8 ms·

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

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.

secabeen 10y ago
No, because the statement expressly says "freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others."
- gcoda 10y ago
  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.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    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.
    - gcoda 10y ago
      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
- gcoda 10y ago
  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
- panglott 10y ago
  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.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  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.
joesmo 10y ago
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.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  "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.
jfarmer 10y ago
> 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.

secabeen 10y ago

No, because the statement expressly says "freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others."

gcoda 10y ago
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.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  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.
  - gcoda 10y ago
    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
gcoda 10y ago
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
panglott 10y ago
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.
norea-armozel 10y ago
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.

joesmo 10y ago

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.

norea-armozel 10y ago
"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.

jfarmer 10y ago

> 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.