equanimity instead of unhinged screaming and calls for his ouster.
> If anything, the fact that Yale fosters closer relationships with administrators and faculty should make it _more_ likely that students would take gentle advice from their house master with equanimity instead of unhinged screaming and calls for his ouster.
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.
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.
Chicago also fosters this family-esque relationship in housing, but also builds its identity on students in housing common spaces debating (including topics with political relevance) over meals and long into the night.
Absolutely. But what he actually said was "we don't condone 'safe spaces'".
The charitable way of interpreting that is "The university as an organization will not lend their institutional support for enforcing 'safe spaces'. If you want one, make it and enforce it yourself"
That's not what "condone" means. And, with trigger warnings he explicitly said they don't support them - so it's reasonable to assume that if he meant "support' here that's what he would have said.
Is that really what "we don't condone" means?
What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this.
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.
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.
I'd argue that it's equally as impossible to set up trigger warning policies.
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.
[0] http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html
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.
[0] http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html
Many news outlets will say "Warning, the following story contains graphic imagery," and people don't think this is unreasonable; nor do they expect more specific content warnings in the future. This tells me it's possible to be considerate of common triggers while still drawing the line somewhere
> This tells me it's possible to be considerate of common triggers while still drawing the line somewhere
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.
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.
That's a good point. Internet commenters tend to overgeneralize. Fortunately, those people aren't strictly needed for a solution. The only party who needs to listen is the content provider (in my example, the news outlet).
I agree it is, but right now it's very difficult to have the discussions necessary to draw those lines
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.
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.
[deleted]
> Many news outlets will say "Warning, the following story contains graphic imagery,"
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.
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.
> Many news outlets will say "Warning, the following story contains graphic imagery," and people don't think this is unreasonable
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.
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.
No that's totally different. Broadcast news programs are often watched by small children. Parents reasonably want to shield children from graphic content which they are too immature to understand. However university students are almost entirely adults and thus expected to have the intellectual and emotional maturity to deal with the real world unfiltered.
"[0] http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html"
from the list:
- Pregnancy/childbirth
- Death or dying
- Slimy things
It's very difficult not to dismiss this as infantile.
from the list:
- Pregnancy/childbirth
- Death or dying
- Slimy things
It's very difficult not to dismiss this as infantile.
> 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.
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.
At the same time, in a country that values free speech people are allowed to have idiotic opinions. The fact that people are giving those opinions credence because they are "on the Internet" is probably closer to the issue.
Really? You don't think people are capable of being traumatized by pregnancy, death, or insects? Personal injury and insects are among the most common phobias and pregnancy should be fairly obvious as to why it's on that list (I don't want to elaborate because that could be traumatizing).
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Pregnancy predominantly effects women. If I need to argue that women are oppressed, I don't think we can have a discussion. Phobias effect the neurodivergent and your dismissal of this is ableist.
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?
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?
Whether or not they can be traumatized is not the issue. If those things traumatize someone, they should be getting personal professional care, not wastefully burdening every institution and individual they interact with.
You don't need a trigger warning policy, necessarily. Just a culture that promotes being aware of common triggers. This notice goes in the opposite direction.
>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.
>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.
What is really needed is the common sense and personal decision to get help with issues which are distressing so that reminders of those issues doesn't cause anxiety, stress, or a break-down.
>Just a culture that promotes being aware of common triggers.
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'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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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?
I suspect that there are more sexual assault survivors than combat trauma survivors, so if your threshold is the incidence of combat-traumatized veterans, then you don't need to extend the limit further to include sexual assault survivors.
I didn't hear anyone say that a trigger warning means "shutting down topics and discussions". Isn't the whole point that it is a warning: that the topic is going to be discussed, and that you're giving a heads up so that folks can brace themselves if necessary (or make arrangements to engage with the material in another way).
Maybe some definitions of "safe space" mean "shut down topics and discussions", but trigger warnings are specifically about having conversations, in a considerate way.
Maybe some definitions of "safe space" mean "shut down topics and discussions", but trigger warnings are specifically about having conversations, in a considerate way.
I don't think people generally include every possible phobia on the list. It quickly gets out of hand if you try to take into consideration everything beforehand, no matter how rare it is. What about people with acousticophobia, chromophobia, genuphobia, hyelophobia, or pogonophobia? No sound or music, no colors, no visible knees (dress code! no skirts), no windows or glass cups, and no beards!
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.
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.
I think you're missing the part where they are victims, and all we're trying to do is minimize the damage. That's a calculated risk that each person is going to have to take for themselves.
They were victims; they're not actively victims in the moment of a discussion. The damage has already been done. Conversely, you can say that you're helping with the recovery and healing process. But it's important to acknowledge the aspects of the past, present and future as they relate to trauma.
[deleted]
Causing someone a panic attack in the present is not damage that "has already been done".
They're not experiencing a new incidence of trauma, they're reliving one.
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.
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.
>Must I now stop wearing my wolf shirts?
That's probably a good idea either way...
That's probably a good idea either way...
Nothing about trigger warnings requires immediately jumping down the slippery slope of putting "WARNING: CHEESE INSIDE" on the refrigerator door.
Though we do put "Warning: may contain peanuts" on bags of roasted peanuts, so it's not like we haven't done some sliding before.
People can die from peanuts though. It was not there on a whim (though I would argue is more to avoid lawsuits)
Slippery slope arguments are too easy to make. Let's start with being considerate towards veterans with PTSD and see how that goes.
> What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this.
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.
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.
I think you're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.
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.
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.
I think that many of the arguments again safe spaces, trigger warnings, and actually most things are subject to the Nirvana Fallacy [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
First, the very act of learning can cause psychological distress. It may involve being forced to consider that some of your long-cherished ideas are wrong. This creates a crisis since either you abandon the wrong idea you've held or you ignore the new information you've acquired.
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.
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.
In my grandparent post, I advocate treating trigger warnings and safe spaces separately. I have no intention of defending safe spaces in a university context.
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.
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.
Your post is an amazing contradiction, all within about 20 seconds. An incredible read!
< 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?
< 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?
No joke or sarcasm. While I advocate being exposed to different ideas and opinions, I still think there are some subjects that are not worthy of rational consideration as academic subjects, especially for undergrads.
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.
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.
I'm confused. Did she spring the porn on them? Did she just hit play as soon as everyone sat down without preamble or context? The students had no opportunity to object or excuse themselves beforehand? If that's how that actually played out, then that professor is either tone-deaf, or used to students with more...mettle?
Indeed. The term "trigger warning" seems to have been coined to give unjustified moral weight to the idea of content warnings, by implying their absence causes PTSD attacks, rather than just being material upsetting to many people.
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.
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.
>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...
...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...
>> But trigger warnings are a really simple common courtesy.
>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.
>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.
Clarifying question: What do you mean by "fear of being PC"? I'm a bit confused about the scenario you're describing.
Not the GP, but referring to the more broad anti-PC movement... Lets say The War On (the war on) Christmas. Fear of being PC in a context like that may work out as somebody avoiding the term "Hanukkah", even while speaking about / to a Jewish person, for fear of papering over Christmas, or looking like they're trying to change the name of the holiday.
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.
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.
Thanks for explaining that. Is this a thing that happens? I've heard of Christians grumble when the PC crowd demands that some business/school/etc stop using Christmas-specific greetings/decorations/etc. I've also heard white people grumble when the PC crowd insists everyone use a new designation for 'African Americans', but I've never heard of anyone actually exerting social pressure on others to use un-PC terms. In other words, I've never heard of anyone being told off for saying "African-Americans" or "Happy Holidays". Perhaps my experiences are atypical?
My experiences (including through the American mass media) are the reverse of yours where Christmas is concerned. I've literally never seen someone attacked for references to Christmas, but i have seen a larger faction complaining about a "War on Christmas" and attacking people and institutions for using genetic holiday greetings, etc., and not specifically acknowledging Christmas, even sometimes attacking, on this basis, institutions which do specifically acknowledge Christmas out of hypersensitivity.
Wow, this surprises me, as I've been surrounded by Christians most of my life. I'm less surprised by the media, however--they're not very charitable in their representations of Christians (e.g., the Starbucks cup fiasco was literally one guy complaining about the cup design, but the media made it out to be some sizable portion of Christians). At any rate, do you perceive anti-PC pressure to be so prevalent as to be a legitimate concern? Do you think it would sway the speech of the average person toward legitimately offensive terms?
"black people" isn't necessarily anti-PC. Lots of people identify that way in preference to African-American. (And PoC is a wider group, not an equivalent alternative.)
I can't decide whether or not I'm playing devil's advocate with this question. In any case, please don't take it too seriously, but I think it might be interesting.
Why did you not include a trigger warning about the discussion of rape in your comment?
Why did you not include a trigger warning about the discussion of rape in your comment?
"Mention of rape" and "discussion of rape in enough detail to cause discomfort" are not the same thing.
I'm sure we can find someone who is uncomfortable at the mere mention of the word. Not that we should necessarily accommodate such extremes, but how do you decide where to draw the line?
You guess and invite people to correct you if you're wrong? How is anything that requires judgement decided? Eventually there will be an accepted norm but at the beginning there never is.
That's a nice solution if everything is more or less working properly. The problem is, "What do you do when they tell you you're wrong about everything?"
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".
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".
If we try to have a culture that considers trigger warnings a courtesy worth extending, rather than having a policy saying yes/no, then the question of where the line should be drawn can be answered by each instructor as they see fit.
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.
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.
[deleted]
You work together to find a reasonable balance between accommodating the most common and severe trauma triggers without shutting down general discussion.
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.
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.
I actually know someone who just shuts down and freezes for a few minutes at the mere mention of the word "rape". This person has made their discomfort known to their friends and requested the word be avoided in conversation, which is an easy enough request to comply with out of courtesy.
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.
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.
That might be true, but there are a variety of cases where we've decided to stop using a word in general in order to avoid causing undue distress; "slave" (i/r/t "master" and "slave") in a computing context is now generally always phrased in another way, for example.
At least in the world of electrical engineering, you are quite incorrect. There are masters and slaves all over the place around here.
That's the kind of absurd oversensitivity that opponents of trigger warnings are against.
> "slave" (i/r/t "master" and "slave") in a computing context is now generally always phrased in another way, for example
I need to educate myself. What do people use instead of "slave device" in computing?
I need to educate myself. What do people use instead of "slave device" in computing?
Databases have been using master/replica lately, which, fortuitously is (usually) actually slightly more precise anyway, and so is strictly better in every way
The projects I've seen have gone with "leader/follower" https://github.com/django/django/commit/8a95b4fca793eeb8adce...
[deleted]
So, the solution is to literally use Führer instead of Master?
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.
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.
No, it's literally to use 'leader'. Not a German word that has a rather specific meaning when used in languages outside of German (although I suppose it's at least somewhat loaded in Germany too).
It’s severely loaded in German, and how’d you teach students about "leader/follower" without translating that part?
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.
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.
I can't remember which, but I saw one project change to "primary/secondary".
"Servant". I prefer "slave".
That's mostly self-contained on Github. Where busybodies have little else to do but open issues on projects in the name of social justice without ever contributing to the project itself in a meaningful manner. See: /r/gitinaction
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...
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...
Citation? I remember someone going around with PRs to change things and being roundly laughed out.
Very much not generally nor always.
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.
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.
Mentioning the word rape is not a discussion of rape.
The article links to another on teaching rape law to criminal-law students.[1] From that article:
[1] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap...
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...
I would call that an unreasonable request. But that doesn't invalidate the existence of reasonable requests.
I would agree. (And was responding to the parent comment.) It begs two questions, though:
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".
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".
1. If I started posting the N-word over and over again this very moment, you would instinctively consider that unreasonable, so let's stop pretending to not know the definitions of things.
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.
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.
I was with you on the first two points. I'm not sure how you got from there to the third.
> 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.
> 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.
I never said the problem wasn't addressable. I said the types of people “safe spaces” are supposedly "protecting" are of zero consequence. As long as they are engulfed by their trauma, they are literally, of zero consequence. The problem of handling trauma is very addressable: Eliminate the safe space.
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!
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!
(Not all that sure myself) Perhaps because it's difficult to simulate the brain of all the other readers and reasonably anticipate offense. Like I know rape happens and describing it in detail might be something that most people are asking for 'trigger warnings' about. But only because it's been talked about. I actually can't simulate the brain of a rape victim and anticipate such things independently.
When a trigger warning is announced, a triggering concept is mentioned. When a triggering concept is mentioned, people are triggered. Soon, people associate trigger warnings with the triggered symptoms.
We need a trigger warning about trigger warnings.
We need a trigger warning about trigger warnings.
With regard to veterans and fireworks, I think that would actually be an example of a "safe space", in that the vets in question are demanding that neighbors not celebrate America's independence within a given radius of their homes. They're not asking for a heads-up before people shoot off roman candles...they're saying, don't do it near my house, period.
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).
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).
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Elaboration as follows: I think that people putting signs on their lawn asking others to be considerate in their fireworks usage is less an effort to avoid PTSD triggers and more a misguided attempt to gain attention and recognition. It also has the effect of reinforcing the "veterans are damaged goods" narrative that is pervasive through much of our popular culture.
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.
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 really like the language you used here.
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.
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.
It's just not an equivalent analogy. Explosions sound and light are somewhat recreating a war time experience. The classroom equivalent for trigger warnings would be telling veterans that a discussion of a war in history class was coming.
I think you're looking for a depth of equivalence that I wasn't suggesting was there.
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.
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.
So in what classroom circumstances would a warning be necessary?
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.
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.
Examples of some obvious things that really shouldn't be too controversial:
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
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
I don't think TWs should be required. But explicit descriptions or depictions of assault are pretty low-hanging fruit here.
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.
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.
A warning is never required. If you are unable to listen (or god forbid a disturbing image) to controversial issues that are literally occurring in real life you won't be able to handle the real world once college is over.
What does not being able to watch a beheading have to do with "handling the real world"?
These things do occur in real life. Granted I don't foresee a professor showing a beheading video in class. However, for the sake of discussion, if the class is about geopolitical theory/issues and the discussion is regarding how do we deal with terrorists. Maybe the student believes we should treat them with peace and love but has actually never dealt with this issue in real life. By all means show them a beheading video without warning to see how their opinion immediately changes.
People used to congregate for miles around to watch a good beheading. They sold beer and pastries, and people fought to dip their handkerchief in the blood of the executed. It was a grand entertainment.
Now we watch Bachelor in Paradise. I'm not sure it's an advancement.
Now we watch Bachelor in Paradise. I'm not sure it's an advancement.
So why does the concept of a warning exist at all then?
Further, presumably professional medicine recognizes fireworks as a common trigger for war-induced PTSD.
> But trigger warnings are really a simple common courtesy.
Yes and no. Sure, it is courteous to warn folks of overly graphic material. But at the same time, if folks cannot handle discussing such things in a university setting, they should seek help. Which should be readily available and affordable. It also shouldn't be frowned upon if someone needs to leave the room in such a discussion - and teachers should be open to private requests for trigger warnings when appropriate... With the understanding that the person will or is seeking help as a condition.
> 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.
> 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.
> But trigger warnings are a really simple common courtesy
Indeed. I see "Trigger warning" and I know I don't want to read what an author has to say.
Indeed. I see "Trigger warning" and I know I don't want to read what an author has to say.
Why do you think it would be hard on a college campus? You simply declare an office in a building to be a "safe space", or a space designated for certain groups and then promote, encourage the use of, and fill it with people that align with <idea>. Additionally, the safe space is placed in a building that is not funded by taxpayers, thus can be managed in basically whatever way the university sees fit (including denying access to the space).
One thing that bugs me is that people think trigger warnings are to make sure people don't get offended. Being triggered is not the same thing as being offended. Being triggered is about having a fucking panic attack, hyperventilating, feeling like you're having a heart attack and you're about to die.
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.
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.
It goes both ways. People constantly say they're triggered when they're just offended or inconvenienced.
If everyone followed your definition, we'd never had problems.
If everyone followed your definition, we'd never had problems.
> People constantly say they're triggered when they're just offended or inconvenienced.
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?
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?
(Note: I support trigger warnings and think that they have a lot of use as a tool even outside of the typical context)
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.
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.
Exactly. I think a few agenda driven actors got a hold of the idea, and pushed forward their own version of what a trigger warning is for. I've heard a couple anectdotes about some student needing some ultra-sensitive care, but these are the outliers--if even true. Yet, this is all I hear about in online forums.
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.
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.
Furthermore, we clearly have the ability to separate the cases where someone is saying "triggered" to mean offended or inconvenienced from meaning a panic/anxiety attack.
With the carnival ride analogy, you know a carnival ride has a physical strain that could cause problems to certain types of people, like pregnant women.
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?
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?
Completely agree with this. Trigger Warnings - good intentions or not, preventing panic attacks or not, are completely unreasonable from a practical standpoint. One cannot know in advance which information might or might not "trigger" someone. Not to mention, in a college setting, you can't just say "I refuse to attend this lecture because it triggered me.". Well if it causes you distress you can remove yourself from that environment.
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?
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?
Yes, panic attacks are horrible, but their causes are rarely as simple as the concept of "trigger warnings" implies.
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.
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.
"One thing that bugs me is that people think trigger warnings are to make sure people don't get offended. Being triggered is not the same thing as being offended. Being triggered is about having a fucking panic attack, hyperventilating, feeling like you're having a heart attack and you're about to die."
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.
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.
Even if a meaningful percentage of the people clamoring for trigger warnings had a legitimate psychological condition like PTSD (which, based on my interactions with such people at a large university, they don't), making everyone else accommodate their emotional state is not a rational, mature approach. If you have a problem, seek to treat it; don't try to foist it on everyone else.
Whether it's a rational approach depends on how costly the change is to make, and how much it helps.
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.
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.
[deleted]
In Silver Linings Playbook, Bradley Cooper is triggered into a state of rage by his wedding song. This is due to it being a reminder of his wife's betrayal. Yet his psychiatrist purposely plays the song in his waiting room when Cooper comes in for a visit.
Safe spaces and banned trigger words creates the tendency for people to silo themselves in a echo chamber of their own ideas. This manifests itself later on in our population in the form of filtering friends and news who dissent against their opinion.
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.
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.
> silo themselves in a echo chamber of their own ideas
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.
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.
If I were to guess, I'd say the problem starts much sooner than high school. I think the coddling begins right away, and continues until college, where it suddenly stops. I think this is at the heart of the problem, and we're just reaping the results of a parenting style adopted ~25 years ago.
There's a subtle point that's getting overshadowed by the lightning rod discussions about trigger warnings and safe spaces.
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.
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.
Some 18 year olds fight in wars and die. Other 18 year olds cry and throw tantrums when someone says a word that they don't like hearing. The world we live in!
Trust me, that isn't limited by any means to 18 year olds.
As it happens, veterans as a group have a high incidence of PTSD, which is what trigger warnings are supposed to be about.
> "When you read something that makes you angry, stop for a moment and answer two questions: who wants you to be angry, and why?"
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.
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.
I remember someone a while back posted a lecture page from CMU. They support Trigger Warnings. And a few papers there had them.
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?
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?
See, my understanding of trigger warnings is more to prepare and forewarn students of difficult discussions. Like- "we're going to be talking about rape and its psychological effects tomorrow." Not- "WARNING- this textbook uses the word 'violate' when discussing DBs."
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.
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.
Allowing people to ensure that they're in a mental state to handle a topic before they handle it is reasonably important. Mind, in the case of master/slave, the term "trigger warning" is likely misused and a simple statement of "these used to be the standard terms for discussing this, now many people use leader/follower" is reasonable. Explaining historical context to things that may be upsetting can never be a bad thing, IMHO.
Yeah, it seems like CMU was overzealous in how it implemented this policy here. I would be surprised if a lot of students disagreed. It's annoying that people bring up examples like this to dismiss the concepts entirely, because obviously we can and should have a discussion on when they're useful.
This is a really hard topic to think about.
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.
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.
On the third hand? Now you've triggered my alien phobia!
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).
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).
Good point about values being better than rules. Values are also a much more inexpensive way to observe norms than rules, in addition to being more effective.
Safe spaces used to mean "say anything you want, face no judgement."
Now it means, "don't say anything that might offend someone."
Now it means, "don't say anything that might offend someone."
This seems like a good way to define what makes the school different. If you like this, go there. If you don't like it, you can go somewhere that does have trigger warnings and safe spaces.
I'm teaching a journalism class this fall in which I've made David Simon's "Homicide" a required book. It's a terrific book overall, but I chose it because of its examination of the system as a whole. But as you can imagine, a book that involves following the Baltimore homicide department around unavoidably gets pretty grisly, even with Simon's treatment of it (that is, in the way The Wire is quite possibly one of the most boring shows ever about police work, while being also the best show on TV ever). There's lots of details about murders and rapes (the central event involves the rape and murder of a child).
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)
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)
Bad move, Chicago. If the kids don't learn how to use trigger warnings and safe spaces at school, how will they know how to use all of the trigger warnings and safe spaces in the real modern world after they graduate?
Speech in real life is way more limited than in college. You can say things you'd be fired for, be a total asshole, say racist things, and get a slap on the wrist in college.
There is a world outside the workplace.
And, weirdly enough, you can also generally choose who you interact with outside the workplace. If you don't want to hang out with people who refuse to stop smoking weed around you when asked? Fine. If you don't want to hang out with people who refuse to stop talking about rape around you? Also fine! Just want to be told when there's likely to be something uncomfortable coming up? Yup, you have a right to hang out with people who respect you enough to do that.
Yeah, schools try to emulate the real world as much as possible. That's why they also don't have professors, classes, or dormitories.
That's why the University of Chicago doesn't provide a private police force, and spend its own money to provide a bubble of affluence. You have to face the real harsh poverty and violence of the South Side, just like you would if you actually lived there!
[deleted]
I have never understood the discomfort around trigger warnings. Society has used them forever in areas that are considered sensitive. When the news warns you they're going to show graphic footage or that a story involves sex - those are trigger warnings. It's simply displaying common minimum level of empathy for the experiences of others.
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.
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.
There seems to be whole lot of slippery-slope happening in this thread. Asking people to respect trigger warnings for the most common types of PTSD (generally, rape/sexual abuse) does not lead inevitably to banning everything that anyone has every been uncomfortable with. This is about reasonable accommodation.
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.
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.
If we coddle people in wheelchairs, they'll never learn to wheel themselves up stairs. In the real world, there are stairs everywhere and they need to get used to that. I sprained my ankle one time in college and I crutched my way up the stairs just like everyone else. Why can't they do the same?
Except mental handicaps are not as well understood as physical handicaps. Trying to accommodate every single mental handicap in society is futile and expensive.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> Except mental handicaps are not as well understood as physical handicaps.
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.
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.
There's nothing wrong with trying. There just needs to be recognition that resources are finite.
It's dogwhistle politics. It's unlikely that anyone in the thread can claim authoritative knowledge on this topic - but it gets aired constantly in the media, so now everyone feels as if they should have a Strong Opinion, and their opinion lands ever-so-neatly on the side endorsing that view.
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.
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.
As someone who has difficulty listening to many subjects (I am extremely prone to depression) I still think this is a good move: If you have difficulty with a topic, pretending it doesn't exist won't help you.
Am I missing something, or doesn't safe space just = Library / Dorm room ?
Maybe add some headphones so you can't hear anything....
Maybe add some headphones so you can't hear anything....
No. People arguing for "safe spaces" are generally arguing that the entire university should be a "safe space". So it's really about control over shared space and the right to police offensive dialog.
Never heard of that concept of "safe space" before. Do you have any examples of it?
"It’s unacceptable when the Master of your college is dismissive of your experiences. The Silliman Master’s role is not only to provide intellectual stimulation, but also to make Silliman a safe space that all students can come home to. His responsibility is to make it a place where your experiences are a valid concern to the administration and where you can feel free to talk with them about your pain without worrying that the conversation will turn into an argument every single time. We are supposed to feel encouraged to go to our Master and Associate Master with our concerns and feel that our opinions will be respected and heard.
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/...
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/...
Silliman refers to a residential college (dorms etc.), not the entire university.
In practice, it basically means "club room where people who don't like the club aren't allowed in".
And in practice, "club room" is "classrooms all other spaces on campus."
more like "club room where people who aren't liked by the club aren't allowed in"
Or just people of a certain race are not allowed as BLM activists would like.
Yes, that's usually the complaint that people who don't like safe spaces add. It always seems to me like the people who trumpet that loudest easily fit into the "don't like the club" category, though.
That is not a counterargument, it is an ad hominem.
[deleted]
U Chicago's letter is essentially a single, all-encompassing trigger warning to the incoming freshmen.
My concern with all the attention given to college based safe spaces, trigger warnings, rape culture, social justice, weed culture, athletic program scandals, etc. is that practical minded children from working poor families will just assume college is an alcohol-fueled summer camp for rich kids and jocks that doesn't teach real world skills.
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.
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.
The University also seeks to eliminate so-called 'spoiler warnings'.
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.
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.
Where did you find that? I've been trying to find any data from the campus climate surveys, but most links are just about who participated.
That's not what the quote said, nor the context of it, the parent was trying to equate 'offending others' as 'being an asshole'.
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."
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."
Oh lol, it was in this article. I had already read a couple sources and was just looking at comments. I thought actual data had been released from the climate survey that the school did this spring.
When an irrational reaction to common stimuli stopped being a concern of only the person afflicted and their doctor?
I'm not clear why people on both sides of the debate seem to be interpreting "trigger warnings" as "no triggers allowed." It's meant to be exactly what it sounds like, a advance warning of upcoming content, so that vulnerable people can take appropriate action. That doesn't mean that such content should be forbidden, or that sexual assault victims should get credit for a course that they didn't attend; just that they can prepare themselves mentally, and decide in advance if that credit is worth the pain and discomfort it may cause.
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.
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.
The emotionally healthy approach is to try and deal with stress disorders, not to shield everyone from every possible stressor.
[deleted]
Brilliant move on the part of the University. This is actual intelligent PR during the current pathetic climate of what is making headlines at Universities nowadays.
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.
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.
Are there any proposed metadata schemes for including trigger-warning-like info in, say, web pages?
We just need a large enough group to make a fuss over blockages of discourse being a trigger for them. And that they need safe spaces where they can openly communicate without fear imposed on them of possibly triggering someone else.
Post WWII, an entire generation of soldiers who had seen some of the most horrific scenes of war entered university on the GI Bill and made it through their education without trigger warnings.
The students at the U of C will be fine.
The students at the U of C will be fine.
What I find rather interesting, is that throughout human history we never had a need for trigger warnings until now. We've had slavery, 2 world wars, famine, countless horrors inflicted on a countless number of people. Nobody asks for it.
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.
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.
When my grandfather got back from WWII, he went to work at a printing press. One day a neon sign fell and shattered just across the room from him. When he became aware of himself again, he had ripped up all of his fingernails trying to dig a foxhole in the concrete floor with his bare hands.
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.
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.
Why didn't he and his fellows advocate for "trigger warnings" then? Perhaps a greater sense of personal responsibility? I'm honestly curious.
Because they'd get sent to an asylum. Because you had to keep all mental issues to yourself, lest you be seen as weak and shut out of normal society. Because it really, really, really sucked to be a victim of trauma for most of history.
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.
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.
What makes you think they didn't? Just politely ask people around you not to make ridiculously loud noises without warning. It probably didn't occur to them to come up with a funny name for it because it's a very natural and sensible thing to do.
Asking is a quite different than what is being demanded by people today. People who advocate for 'trigger warnings' want it enforced by law as far as I understand. My question is still unanswered, what changed?
No, people who ask for trigger warnings don't want it enforced by law. They want people they interact with to be polite enough to take their needs into consideration. That's it. 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"?
>No, people who ask for trigger warnings don't want it enforced by law.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
"we'd really like" is a different thing than "You will be terminated if". The first probably achieves nothing and the second is a form of censorship.
> 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.
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.
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.
I talk about history with my friends often, history is full of violence. To not be able to talk about violence candidly basically means you don't discuss history/geopolitics at all. I'm just not a 'how the weather' kind of guy, so our interactions might look different.
> No, people who ask for trigger warnings don't want it enforced by law.
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.
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.
I quote Martin "Marty" Hart from season 1 of "True Detective":
"there was a time when a man kept his bullshit to himself"
"there was a time when a man kept his bullshit to himself"
Well the US has had obscenity laws in place until recently. It's just that the people who decided what was "upsetting" were politicians rather than students and had the power to get rid of it completely.
The United States still has obscenity laws. For example, Alabama's Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act [1]. It was challenged, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Obscenity_Enforcement_Act
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Obscenity_Enforcement_Act
In practice those laws rarely if ever were applied to college classroom or similar event. Speech within a private facility by individuals has always been protected.
Well yeah, but if a book can never get published because of obscenity laws, it will never be discussed in a classroom. The law doesn't even need to be actually enforced very often to have an effect. The fact that authors know that their books might be labeled as obscene will make them censor themselves.
Because once we solve the big problems, we can afford to care about smaller ones.
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?
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?
To put your argument another way, throughout human history we've had famine, plagues, and high infant mortality rates. Since the modern developed world has easy access to food, sanitation, and medical treatment, we will clearly be weaker in the long run.
> are the women who had that horror put upon them concerned with trigger warnings? Nope. Not as far as I can tell.
How many of them have you asked?
How many of them have you asked?
Gotta find something to complain about when life is going so well or when life is not going so well but you have no control over the things that make it fail. People today, at least in the US, are incredibly scared of all manner of fiction. Whether you think your supermarket will be the next ISIS target or you're actively waiting for the end of the world which you're sure will come in your lifetime, you're scared. And scared people do stupid shit and attack others. On the other hand, not everyone has a good life here. Poverty is rampant in America. But there is little individuals can do to fix their condition. So they turn against other. Make no mistake about it: demanding trigger warnings and safe spaces is an attack on others. We used to call people that demanded such things "assholes" and I see no reason to stop.
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.
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.
No but the oppressive left mindset of banning everything they disagree with seems to be gaining traction.
Yeah because it's oppression to have student associations who have their own private offices and rented spaces to for their members and not for strangers looking to "debate" the association. What's next, folks, demand that you debate a pastor at a church because you're an atheist (or vice versa, a pastor demands the right to debate a biology professor at the college)?
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."
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."
What you do in your own private office is your own business. No one cares. What the rest of us care about is what goes on in the classroom. I think you're missing the point completely by arguing for something that no one else here is talking about.
[deleted]
How did universities evolve from spaces meant to evoke controversial and provocative thought (like the birth of the free speech movement at UC Berkeley) to the "safe spaces" of today? If a university is meant to enrich you, one worthy lesson is the ability to "agree to disagree in a cordial fashion". If you disagree or feel threatened by a line of thought, make your voice heard. Receding into a safe space won't prepare you for the real world.
I'm guessing it started in the 90s when progressive social scientists edged out political dissenters from their departments, and began pushing their political orthodoxy as "science" to an already left-leaning campus who ate it up (confirmation bias and whatnot).
Because the "free speech" advocates never were. They were counter-culturists who got their way and want to protect what is theirs. They were always authoritarians.
I think young adults oftentimes mature at a later age nowadays. A 17 year old nowadays may really need safe spaces and may be very traumatized from being confronted by provocative ideas, just as a child would be. It's not really fair to put the burden on the child to simply not be affected; it is the responsibility of the parents and university to teach them how to handle emotions and disagree without shutting down. (I'm not refuting anything you said btw. )
[deleted]
At a time when many prestigious private schools had Jewish quotas for students and faculty, the U of C did not.
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.
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.
> 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).
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.
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.
I'm not certain, but I think there was a Supreme Court ruling that said you can't shout, "Fire" in a movie theater as an action of free speech or the First Amendment.
At any rate, people pay good tuition money to get an education and part of an education is the free exchange of ideas.
At any rate, people pay good tuition money to get an education and part of an education is the free exchange of ideas.
Yes, the Supreme court has given many "passes" to the government to regulate your free speech, but what I was saying is that it's important to separate the concept of "free speech" from the legal institutions that attempt to prevent their restriction (by the government). There are many situations where it is legally allowed for someone to curtail your freedom of speech, and that is independent of whether or not it is a good idea for that person to exercise their right to do so.
Shouting Fire in a theater is a nonsense example used in a horrible ruling on the first amendment. [0]
[0]: https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne...
[0]: https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne...
I think this should be a requirement for any university that wants accreditation and certainly all state-run institutions. This is a bold statement not for the Uni. of Chicago, but for every other university that does not have a similar policy in place. Sorry, but you cannot get a proper education with trigger warnings and safe spaces. Therefore, those institutions that do not have the courage to stand up for education should lose their accreditation. Until we start holding institutions and individuals responsible for their actions, however, this will not happen, and holding institutions and individuals responsible for their actions is not something that, at least in the US, we know how to do well or at all.
So student associations shouldn't be allowed to not allow certain people into their meetings if they're found to be abusive? Because that's the point of a safe space if you didn't know. It's not unlike support groups who can and will eject people who are known to be abusive or otherwise disclose information outside the support group without permission of all members. So, to say that safe spaces shouldn't be allowed is a bit questionable because people take safe space to mean the entire university campus and annexes rather than private spaces of student associations, sororities, and fraternities. And as for trigger warnings, I think they too have a place at least in terms of notifying students if certain topics will be discussed in the class. If that's too much to ask as well then I'm glad I'm not going to the University of Chicago.
Never said anything like that, but to your point, who decides what's abusive? Because clearly, letting students decide that has prevented actual education from taking place, education that people are paying for and expecting to get. If one can't teach classic English literature or American law because the students demand trigger warnings and safe spaces, they're the problem in this equation, not the professor, and the students (and teachers) that want to learn (and teach) shouldn't be punished for it.
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.
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.
"Never said anything like that, but to your point, who decides what's abusive?"
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.
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.
A classroom (or any other place at a university) is not a private space ruled by students. It is the university's space that it uses to educate students who purchase an education from the university. The university has complete control and a university, like the U of Chicago, should exercise said control to promote learning and remove people who object to teaching such objectionable things as (but not limited to) American law and literature. If one doesn't like what's going on, there are many competing universities in the business of child coddling and babysitting that one can attend.
1. Classrooms aren't private student association settings (normally).
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.
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.
> So student associations shouldn't be allowed to not allow certain people into their meetings if they're found to be abusive?
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.
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.
No, because the statement expressly says "freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others."
Not really, your freedom ends when you diminishing someone else freedom. Harassing and threatening do not make people less free. Even Mozart was considered offensive some times, some people was triggered and described his music as immoral . So, freedom of expression should be without any restriction, except when it stepping on freedom of other people.
But that's a different topic. "You can say anything you want" is different from "you can say anything you want in our meeting".
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.
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.
Yes, but in education, this is dangerous way. Whole point of science is to critique, if you are triggered by facts, and university bans "hostile" ideas you can not even discuss it.
There is a place and time, but you should have a right to oppose creationism, for example. At least you should be not afraid to ask questions or state facts. And if everything is safe space, and everybody is triggered this is totally oppose to scientific principles and contradicts whole point of education.
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
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
Another example, corrupted people in power was often harassed and threaten by someone else, like musicians and poets, they harassed government for thousands of years. If you change definition of freedom you will empower political census to exploit and shutdown criticism, this is essential part of democracy, even ancient Romans did it. do not help ruin it
Support groups also deserve freedom of association. Requiring them to prove that the people who constantly derail their groups' activities are harassers puts the burden on them, rather than on the people who are crashing and disrupting their meetings.
You don't have the right to join what amounts to as a private club. The U of Chicago can choose not to offer space for said club, but that's another matter entirely. But the point is that their management of their membership and who can attend their functions in their spaces is an essential right even at university. Otherwise, we might as well turn university into a bootcamp and force everyone to attend every course willy nilly. I'm sure even older students who have family lives would love to be forced to take courses and attend non-essential student associations that aren't core to their degree program.
> Sorry, but you cannot get a proper education with trigger warnings and safe spaces.
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
when someone lecturing about evolutionary biological differences in "progressive" universities nobody listens and constantly interrupted by triggered liberals. And same guy with same lecture in more technical or business oriented university will educate more people, on how to exploit evolution to gain more profit. Some people will gain knowledge and profit from it while some will get triggered.
I heard about experiences like this before, but this one is form Gad Saad on Joe Rogan podcast.
https://youtu.be/TjBgeuTvnnk?t=1h36m9s
Citation is not needed because you can't learn something you can't discuss and you can't properly discuss anything with trigger warnings and safe spaces. I guess we traded trigger warnings and safe spaces for logic in school these days.
I don't see why you can't properly discuss anything with trigger warnings and safe spaces. You can discuss any topic you want, in the proper location, with people who want to discuss it. That's basically just human interaction etiquette, codified.
Totally agree. The students can leave. They will get a zero. They will fail the course. They will eventually have to drop out. That's the natural order of things.
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.
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.
you quoted someone's statement of personal opinion. it doesn't need a citation. do you really need people to spell it out for you explicitly "hey these words are my opinions"?
> Sorry, but you cannot get a proper education with trigger warnings and safe spaces.
How so?
How so?
The article links to another one discussing the difficulty of teaching law in this environment, because many aspects of law are potentially "triggering": http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap...
I don't really see the relevance of the article. It complains a lot about students being oversensitive to bad things, but it has barely anything to do with actual trigger warnings.
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.
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.
I think the author is saying that trigger warnings end up going beyond simply warning people of potentially objectionable content. Once you start putting in trigger warnings, it starts to look like official support for avoiding the potentially objectionable material, and students start picking and choosing what they learn while still expecting to be able to get good grades.
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.
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.
> informed decision about when and how they expose themselves to it.
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.
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.
"Please don't use uppercase for emphasis."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Fixed, but I really did want to yell.
Understood, and thanks. Since it's no longer relevant I've detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12361418 and marked it off-topic.
The "so called" part of the announcement feels like it's meant to be particularly patronizing. "You rassafrassin youngsters, with your so-called rap music and trigger warnings!"
It is meant to be a nod to the intellectual bankruptcy of the entire concept of safe spaces and trigger warnings. Taken to their logical conclusion, these policies would lead to a gutting of the entire premise of a liberal education, which is what the University of Chicago has always sought to provide (source: proud alumnus, particularly today). You simply cannot protect people from ideas they disagree with while also fostering vigorous intellectual debate and growth.
There is a difference between safe spaces meant to coddle ignorant privileged white kids from having to hear ideas they've never heard before, and safe spaces as a refuge for marginalized students who need a break from racist, classist, bigoted, body shaming, heteronormative, colonial, hegemonic treatment from others on campus. There is a difference between privileged white kids demanding trigger warnings for topics that call out their privilege and a rape survivor needing a trigger warning so they don't have to watch a rape scene in an assigned movie and have a PTSD flashback and nightmares for 2 nights in a row.
Any pertinent examples of "privileged white kids demanding trigger warnings for topics that call out their privilege?" I've never heard of an incident where conservative kids on campus demanded that a progressive speaker's event be canceled – all of the incidents I've seen in the news have been the other way around. (Of course, the news does tend to have its own narratives it wants to push ...)
How do you propose to disambiguate between the two reliably?
So your identity determines whether you are entitled to safe spaces?
Old man yells at cloud.
They don't want students to have any spaces where they feel safe/accepted? That's weird.
Using alternative definitions of terminology is disingenuous.
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.
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.
Universities are places where unpopular points of view must be entertained and debated. Expressing or advocating unpopular or unpleasant points of view is not against university codes of conduct—nor should it be. But must it then also be the case that associations of students cannot limit hostile discussion in smaller settings?
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...
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...
Well could said association not allow or reject said hostile discussions without requiring the official and overt intervention of the University itself?
No, they just don't want to pander to the entitled kids with victim complexes who think they shouldn't have to hear anything they disagree with.
> They don't want students to have any spaces where they feel safe/accepted? That's weird.
Why would a student need a special space to feel safe/accepted? Doesn't the university already provide students basic safety?
Why would a student need a special space to feel safe/accepted? Doesn't the university already provide students basic safety?
No, students get harassed and raped at a pretty high rate. And suicide is the #2 cause of death among young adults. Physical security and "acceptance" is a big public health issue.
thays just not true - the rate of rape and sexual assault is lower for college students (at 6.1 per 1,000) than for non-students (7.6 per 1,000).
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/14/campus-rape...
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/14/campus-rape...
The cited study: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf It points out that students are very unlikely to report rape to the police, but somehow assumes that they will answer questions about it on a survey. It also shows wide variations from one year to another. It's not a bad study, but the data doesn't really inspire confidence.
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."
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."
The Instapundit is attempting to debunk public-health assessments of the incidence of sexual assault with crime-report data, when a key argument of anti-rape activists is that rape/sexual assault largely goes unreported. And given the way that women are treated who make allegations of domestic violence, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, I would not be surprised if that is correct.
The study cited in that link (which I link directly below) says 20% of students who admitted to being raped said they reported it to police, compared to 32% of non-students.
You'd think that students should be able to feel safe at least somewhere on campus! But apparently they don't accept that.
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.
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.
you're being downvoted for deliberately twisting the meaning
This statement by the University is willfully ignorant. The University provides an officially sanctioned LGBTQ Safe Space (https://lgbtq.uchicago.edu/page/safe-space). Clearly the University isn't ensuring that people who think gay people are evil are also represented in those safe spaces. Furthermore, some ideas are clearly off limits. The University is not going to allow and promote legitimate arguments about whether the Holocaust was justified, or whether we should return to slavery and colonialism.
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.
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.
As someone who sat through four years of classes at The University of Chicago, most of which were liberal arts classes, they would most definitely allow you to argue about the justification of the Holocaust, whether we should return to slavery, and the merits or lack thereof of colonialism. If you can't discuss those things in a class but must merely passively listen as we all agree about why those things are clearly horrible, or even worse just not talk about them because they are so horrible, then you will fail to have confronted those ideas and will have learned nothing.
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.
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.
>Furthermore, some ideas are clearly off limits. The University is not going to allow and promote legitimate arguments about whether the Holocaust was justified, or whether we should return to slavery and colonialism.
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.
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.
Please show me an accredited University that has done that. This is not a view any university shares, for good reason.
Not exactly the same, but Northwestern U has an avowed Holocaust denier on its faculty who is protected by tenure.
Institutions matter more than shared values sometimes.
Institutions matter more than shared values sometimes.
Contingent on the fact that: "Butz has made clear that his opinions are his own and at no time has he discussed those views in class or made them part of his class curriculum." If he were to represent his opinions as the views of the University, or in the classroom, they would remove him.
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...
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...
If someone denies the holocaust and promotes slavery, don't they have the right to express their views? It's a very slippery slope when you let someone (you? me?) decide what speech is too dangerous to hear. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is dangerous, but letting some whacko spout about why slavery is good is entirely different.
Again, that's counterfactual. Currently, if a professor tried to seriously discuss such views, they would be promptly let go. The point of contention is not whether "safe spaces" should exist - they exist in spades already, and the University supports them. The debate is what form they should take.
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.