General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUniversity of Chicago Tells Incoming Students: Don't Expect Safe Spaces or Trigger Warnings
In their letter to incoming students:
I'm quite glad to hear it.
More:
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/univ-chicago-pushes-back-trigger-warnings-safe-spaces
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Recommended!
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Good to see some Academicians taking a stand. I predict this will cause cries of outrage from some quarters, but that is just too, too bad.
Warpy
(110,913 posts)What a concept!
These kids have been babied their whole lives. They need to realize that it won't continue in the workplace. College is a good place for them to grow up.
7962
(11,841 posts)Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Or just that those groups can't define themselves as "safe spaces"?
I've never understood the objection to trigger warnings, myself. The way people handle reactions to the warnings, sure. But the warnings themselves just seem like an extra courtesy, to me.
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)Just about anything can be a "trigger," so if we accept the practice of trigger warnings, it gives people standing to complain if they were not warned that their particular trigger might fire. If some sense of proportion were observed, it might be a useful courtesy.
-- Mal
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Is that so?
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)But to address your question, "utterly" is going too far, which is, in fact, exactly my point.
-- Mal
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)Because the answer to your question is obviously "yes, some trigger warnings are OK, but others are not."
Therefore, it seems clear that your intent in asking that question is to set up what I suspect is your next question: How do we determine which trigger warnings are OK and which are not?
And, equally obviously, there's no simple answer to that question.
In response to your question there are three basic possibilities:
1. All trigger warnings are ok.
2. No trigger warnings are ok.
3. Some trigger warnings are ok.
Which do you think is correct?
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)-- Mal
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)policy because it's just too subjective, but to come out and essentially say as a policy, we don't care about our students' violence induced traumas, is bizarre. I don't think professors should be restricted either way. I think universities can promote free thinking and civility.
TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)cab67
(2,963 posts)I say this as someone who's taught college classes for 20+ years.
Where do we draw the line on what might require a trigger warning? Point of example - I teach courses on vertebrate evolution. I occasionally show pictures of animals many people fear - snakes, rats, bats, and so on. You name the animal, and there's a phobia for it. There are people phobic of cats, dogs, birds, and anything else - and that's just with vertebrates. I would never equate snake phobia with the PTSD arising from sexual assault, but a lot of people are snake phobic, and it can be debilitating. A colleague of mine once brought a live snake to the classroom, prompting a student to break his leg tripping over furniture on his way out the door. As a result, I don't bring live snakes to my larger classes anymore.
Should I issue a trigger warning every time I put up a picture of a snake? Or before showing an automobile, given that someone might have been badly injured or lost a loved one in a car accident? Or a hospital room, given that someone might have just seen a close relative die in the hospital? All kinds of things can be triggering for all kinds of people.
I'm not opposed to trigger warnings in all cases. I generally give a heads-up before showing pictures of predators actively killing prey, for example - they can be graphic. But as a mandated policy, it raises a lot of concerns for me.
Another solution might be to help students who might be prone to a trigger response to tailor their curricula to minimize the chances of encountering triggers in the first place. If we know sexual assault might come up regularly in a class - one discussing ancient Greek drama or the sociology of misogyny, for example - it might be best to have students still working through the psychological damage of events in their lives to avoid them.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)malthaussen
(17,066 posts)FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)As the father of two university students, the ones who need "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" are a small subset of otherwise intelligent and responsible student body.
I don't want people to judge all current students by the actions of a few immature ones.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,283 posts)... a warning is always appreciated before posting anything about Rick Astley or Carrot Top. Thanks.
Be Warned Now!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
GoneOffShore
(17,309 posts)That picture is just so wrong on so many levels.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,283 posts)THIS post, at least, is safe.
Dr. Strange
(25,898 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Dr. Strange
(25,898 posts)Which used to be one of the top events in DU's Lounge Olympics.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If not body shaming; what, precisely, is wrong with him?
GoneOffShore
(17,309 posts)And the idea that university students are 'consumers' of education.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)Like Eleanor, my finger remains on the side of the trigger, unless you threaten me. Then, "I'm a good shoot." So my father said, better than my brothers who served in Viet Nam.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)drm604
(16,230 posts)An educated person needs to able to confront uncomfortable ideas. This is one of the skills you should be getting from a college or university education.
alp227
(31,962 posts)Trigger warnings aren't about AVOIDING uncomfortable ideas...they're about informed consent.
Also, would you consider anti-LGBT or anti-Muslim rhetoric that goes beyond mere disagreement to opposing EXISTENCE of those people ideas worth confronting?
This is stuff I expect from Free Republic, buying into the right wing straw men.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)cab67
(2,963 posts)It comes from actual experience teaching college students for many years.
I'm not opposed to instructors giving a heads-up about certain topics being discussed in class. I do that myself. The issue is with requiring them as a campus policy. It really can't be made practical.
As I said in an earlier comment, it would be better to help students dealing with psychological trauma by helping them avoid classes where difficult subjects are likely to come up.
(Also, a point of trivia - at Jonestown, the cyanide was mixed with Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid.)
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)...you're undoubtedly aware that being gay can get you killed.
This is not news.
It's upsetting, yes, but the idea that an adult in a college setting would be sent spiraling into a nervous breakdown because a professor posted a picture of an anti-gay rally is just absurd.
If we're talking about a picture bringing about feelings of sadness, fear, or anger, then maybe people should be sad, afraid, or angry.
But I don't think the professor should spend her time managing the feelings of the students in her class.
If you're that sensitive, major in math where you're never going to be exposed to upsetting ideas.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)alp227
(31,962 posts)Please explain why it's a character flaw if someone is "oversensitive". I can't believe some of the comments here - I'd expect them on Free Republic or r/TumblrInAction not DU.
Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)If you need informed consent to listen to an opposing opinion, you're not ready for adulthood.
alp227
(31,962 posts)I can't believe how much ignorance is being spread here - it's as if birther conspiracy crap or "Clinton killed Vince Foster" were condoned.
For instance: "We can teach students that their STRONG reactions to reading about their ancestors being raped and held in bondage is NORMAL."
Please explain to me why people who request TW's are in some way flawed or narrow minded.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Doesn't seem to be that way anymore in some places.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)What a bunch of clownish hypocrites.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)True, it is more of a conservative institution, but there are many liberal professors on campus.
ancianita
(35,813 posts)This is about why the university has to do that.
This is about rich privileged people not being enabled to enforce bubble walls so they don't need to think of reality beyond that of others like themselves. Reality beyond the university.
This is not about informed consent. Reality doesn't need consent. Reality just is.
This is about the reality of safety within oneself, not just outside oneself.
reACTIONary
(5,749 posts).... one of the greatest intellectual institutions in the world today, and for most of the 20th century.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)Buckeye_Democrat
(14,847 posts)If it was truthful, I heard it. I actually trusted them more because of their severe bluntness.
CrispyQ
(36,231 posts)That's what university is all about! Good for U of C!
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,847 posts)The professors at my school often challenged ideas, sometimes when they'd personally agree with them. It pushed students to better argue their ideas and to think critically.
alp227
(31,962 posts)Like all the anti LGBT garbage on right wing outlets for instance the belief that transgender people are mentally ill. Why should LGBT and other minority students have to subject themselves to ideas opposing their humanity? Unfortunately, people defend the expression of bigotry in the name of "open mind" and "debate".
CrispyQ
(36,231 posts)This discussion is about what's taught at university, not what right wing outlets say. Of course anti-LGBT rhetoric isn't acceptable at a university, or anywhere in my opinion.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Because if you justify this shutting down of speech you don't like, you don't really have a leg to stand on if it happens to you. Plenty of people hold abortion to be as immoral as you think it is to call transgender people mentally ill. Would you want them to determine that you can't argue your point?
romanic
(2,841 posts)gives that person a venue to know and understand where those ideas come from and how to combat those ideas in a debate. Not to mention, knowing different ideas thst opposes yours builds character, pride, and the ability to confront those that are against you in the real world.
Do you think it would benefit lgbt and minority students to go through life without ways to defend themselves from thosr ideas? And no, falling on the ground in a "die-in" doesn't count.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)If, for example, your University is hosting a talk by someone you consider a bigot with vile opinions, the solution is to NOT ATTEND. Organize your own talk to counter it instead of trying to quash differing opinions, no matter how disgusting you find them.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Had I not been so exposed, I'd probably still be an idiot republican.
alp227
(31,962 posts)Unfortunately, the "free speech" angle tricks liberals into thinking SS/TW are about censorship. They're not.
Also please read this line of tweets to see how FOS UChicago is, relating to a sexual harassment scandal. https://twitter.com/leafwarbler/status/768627584028540928
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)just curious.
alp227
(31,962 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 25, 2016, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)
nothing wrong with student organizations and clubs doing it. No place for it in a classroom.
alp227
(31,962 posts)But "safe spaces" are generally for special interest orgs/clubs. There's no evidence of "safe spaces" being significantly burdensome on scholarship, research, etc.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Now it's little snowflakes walking around claiming that hearing opinions they disagree with (like maybe voting for Clinton isn't so bad) is harassment, and trying to take over large sections of campus.
The University is doing the right thing. Hone your arguments, don't try to be a cry-bully.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Safety for individuals rooming in women's shelters...
(time to move the goalposts, looking forward the creative rationalizations it may take...)
Orrex
(63,086 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Are they going to demand SS/TW in the real world?
alp227
(31,962 posts)and not push back against bigotry? "It's the way the world is, deal with it" is an attitude i expect from AM radio or Freeperville.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Unless you want everyone to be like those home-schooled, clueless once outside of their bubble.
alp227
(31,962 posts)doesn't mean I have to suck up to it blindly. What do you think is the proper way to teach young people to deal with bigotry - especially when said bigotry opposes their very existence?
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Individuals maybe, I'm sure there are those who hold bigoted opinions.
And young people are taught what bigotry is and how one might deal with it in the open environment of a classroom, where they just might get their own ideas and preconceptions challenged by others, instead of retreating to an echo chamber of like minds fearful that others thoughts and opinions just might have some valid basis.
Would you allow White Supremacists their safe space? Some very unpopular people right there.
Or is that reserved only for those you feel worthy?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)That's one of the reasons why I find all these "but but but the REAL WORLD!" comments so strange - in my experience, most offices and classes in "the real world" try to avoid controversial topics. People are focusing on finishing their spreadsheets or learning to paint, not having a political fight - there are other places for that.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Of course, anyone who actually has to deal with customers, for instance, is likely to hear a broad range of opinions and attitudes that wouldn't be welcome in any kind of safe space. Perhaps you can advise the waitress who got groped by a customer or the construction worker who was called "boy" by a passing motorist that ugly interactions don't happen in the real world.
I'm sure that they'll be relieved to hear it!
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Yes, terrible things happen to people - even in offices and adult education classes (shocking, I know). They even happen in schools with safe spaces. The question is whether or not the institutions should try to minimize this type of controversial stuff. Yes, you might get yelled at by a customer, but does that mean that your coworkers should be able to give you a hostile work environment? Hey, there work already sucks, who cares? If a waiter doesn't want to hear her boss talk about how great Trump is and how terrible the immigrants are, should she be told "yeah, but you got groped, so why are you complaining about what your boss says?"
It's really a bizarre argument. Again, it seems like most places in the real world are moving towards the safe space side of things, and I'd argue that's a good thing. I really can't understand the thinking behind: "Yeah, but strangers are already harassing you so no one cares whether or not the people in your company are creating a hostile work environment."
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Your model of "the real world" focused specifically on office and adult education facilities, where it's not common to encounter the kind of hostile situation against which a "safe space" purports to protect.
I simply pointed out the actual real world is much less guarded than your model, so your model is lovely for describing a non-representative sample of the real world.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)in the real world. I mean, let's look at the law:
So yeah, most businesses in the real world lean more in the "safe space" direction, because they don't want to be sued. I know a lot of conservatives have a problem with that (and apparently some liberals as well), but that doesn't mean it's not the case.
It's not a question of should, it's a question of how things are. You can look at different lawsuits and different company policies, but yeah, in general, most try to minimize things that people would find offensive. Very few focus on challenging their employees with ideas that they might find offensive or anything like that - people can do that on their own time, when it doesn't cause problems for the company.
That's why it's funny to see so many people complaining about safe spaces as being something that keeps students from the real world. It's how most institutions in the real world at least attempt or purport to operate.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)And it's absurd because it's a cherry-picked illusion. The more you lean on it, the weaker your argument becomes.
Thank you for quoting that bit of law that absolutely everyone on DU knows more or less by heart--very helpful.
Tell me--does that law cover customer behavior? Can a call center employee call the EEOC when a customer unleashes a stream of racist profanity?
But what happens when the actual real world--the world outside the office--slaps the graduate in the face with real world ugliness? Your rose-colored model ignores this possibility altogether, when in fact it's a sizable fraction of most people's lives.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Even if these institutions try to minimize things people find offensive, people will still experience a lot both inside and outside the institution.
Since you were saying that people working at institutions trying to follow that law were privileged, I thought a refresher might have been helpful. I dont think people who work at McDonald's are privileged because they have some recourse if their boss yells epithets at them.
No matter whether the institution is a university or business (or something else), these types of policies aren't going to protect people from people not connected to the institution. A person might get yelled at by a customer, or a student might get yelled at by a stranger when conducting a survey. That's why these are mainly focused on the actions of individuals inside the institution (be it a university or business).
If a university acts in this manner it's acting like many institutions in the real world. Yes, it's not acting like the real world itself in it's entirety - no one expects a university to be a simulation of the world in it's entirety (and I don't think anyone thinks that's a good idea, either). But as an institution, it would be acting more like many institutions in the real world.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)employees using profanity, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. that the companies in question will, most of the time, escort said customers off their property and may ban them permanently from their premises. Seen this happen quite a few times at Wal-Mart, as an employee, and the policy at my current job(call center) is that if a caller starts verbally harassing you on the phone, cussing you out, etc. and refuses to calm down, you have every right to hang up on them, report the call the management and if the caller calls back, they will deal with it.
Also at my current employer, an easy way to get fired as an employee would be to be open about racism, sexism and homophobia, its a diverse workplace, and they prefer to keep it that way.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)arrested for assault/sexual assault(depending on where they groped the waitress). Seriously, that's fucking illegal and no where equivalent to "bad words".
TipTok
(2,474 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Convenient if we repealed that nasty old 1st Amendment, wouldn't it?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Some sanity back in academia.
It's refreshing.
IVoteDFL
(417 posts)Where there usually are no trigger warnings or safe spaces.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Real life is full of trigger warnings and safe spaces. You can't go a portion of a day without being at one or seeing one.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)to her students something like this: "College is about challenging your ideas. You SHOULD feel uncomfortable. You SHOULD feel challenged. You have to learn to justify your ideas."
She does ask students to tell her privately of any individual issues, though. For example, she teaches the book "Regeneration" which deals with traumatized soldiers in WWI. She has some combat vets in her class, and does warn them that the book can be pretty brutal.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)to tag potential triggers. Let students decide if they can handle it before signing up and offer them a confidential meeting w/professor if they still want to take a class but want to discuss an issue beforehand.
Patiod
(11,816 posts)No required warnings, just people making an attempt to be considerate of others.
As I heard someone put it, if you were taking a friend who had never see a movie to see something by Quentin Tarantino, the mature adult thing to do would be to mention "hey, just a heads up - this stuff is going to be pretty violent/bloody"
a la izquierda
(11,784 posts)I teach at a major research university and I teach topics that deal with extreme violence (I am a Latin American historian). I assigned a book to my honors class last semester and I gave them a heads up that the material they would be reading was exceptionally violent. I told my students that if they had any issues with it as they poured over the material, to talk to me about it (for example, descriptions of extreme torture, particularly of pregnant leftists in Argentina).
I do not, however, put a trigger warning on my class syllabus. And last semester was the only time that I gave such a warning.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)other than to make it less likely that people will complain to you? If they had "issues", would you give them a more sanitized and less accurate version of history to read instead? History is not PG-rated, and if they didn't learn that in high school (as many probably didn't), the sooner they learn it in college, the better.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)Though history is written by the winners, a lecture on history usually includes facts even if those are facts about what historians agree or disagree on (like the cause of a war). But what about novels? Those are made-up stories where authors aim to have an emotional as well as thought-provoking effect. And sometimes, it's hard to justify forcing a student to read a made-up-story that disturbs them. I was a teacher of English. I gave my students the book "The Haunting of Hill House" by Shirley Jackson. One student came up and said she absolutely could not read it. She believed in ghosts, quite literally, and though she knew it was a made-up story, knew Shirley Jackson was a reputable author and that the aim was to discuss the metaphors and themes...she just could not read it.
I had a choice. I could fail her for not reading the book and writing up the assignment on it, or I could give her an alternative book. In the end, I gave her an alternative book. Because I saw no reason why she couldn't learn what I was trying to teach (metaphors, themes, literary analysis) from another book. It didn't have to be one that she could not and would not read. So, no, we should not sanitize history any more than we should underplay the facts of climate change. But education is not and should not be one-size-fits-all. I'm not advocating lying or softening or letting students get out of eating their vitamin-healthy greens. Bu the aim of a class, be it to give students a realistic view of the American Civil War or get them to analyze literature, doesn't have to be done in only one way. Achieving the aim is the goal, not forcing every student to learn it in the same way.
a la izquierda
(11,784 posts)That might actually be traumatic. Nothing in my class is sanitized in any way. But I'm also not on board with triggering PTSD in my students.
haele
(12,581 posts)For it to be a trigger warning, that means that it is going to trigger PTSD, or rage/fear/suicidal impulses enough to make you want to quit the class before your reactions cause a complete disintegration of self or harm to others.
Trigger warnings are not there because they might challenge you to question the social barriers mummy and daddy, or church, put in your brains, or they might might challenge you to step outside your personal world view and consider third world problems instead of your first world problems.
However, they are used to legally protect the institution and the instructor from neurotics raised by self-absorbed helicopter parents and other youth who just don't want to consider that there is a world outside their ass-upmtions.
Same with "safe spaces" that are around the institution, but not part of the learning experience. Realistically, the classroom should be safe from violence or disrespect directed towards an individual student. But not for a student to avoid evidence and descriptions of actual harsh reality, privilege, and cultural brutality.
If students need a "safe" place where they can gather, blow off steam, and feel safe exploring their personal ideologies amongst like minded students or students with similar life experiences, that's what campus clubs and student organizations are for.
Including clubs or organizations that are bigoted or small minded. So long as there's no effort to promote any action that actually harms, harasses or promotes bad behavior in other students - there can be no reason like-minded individuals can't create their own safe spaces.
IME, Bigots get bored and turn on each other very quickly when they're not allowed to impact on people outside their own little cliques. They need victims. So let them have their short-lived safe spaces along with everyone else to keep an eye on them - just enforce the standard academic rules that require they treat other students with respect, and that they have to show that they can actually produce proper arguments.
I've seen more than one small-world conservative or bigot realize they've been lied to for most of their lives, and their so-called friends are close-minded idiots going nowhere fast once they learn something of the way the universe actually operates.
Haele
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)I am addicted to TTC/TMS lecture series and a while ago finished one on the revolutionary half century period in the Americas. I understand that because of the mass audience and compressed time they have to skim details and keep it simple but most of the course was quite informative with the exception of the Paraguayan revolution. The professor, Eakin of Vanderbilt, seemed either unsure about or uninterested in why Paraguay essentially chose to be an insular, poorly self-sufficient dictatorship during a global revolutionary wave that was built on the lofty cosmopolitan and egalitarian ideals of the Enlightenment. About the only reason slightly implied was that Ascuncion had a reflexive desire to oppose what Buenos Aires was doing but while that explains the rejection of a combined territory, it seems a pretty thin reason to choose a centory or so of autocratic rule when they didn't have to, even though when it comes to benign dictators Francia is probably the closest we've seen since Peisistratos.
Any quick insight you'd care to share, or references for further sources, on why they chose such a unique inedependence (for anybody not up on the subject at all, Francia was elected as a dictator) would be greatly appreciated.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)But I'm not a professor.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Question: Now, if a student had an issue with a particular subject, are they penalized for skipping over the material?
a la izquierda
(11,784 posts)i would need a reason (though not details of course-not my business). If it just made a student feel "icky," tough. But if it brought up some deep trauma, I'd assign something else to read.
Fortunately this was not an issue last semester.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)The Latin American history profs are the best in the history departments. That is the best response I have read about this issue thus far.
That said, enjoy the new batch of young whipper snappers that you soon will be teaching if you aren't already.
Cheers.
a la izquierda
(11,784 posts)It's been super fun so far!
ArcticFox
(1,249 posts)That they will have no problem providing a venue for any wacked-out right wing nut jobs.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)hueymahl
(2,415 posts)Protecting yourself as a student from things you think are icky does not advance your education, especially a liberal arts education. I can understand it as an adult (still think it is a bit silly), but in an educational context, it is just another form of censoring.
GoCubsGo
(32,061 posts)because one doesn't want them exposed to people who don't share one's beliefs. I think it's a fairly appropriate analogy.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)Reality happens.
It does not wait.
It does not ask permission.
It does not warn.
For those too fragile to handle this truth, the world is going to kick your ass and keep on kicking it until you decide to fight back and make a stand within yourself.
Horrific things happen daily.
They happen without rhyme nor reason.
They happen to good people and bad people.
They happen all too frequently to the disempowered and the helpless.
The way to change the world never has been to lock yourself away in a cocoon.
Engagement with the real world is tough and sometimes brutal.
But it is also the ONLY way to affect change on the wider world and on ourselves.
The fewer "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" in the world, the better we will all be in the end.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Hell yes they wanted safe space on the MU campus. Someone threatened to come and shoot every black person they saw. Trigger warnings are a method of introduction to material that some people may find uncomfortable. Maybe it's fair to give some warning to a woman who has been violently raped that the content will include sexual assault. The resistance to these things coming from people who are not living these experiences is callous.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)And anti-abortion nutcases can harass and heckle women on their way into the student health center?
I recall members of a fraternity gathering outside a women's counseling center on a campus chanting "No means Yes. Yes means anal!" The administration would be totally cool with that?
And a rape survivor isn't entitled to a "trigger warning" in a media class if that class is going to screen something with a violent rape scene?
Just wondering how far they're willing to take this policy.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Realistically, the policy means that classrooms will not be safe spaces to protect students from challenging or difficult discussions.
Just wondering how far you'd want to take this policy.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)...why should an additional trigger warning be required?"
Out of simple common courtesy, perhaps? If I take a course on Modern American Film, and the professor decides to show the more violent scenes from, say, Clockwork Orange or Straw Dogs, why not say ahead of time, "Some of you might find some of these images of graphic rape disturbing?" You actually have a problem with that? I was just watching the BBC report on Syria, and the newscaster prefaced the story (two stories, actually) saying, "Some viewers might find these scenes disturbing." I simply don't understand what the problem with this is.
My memory of the incident was faulty. It was a fraternity chanting outside a women's dorm, but it was still pretty ghastly.
Here's the link:
http://www.salon.com/2010/10/15/yale_fraternity_pledges_chant_about_rape/
The fact is this sort of nonsense is meant to traumatize people, and I don't see why it should be tolerated.
To me, complaints about safe space and trigger warnings seem similar to complaints about "political correctness." People making the complaints often just feel entitled to be assholes, and object when people call them on it.
I don't have a "policy" since I'm not a college administrator. But I think the tone of the policy cited (and the tone of some of these responses) makes me wonder if libertarian dickishness is making inroads into our college campuses, as well as our political discourse.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Frankly, I doubt that a someone who voluntarily takes a course in modern American film would be so ignorant of modern American film that they'd be blindsided by the sudden appearance of Alex and his Droogs. As for "common courtesy," I'm all for it. Trust the instructor to issue such warnings as they deem appropriate. Instead, you're asking the course in modern American film to adopt the standards of the MPAA. Further, to forcibly require such "common courtesy" is the epitome of micromanagement.
Should a course in Mark Twain issue a warning that "the N word" is used? Should a study of Elie Wiesel's Night include a disclaimer that the horrors of genocide are discussed? Should a film studies course warn students before The Death Star blows up Alderaan?
I'm not being flippant here: I'm asking a legitimate question about where the boundaries are to be drawn.
Incidentally, I recall the story about the fuckhead frat assholes outside the dorm, and it is ghastly indeed. However, that's very different from similar assholes yelling at a counseling center.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)it doesn't support trigger warnings. Saying you don't "support" something is not the same thing as saying you don't "require" it. Perhaps this is an instance of poor wording, but the tone doesn't seem very neutral toward trigger warnings or safe spaces, and certainly many of the comments in this thread can hardly be seen that way.
As for what a college undergraduate taking a film course might or might not know, you'd be surprised but not all young people are totally conversant with the film lore of the 1970s. I know people for whom '70s film is like ancient history.
Mark Twain: yeah, if I was teaching Huckleberry Finn I'd definitely want to discuss the use of the n word as part of the general instruction. It's bound to come up anyway, so pretending it isn't there, or pretending that there won't be some people at least uncomfortable with it from the get go seems fairly obtuse. To not recognize that there are people in our society who may have been traumatized by the use of the word, and may need some discussion around this, is, well, pretty oblivious to the reality around us.
Elie Weisel: probably no trigger warning needed, though it's been a while since I read any of his work. Has anyone to your knowledge ever asked for one? Then again, "The Painted Bird" might be a different story. There's a very graphic rape and murder scene that I would definitely want my students to be aware of before they dive into the book. Same with Primo Levi's "Survival at Auschwitz." I'd certainly leave a space for my students to react as I would expect many people would: shock, depression, disbelief, anger. I'd say upfront that these are reactions they might have, and to be prepared for them. To do otherwise I think would be a disservice.
I have tremendous respect for the power of literature, the power of images. I'm not blithe about their impact on others, especially young people, especially young people entrusted, to some extent, to my care. To treat depictions of rape, violence, racism, genocide, as just another walk in the park seems to me to say that art in general is more trivial than it truly is.
I have no problem allowing individual classes to be run as individual professors see fit. But the tone of the university pronouncement seems to be dissing people who provide trigger warnings and safe spaces, and certainly people who might want them. The whole tone of this thread is one of "right on, let's not coddle the snowflakes." And those professors who launch into, say, "The Painted Bird" or "A Clockwork Orange" without some preparation shouldn't be surprised if the works elicit some fairly extreme reactions.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)I see it as a statement that the university won't formally create any safe spaces nor post trigger warnings, and I support that choice. I don't see it as a prohibition against teachers using "common courtesy" nor issuing whatever warnings they see fit.
I would also expect, for instance, that the school will still offer some sort of Women's Studies course, which by its nature creates a form of safe space even if it's not etched in university policy.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)And my reaction, at first blush, might well have been more to some of the posts in this thread, and to a certain tone, than to the gist of the policy itself.
Best wishes.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)No harm done--it was a good discussion!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Get tough, folks. The Far Right IS tougher, and clearly it likes lording it over some who want intellectual South Beaches where cops bum-rush the riff-faff.
Don't forget that: Bans, No-No word lists, and little pneumatic castles-in-sky must be enforced by cops, police, and coercion. And did I mention Cops?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)No more Trigglypuff bullshit.
Sure that may mean more Milos on campus, but the university campus is a marketplace of ideas. All ideas are open to criticism - the good ones survive, the bad ones get laughed out.
Trigger warnings and safe spaces are now getting laughed out.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)It is the Reich that actually pushes political correctness.
Just try to go on a college campus and declare that not all
veterans are heroes. The Reich will freak out on you.
And it is the Reich that has trained youngsters to disrupt
progressive speech on campus. (As a guest Prof., I was
physically assaulted by a YAFFER at Cleveland State.)
I'm a Vietnam vet and member of Vets For Peace.
Many on the Reich try to prevent us from speaking in public
every chance they get.
Come on DU, don't fall for this Reich Wing crap !!!
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)So does everyone else, though.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)Students in my classes had structured debates on the
most controversial issues of the day.
And we had speakers of all stripes, the only rule being
that they had to be prepared to face tough questions.
But to me, the classroom is not just about the freedom of
speech of the professor. The students are equally entitled
to speak freely.
Of course there are limits to free speech - no personal attacks,
no threats, no making stuff up (without getting called on it).
The way a prof can best teach tolerance is to practice it.
bucolic_frolic
(42,676 posts)Political correctness is yet another meme used by the right to
try to silence the left. We've had
Liberal bias in the media
Political Correctness
Birther Truthiness
Guilt by Benghazi Investigation, and now
Undercover Voters
The right uses the media to push this crap to keep themselves in power
We must call them out on these tactics!
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)last few years have been conservatives. So at least from appearances, it is the left that is insisting on not allowing uncomfortable ideas on campus.
What's even worse is when the speech has already been paid for. Now we're paying the conservatives to do nothing!
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Waiting for the video of a shrieking student chewing out an Administrator for even THINKING about allowing diversity of thought on campus.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)and see what happens . .
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc_SsqroBqmkANYy1KsHobZ3DTdl9j4HjLNOnK3PDx9TNzMXA/viewform?c=0&w=1
As an academic daring to criticize Israel, the Reich will not just ask for a "safe place,"
No, they will go directly after your job and career.
How many profs were threatened for daring to question the 2003 invasion of Iraq? I sure was.
It's utterly wrong to think that PC is only on the left.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)To decline to show up to hear such intellectual lights as Michelle Malkin or David Dude--I hope it's organized so they don't lost credit for it.
Sexually, or otherwise, traumatized people can just man or woman up-no need for warnings at all.
Right?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Yes, it is.
While I wouldn't want to be subjected to Malkin or Duke, I also don't subscribe to the idea that students need to be coddled to the point that a space is reserved specifically for their comfort so that may never hear an idea with which they disagree or are even offended.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)As long as students have the right to opt out without penalty. I don't have "triggers" it took me a very long time to understand the concept, but I took the time to do so, so I get it. I dislike the idea of triggers being trivialized here.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)They are mostly set up by the young college Republicans or whatnot. People like Coulter and that idiot Milo are invited for $$$ by young Conservative idiots, and thrive on people trying to protest and shut them down to create controversy and basically stage a dog and pony show where protestors unwittingly become part of the act.
Ignore them, and they lose pretty much all their power.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)I don't mind the policy, just he idea that "triggers" can't be a real thing
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)You and your PTSD or other trauma are too much of am inconvenience to me for me to give a damn if a quick warning my have helped you avoid a panic attack by giving you a minute to prepare for what might happen. It says you don't matter. This is the kind of crap I expect to hear from conservatives. Liberals usually have a bit more compassion. At least enough to write a single sentence.
Because while no one is asking you to fix their struggles for them or hold their hand, what they are asking is that you care enough to write a single sentence on that article or in that syllabus, just enough to give them the chance to opt out or put some self-care in place if they need to.
Their request isnt ridiculous.
Whats ridiculous is that people are still debating about this, as if your convenience trumps their trauma.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/07/opposing-trigger-warnings/?utm_content=buffer24238&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Bettie
(15,998 posts)"trigger"?
Some people fear insects. Need a trigger warning for that.
Snakes, children, clowns, dogs, cats, crabs, canoes, running water, still water, bottled water, deep water, shallow water, hot water, cold water, showers, darkness, light, sudden changes from darkness to light, the sound of the vacuum cleaner, any sound at all, Ted Nugent (to be fair, that one seems to be pretty universal)....and so on and so forth. There are millions of things that might cause someone to feel bad or uncomfortable. I know someone who can not sit in a public place without first wiping down everything in the vicinity with Clorox wipes. Germs are her trigger.
The point is that in order to cover anything and everything that someone might find disturbing or "triggering" a two page syllabus will end up ten pages long, just due to warnings and lists of possible triggers.
I've had a lot of shit happen to me over the course of my life. I was sexually abused by my father from the time I was 3 until I left home. My mother was physically and emotionally abusive. I lost my first child during labor. A lot of things bring parts of those things back and no one ever offered me a "safe space" or a warning. I just learned to deal with it. Like a grown-up.
From all of that, I learned that people are not as fragile as some might think they are.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)The trigger warnings are a courtesy of raising awareness of potential common triggers. It doesn't take a genius to know that violence, particularly sexual violence or war violence could trigger someone's PTSD.
If you don't mind being a part of a movement of hate directed towards vulnerability, by all means take a stand against giving a crap about other people's mental health.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)trust me.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)There is an undertone here I find annoying. There are people who have been significantly damaged by one event or another and I can think of any number of instances where your garden variety insensitivity can cause harm. I don't see any reason for it.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)harassment or bullying, but rather the free and open exchange of ideas and the principle of free expression.
Peoples' feelings should be respected, to be sure, but that shouldn't extend to censorship.
I suspect the undertone comes more from the spin of the article about the letter, than the letter itself. Also, I think the conversation could be handled better without knee-jerking on all sides, along with crisp definitions; like, is a "safe space" a group for LGBT students and their allies, where they don't want homophobes and fundamentalists in their meeting room, yelling at them while they try to hold their meetings? That, to my mind, is a legit use of the concept.
If a "safe space" is taken as "The entire campus needs to be protected from Bill Maher because he said dumb things about Muslims or Vaccines, once" -- that's different.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)The concept is fine. I'm sure Chis Christie has to speak somewhere...
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)It's not a good look for us that nearly all of the campus speakers that have been cancelled over the last few years due to threats/protests have been from the conservative wing. These students are giving liberalism a bad name; in fact, I don't even think most of them know what it means.
bucolic_frolic
(42,676 posts)but all the blending of perspectives is causing loss of diversity
It's a constant survival-of-the-fittest intellectual struggle
Free market economics, for example, is trumping most others
Supply-side held sway for a time, as did Keynesian theory
On the outs has been Von Mises, Marx, socialists obviously
Each has merit under various political and economic conditions at different
time periods
Put them all in a blender and what have you got? Not much left.
Same thing with psychology
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Like this one?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)The University of Chicago is a private university.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Yes, but it takes federal money.
To be honest, though, I really did think it was a public university until you told me otherwise. I learn something new every day.
Chiquitita
(752 posts)I bet the anecdote about students at lunch is a ref to uchicago's president. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-create-inclusive-campus-communities-first-create-safe-places/2016/01/15/069f3a66-bb94-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html?utm_term=.0ad37d204142
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)A group of black students were having lunch together in a campus dining hall. There were a couple of empty seats, and two white students asked if they could join them. One of the black students asked why, in light of empty tables nearby. The reply was that these students wanted to stretch themselves by engaging in the kind of uncomfortable learning the college encourages. The black students politely said no. Is this really so scandalous?
I find two aspects of this story to be of particular interest.
First, the familiar question is Why do the black students eat together in the cafeteria? I think I have some insight on this based on 16 years of living on or near a college campus: Many groups eat together in the cafeteria, but people seem to notice only when the students are black. Athletes often eat with athletes; fraternity and sorority members with their Greek brothers and sisters; a cappella group members with fellow singers; actors with actors; marching band members with marching band members; and so on.
And that brings me to the second aspect: We all deserve safe spaces. Those black students had every right to enjoy their lunches in peace. There are plenty of times and places to engage in uncomfortable learning, but that wasnt one of them. The white students, while well-meaning, didnt have the right to unilaterally decide when uncomfortable learning would take place.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)to not be someone's teachable moment or learning experience. The white students may have been sincere, but ultimately what they were asking was to objectify individuals for their own purpose.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But it aint the U of C.
4lbs
(6,756 posts)any of this "trigger warning" and "safe space" garbage.
If someone said something you didn't like...... you walked away.
Hey, what a novel concept!
I personally would just put my headphones on and listen to my favorite FM radio station.
For millenials, FM radio is what people listened to before MP3s and streaming! That, and these shiny circular plastic things called CDs.
Really, college is where you prove that you are grown up and want to be treated like an adult.
Part of that is realizing that not everybody has the same likes and views as you do.
So, if a person or group is speaking at so-and-so hall about a topic you don't like....
Guess what? You don't have to go and listen to them!
johnp3907
(3,723 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 25, 2016, 08:10 PM - Edit history (2)
They ask important questions like "Have media taken the Trump bashing too far?"
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/amercian-journalism-collapsing-our-eyes
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/theres-no-western-civilization-without-christianity
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/its-america-save-western-civilization
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/what-early-feminists-meant-equal-pay-equal-work
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/why-women-still-arent-funny
That site is a conservative/libertarian dung heap, and it's sad to see how many DUers fall for this crap.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)[img][/img]
I mean, the letter exists and came from the U of C.
why, it even says "freedom of expression"---- oh boy, does THAT principle make some people mad!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/25/university-of-chicago-trigger-warnings/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-university-chicago-safe-spaces-trigger-warnings-edit-20160825-story.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/university-chicago-dean-sends-letter-trigger-warnings-article-1.2765826
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-25/the-university-of-chicago-tells-class-of-2020-it-does-not-support-trigger-warnings-safe-spaces
http://time.com/4466021/uchicago-trigger-warnings/
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/08/university-of-chicago-bans-trigger-warnings-safe-spaces.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/08/25/the_university_of_chicago_sent_incoming_freshmen_a_letter_decrying_safe.html
megahertz
(126 posts)...and the only other sites running that article were Fox and the Univ. of Chicago school newspaper. I probably chose the Intellectual Takeout link since it included several links to additional sources, and relevant articles about the topic.
LS_Editor
(893 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,076 posts).
Students would come into class and complain that certain subjects offended them, or were contrary to their political beliefs. They try to suppress the exchange of thought in the class, and the professors stop that immediately. As adults, the world cannot guarantee a person will be in a safe space, blocked from offensive material. They are told to develop these skills or ask for assistance obtaining the coping skills needed to engage and handle things that offend them.
Depending on the class, some discussions can be politically confrontational and others can bring up suggestive literary works that illicit strong sexual over and undertones. The funny thing is when an MRA-type or self-affecting type tries to inject their beliefs into the classroom, to make others feel intimidated, it backfires. After a few classes, and enlightenment by others, they back off on their disruptions. This, is what the conservatives hate, the challenge to their screwed up and misogynistic positions--calling it liberal indoctrination. When really just common decency and humanity are shown.
.
mothra1orbit
(231 posts)but I'm under the impression that "triggering" and "safe spaces" are related to sort of PTSD, for women who've been raped, for example. I don't think anyone expects to be protected against ideas as such.
I think, though, that if these students who feel they need warnings about triggering and safe spaces are going to attend college, or get a job, or live outside the cloister, they need to get therapy to help them deal with things that trigger them before they venture into the world. It must be awful to always be concerned that something said or seen would seen one into a panic or catatonia--I'm not trying to be flip here because I've never witnessed anyone who was triggered by something.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)This is a horrible precedent, and the fact that it's being cheered here is a sad thing.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)A "safe space" has been bastardized to become a place where people exclude dissent.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Second of all no it hasn't. When you're stomping all over "safe spaces" remember that it's marginalized students who are creating them, that they live in a world far more "real" than the one you are trying to emulate. A discussion about rape, for example, needs to be a safe space where victims can talk about their experiences without some dude to arguing about what really is rape anyway?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Then legislatures and court rooms are not safe spaces.
Safe spaces in public venues are groups appropriating public spaces and making unenforceable demands that others obey.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Like here at DU, for example. DU is a safe space, with many nested safe spaces. It is a liberal place where Clinton is the accepted candidate for president, and anyone disrupting that vibe is ejected. Within that existing framework is many nested safe spaces, like the pets group, the RKBA group, the LGBTQIA group, the A&A group.
If you have a problem with safe spaces you should not be here.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The University of Chicago is publicly funded. If they have a problem with public accommodation of publicly funded spaces they should not go to those places.
Suppose someone did set up a "safe space" at the university but someone not invited entered? What then? Have them arrested? Physically eject them?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You are being deliberately obtuse here. Are you saying that anyone should be able to invade any space they want? You would intentionally go to a group for rape survivors on the grounds that you don't believe in safe spaces and make them uncomfortable? You want to intimidate Islamic students who have created a group to talk about their experiences in America?
Any group on a college campus is a public group, but if you come to disrupt you could be asked to leave, and if you continue then every campus has security to keep disruption down.
I ask why you want people who have been traumatized to feel unsafe in their learning environment? What's the danger of giving people a place to talk for an hour or two about their experiences without hearing "well, not all X" every 5 minutes?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)If your psyche is that fragile, then you need a therapist, not a university-sponsored group.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)who get called racist slurs since they were wee little children, who have spent their whole lives looking over their shoulder, finally get to a place where they learn that they aren't alone. That their experiences aren't unique, and they finally are able to gather in a place where they can talk about these experiences with others who have shared them in a place where they don't have to look over their shoulder, or worry that someone is going to come in and say that their experiences aren't real because this one police officer gave some guy an ice cream.
Nope, might offend white people, gotta put a stop to it.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Or find a therapist.
The only way somebody else's speech can "invalidate" someone else's experiences is if the latter person is a liar. If the very idea of somebody challenging your worldview is traumatizing to your psyche, then you have a lot of growing up to do and probably need professional help.
Replace "white people" with any other racial group, and you've basically summed up safe spaces in one sentence.
I don't believe for a second that Hispanics, black people, Asians, or any other racial or ethnic group is so thoroughly plagued by emotional and psychological fragility that they need special protection from others and can't engage in debate and grow as individuals. But then again, I'm not a social justice racist.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Thanks for the revelations.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And have to be afforded special protections from the opinions of others, specifically because of the color of their skin.
You're the one arguing in favor of a return to segregation on campus, and just like George Wallace himself, you're saying you're doing it for the benefit of the minorities.
I don't make blanket judgments about people based on something as arbitrary as skin color. Character, personality, and individual achievement mean more to me than something a person has absolutely no control over. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case with you.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I'm gonna stop this discussion because DU is a safe space that you enjoy with no self-awareness at all. You have a long way to come as a progressive.
Maybe try discussionist, that's not a safe space, might fit you better than enjoying a place you fight to deny others.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I'm not a progressive. I'm a liberal. "Progressive" has just come to mean ridiculous identity politics, intellectual dishonesty, fragility, and borderline cult-like behavior.
Lack of self-awareness is the person arguing in defense of safe spaces telling someone with different ideas to get out of his safe space, proving the other person's point that such spaces are for protection of weak ideas and not physical protection, and then declaring victory.
DU is for liberal-minded people working to elect Democrats. I've voted Democratic my entire adult life and plan to do so this November. It's not solely for regressives who can't handle open discussion of their ideas.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It's as simple as that.
If a group requires private space they should retire to private space they own, rent, or are invited.
No one is claiming groups are forbidden to meet privately, only that they don't get to dictate terms to others in common areas.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Got it.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)then those demanding safe spaces need to seek professional psychological healthcare.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)DU is a safe space you enjoy, and that is a privilege you want to deny women and minorities with no self awareness at all. Clearly you have a long way to go as a progressive.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)an appeal to emotions.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)1600 fewer freshmen enrolling this year than last.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)DU is by far more extreme in policing opinion than any college club for minority students. Nobody ever complains about this unless it's a small group of 20 year old minority college students: then wanting to not be murdered for who they are becomes "tyranny."
What a fucking crock. Can't believe lots of DU buys into this shit, but that's what you get with liberalism that has all the leftism removed. Intellectual Takeout is a right-wing site by the way.
Kilgore
(1,733 posts)Great to hear!
DeltaLitProf
(766 posts). . . and as adults, many smaller state schools are now embracing the "customer service" model of education. That will of course mean avoiding controversial topics, not holding students to standards of accuracy or sound critical thinking and, finally, grade inflation.
Oh well.
hunter
(38,264 posts)A university shouldn't deny its students that pleasure.
We'd love to have you speak at our university, sir, but we don't guarantee the students or staff will listen respectfully, or even that they won't roll your limousine over with you in it.
When did we become a nation where our big shots must be coddled with "safe places" and protected with "trigger warnings?"
I'd fucking laugh if somebody put a pie in the face of any oligarch, or the lackey of an oligarch.
I'd fucking laugh if a crowd threw dildos at some frumpy conservative like Bill O'Reilly or Roger Ailes.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)What's even worse, often the schools have already paid these idiots for their speeches!
hunter
(38,264 posts)Things won't change until U.S. Americans learn how to stand up for themselves.
In too many ways we're a beaten, ignorant, downtrodden people.
Voting for a clown like Trump is not the answer.
Not every opinion is worthy of respect.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)hunter
(38,264 posts)I can think of all sorts.
You can't?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)hunter
(38,264 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)That sentiment has worked out so well in every country where it has been tried.
hunter
(38,264 posts)Or do we have to be polite to fascists under threat of expulsion, arrest, pepper spray, or worse.
There's a difference between authoritarians speaking to a captive audience, and ordinary people speaking and acting freely.
How do you feel about unions and strikes?
Go ahead, I'm sure you want to tell me...
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Damn skippy. I never said I want a bunch of college kids forced to listen to Ann Coulter while sitting on their hands.
Unions? Love 'em. Strikes? Unfortunate but sometimes necessary.
Anything else?
hunter
(38,264 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)The moment it gets physical, though, it's stifling free speech. Heckle Ann Coulter or Michele Bachman? More power to you.
Throd
(7,208 posts)The road to Utopia is oftentimes messy, but once we're there, it will be awesome.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Their policy is aimed at.
hunter
(38,264 posts)They just want to suck face with wealthy donors, and assure them a polite captive audience.
Throd
(7,208 posts)It is as simple as that.
hunter
(38,264 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)No matter how you spin it, you want to define people and their thoughts, and then shut them down if you don't like them.
Don't whine when they try to do it to you. They think their cause is just as righteous as yours.
hunter
(38,264 posts)And most importantly, free to tell nasty people in power to fuck off.
I'm not "hiding" behind Woody.
To a great extent his message was shat upon and obscured by the fascists and and their lackeys who demand their opponents be polite..
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Absolutely. What you seem to be espousing in other parts of this thread, though, seems like you are advocating censorship to me. If I'm wrong, then I apologize.
Just remember - if a government can censor anyone, then it can censor you too.
Response to hunter (Reply #165)
Post removed
Throd
(7,208 posts)Zealots always assume the purity and reason of their viewpoint supercedes the right of others to express theirs.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Actual liberals find this shit horrific.
hunter
(38,264 posts)Why is it the people who claim that "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" are for losers live in the biggest fucking safe place there is, with walls and armed stooges to defend them.
I want people of privilege to be disturbed, and maybe a little afraid.
Life's fucking easy if your white, male, straight, mentally healthy, and affluent. You are protected by your herd.
Hell, the herd may even protect you if your're not all those things, providing you kiss enough ass and stay out of "trouble."
But terrifying? No. It's just an internet forum.
I've been beaten bloody in and by the "real" world. This is just words.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You pick out a class of people you don't like, assume each of them embodies certain bogus cartoon-villainish stereotypes, and threaten violence and intimidation against them, always operating under a delusion of righteousness, and ultimately in the pursuit of rescinding inconvenient liberties.
Never go full Marxist.
hunter
(38,264 posts)Maybe the anarchist label will stick better.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Thank you for proving once again why this policy was needed.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)principles of free inquiry and expression as articulated in the letter.
That's why they're one of the best colleges in the world, actually.
hunter
(38,264 posts)Just because.
The U.S.A. has too many fearful people afraid to make any kind of trouble, and too many people who, when the authorities are stomping on their faces, do little more than politely ask the authorities to stop.
I've seen the Blues Brothers Illinois Nazi scene posted in other threads, and posted it myself a few times, and it's just crazy the number of people who don't think it's funny, instead they get their underwear in knots about how we mustn't condone violence, or that we must be concerned what might happen if it was the Nazis forcing us to jump from the bridge.
Well, fuck the Nazis, and fuck living in fear.
Fuck everyone who would prefer an orderly, secure society at the expense of everything that's worth living for.
Life is a messy business. If somebody smacked NRA chairman Wayne LaPierre in the face with a giant silicone sex toy and gave him a black eye, I'd laugh.
If somebody smacked me in the face with a giant silicone sex toy and gave me a black eye, I'd laugh too, knowing I probably deserved it, but not, thank God, for anything so heinous and perverted as gun fuckery.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)My god, it's fucking classic.
I guess nothing much surprises me, anymore, given the people here who think it should be illegal to draw blasphemous cartoons or look at the sports illustrated swimsuit issue.
But seriously, I highly doubt there's a big lineup of Neo-Nazis on the speaking roster at the University of Chicago. I could be wrong.
hunter
(38,264 posts)... probably not to level of rolling their limousines with them inside.
I'll confess, I've personally used physical intimidation on a couple of occasions.
There was this "geologist" in our town who was the darling of the fundamentalist churches. He was constantly weaseling his way into our public schools as a guest lecturer. He had all sorts of pretty rocks and fossils, he was charming and entertaining, teachers and school administrators loved him. Sadly, he's a creationist, and unfortunately for him he showed up on the roster of my kid's outdoor school program.
I had a bit of internet chat with him, and he agreed to meet me the week before outdoor school started. He was happy to talk to an interested parent, maybe I could even help with his presentation since I was going to be at camp and had a few interesting fossils in my own collection.
He didn't know my wife and I met as science teachers in Los Angeles. I'm an amateur evolutionary biologist with some formal training. Evolutionary biology was the concentration for my biology major. I love evolutionary biology. I'll happily agree to menial work removing tar and crud from bones with powerful solvents, or crapping in a bucket and weeks without properly bathing.
I was a bad biology major, but even worse in general ed classes where I could be disruptive. A somewhat prominent paleontologist had got me back into school after I'd been kicked out twice, probably because I amused him enough that he'd invite me along on field work even when I was taking mandatory "time outs" from school. He's the only reason I graduated. Everyone else was done with me. I burned through multiple thesis advisers.
But I know a bit of science...
For some reason, probably based on the strange autistic spectrum quality of my writing, people don't imagine there's been times I've enjoyed the same physique as Michael Phelps, except that my own swimming is very clumsy and ugly. But I can swim all day. I like hoodies too. I also share Phelp's basic physical measurements. I can loom over most people which is still really surprising to me because when I quit high school I was still a squeaky little chew toy for the bullies, and I had no hair on my face or anywhere else but the mop on my head.
For the meeting with Mr. Creationist Geologist I borrowed my brother-in-law's big old GMC truck, painted Border Patrol green. I wore a flannel shirt and jeans and boots, lumberjack style, and a bit queer. I had a ponytail. I liked to use numbers, millions and billions of numbers, and complex math too. The poor fellow, he called in sick for the entire week of outdoor school. I felt a little bad that I'd overplayed it.
I'm the mild kid in my family. As a kid I witnessed my mom taking loaded guns away from fools or getting into bitch-slapping altercations with Catholic bishops who deserved it.
The "delicate flowers" have exposed themselves in this thread. If you can't take a hit in the face from a big silicone dildo swung in anger, then you are the loser.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Certainly doesn't belong in the public schools, I mean fuck.
Although past a certain point- really, when they were still pretty little- I would almost prefer just sitting back and watching them naturally take those arguments apart themselves.
I actually have had to try and coach them to soften their abrasiveness (me! ) on stuff like Atheism- really, they've been a lot like I was as a kid, certainly strident. And they came to it on their own; they know I don't believe but I've been adamant from the beginning; "don't let anyone tell you what to think, or accept that they know everything and are infallible- even me. ESPECIALLY me. I want you to weigh the evidence and come to your own conclusions. Keep an open mind and always be prepared to re-evaluate in the face of new evidence"
I just tell them; accept also that like you, other people are gonna come to their own conclusions. Defend yours in a debate, for sure- but respect that other people have their own ideas, and heads to contain them.
Of course, some ideas are more inane that others. On that, we've had one or two situations where creationism has come up too. I think we did a riverboat tour once where the guy said something "some people say these canyons are millions of years old. Some people think they're a lot younger". If it hadn't been so noisy on the boat, my daughter would have gone off on him. Oh, man. She was all ready to.
You actually did the right thing, I think, with that dude in your anecdote, because if all he was there to do was to sneak in some proselytizing under the "guise" of actually teaching kids the relevant subject matter, screw that, it's bullshit, if someone really NEEDS to play the "soul saving" game, at least be up front about it and let people decide themselves if they want to waste their time on what you're peddling.
In terms of the U of C, I doubt that Ken Ham is gonna be giving a natural "history" presentation there any time soon. He probably melts like the Wicked Witch of the West if he gets within 50 miles of the Field Museum, anyway. But I have no patience for Creationists. I got to ban Ken Ham from DU once when he was trolling while I was on MIRT, that was a real highlight of my experience here.
I was probably a lot like you, at one point. I was a skinny, nerdy, glasses wearing, probably apsergers-y kid (although back then no one had any definitions, much less knew what to do with, kids like me) who also didn't keep his mouth shut about annoying things like not believing in God, so I got my ass kicked a bit back then.
I still don't shut up, but once I turned about 14 I got a lot bigger and much more muscular, so people left me alone. Plus I think by the world has caught up, thankfully, and it's a lot easier to be nerdy or quirky or an Atheist or gay or not interested in sports or someone who wears black nail polish, than it used to be.
And I'm not big on physical intimidation, myself, not at all- although certainly it's apparent when I'm pissed. Generally though I seem to be pretty good at relaxing people or de-escalating things, at least in person (DU, maybe, not so much).
I do support the occasional gentle dildo fling as political protest where applicable. Sometimes, these things just got to be done.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Reread your posts on this thread. You're simultaneously saying safe spaces, security bubbles, and kumbaya groups are the greatest thing ever invented, AND saying that it's EVERYONE ELSE that's too touchy and insulated.
Seriously, you should be selling popcorn outside the threads you participate in.
hunter
(38,264 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)This whole mass hysteria about "easily offended college students" is complete RW bullshit and shame all the "progressives" falling for this shit.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)When prominent comedians refuse to play colleges because they consider the students to be easily offended. Unless of course you think Chris Rock is a conservative shill.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Every single one of these universities has had some collection of special snowflakes who've been coddled their entire lives throwing fits over something on campus that somebody on Tumblr told them was misogynistic or racist.
romanic
(2,841 posts)And those colleges you posted are feeling the after effects of those misguided protests; Mizzou especially is hurting with a drop in it's freshman class.
bagelsforbreakfast
(1,427 posts)Just saying...
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)for reactionaries under the auspices of free speech. Essentially it's saying that if people object to Milo or Trump because of their bigotry then those people have NO RIGHT to have that objection be sustained because people exercising their free speech that they don't like a particular's speakers content is apparently...violating free speech. Essentially it's deciding that the free speech of reactionaries is more important than the free speech of non-reactionaries.
Like seriously, what is more safespacey than declaring that protest is a violation of free speech?
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)than the right wing looking one
https://chicagomaroon.com/2016/08/24/university-to-freshmen-dont-expect-safe-spaces-or-trigger-warnings/
I have my own issue with safe spaces and generally do not support them; "trigger warnings,' OTOH, are sometimes necessary and I don't mind them if judiciously used.
ancianita
(35,813 posts)Not saying thisdiscussion is moot, but we'll see if any issues get future attention in the Chicago Maroon or other local media.
This is, by all appearances, the safest space in Chicago. When classes are in, there is a security guard at every campus intersection and streets surrounding the campus proper; also there are well lit 24-hour call boxes all over the Hyde Park area, shuttle buses designated for off-campus housing around nearby Lake Michigan. The UC police department is big, with all the police powers of the Chicago PD. All of which is particularly important for families of students attending from other continents. The Asian population here is big.
I live two blocks from campus. The physical safe spaces exist. The rest is academic.
question everything
(47,271 posts)saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)a Chicago native? No need to respond, thank you to Oprah, George Lukas and President Obama, to list but a few on my list of great minds.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Politically incorrect is not the same thing as bigoted. I'd love to know how men are somehow the "dominant social group" since women outnumber them on campus and in the country at large.
The problem isn't protesting or debating. It's the fact that "protesting" happens to be taking the form of violating freedom of the press, assaulting speakers on stage, and denying other people their rights to speech.
Given how expansive these terms have become, just about everyone who seems to not march in lockstep with a certain ideology can be fit into these categories.
Universities don't "grant legitimacy" or endorse speakers they allow to use their facilities. Universities are supposed to be open marketplaces of ideas, and most believe that allowing viewpoints at odds with their students is not only in keeping with that spirit, but healthy for their emotional and intellectual development. People you disagree with are going to voice their opinions somewhere, so it might as well be in a place where you and others can have a discussion on the merits of their arguments; otherwise, you're going to end up woefully unprepared for when you encounter these people after college.
And no, walking up on stage and assaulting Milo Yiannopoulos is not considered peaceful protest.
What the fuck do right-wing donors have to do with this? This is just a ridiculous attempt at a boogeyman.
Universities don't ignore sexual assault. What people are at odds with is the flawed "1 in 5" statistic based on a self-reporting survey covering only one year of students and including expanded definitions, rather than the more comprehensive long-term study which found it to be less than 1% and in fact safer than the surrounding communities. This is not saying that rape and assault on campus don't exist, as this strawman thinks.
Harassment is against the law, and against nearly all university student codes of conduct. If a student is being harassed based on their race, sexual orientation, gender, or ethnicity, they can report it to university officials who will discipline the party responsible, or contact the police and have a restraining order filed.
"Safe spaces" exist to shut out differing opinions, which in the world of identity politics that inextricably links ideas with identity, gets called harassment.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You're talking about one of the most highly regarded institutions of higher learning in the country, if not the world.
What specific anti-science kookery are you worried about U of C students learning? Got any examples?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)democratically elected leaders.
You have wasted enough of my time.
btw- it was a cartoon. Get over yourself.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)he's not lecturing about "science", is he?
"you've wasted enough of my time" = "I made a very specific assertion and you want me to back it up, and I can't"
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but the people at U of C have a real, legitimate point, and it's not all driven by "right wing donors", either.
It's especially funny when the same people who demand the right to shut down "anti-science kooks" cozy up to religious fundamentalist wack-a-doos when they find it convenient for their narrative.