12 ms·

This is tough. With the aspirations of "civility and mutual respect" along with "rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement", I would hope any truly eg

by basseq 10y ago

This is tough. With the aspirations of "civility and mutual respect" along with "rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement", I would hope any truly egregious edge cases disappear. In the middle, I think people have the right to remove themselves from discussions—civil or otherwise—that they don't want to listen to or engage. But that right doesn't limit others' ability to have those selfsame discussions in public or private venues, nor require others to give you advance warning about it. And finally, U. Chicago has the right to set degree requirements. If you are unable or unwilling to meet those requirements (e.g., not participating in discussions), then you have no place at that institution. After all, the "real world" won't hold your hand. So... Trigger Warnings ("A trigger warning is advance notice about subject material that may be difficult for certain students to read, hear or see.") U. Chicago says they "don't support" them. I think actively discouraging them in every case seems extreme, but the institution simply can't be required to provide trigger warnings in every case for every individual. In other words, a lack of trigger warning doesn't mean you won't be triggered. Safe Spaces ("A safe space is a place they can go to avoid those subjects or heal after confronting them.") U. Chicago doesn't condone the creation of safe spaces. Similarly, I think this stance is extreme. Safe spaces may be necessary for individuals. But U. Chicago is under no obligation to provide them for you or excuse you from other discussions as a result. In other words, U. Chicago isn't a place for people who don't want to discuss issues that make them uncomfortable. Which, on its face, seems reasonable to me.

judah 10y ago
Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. Viewed in this light, the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness is actually a softening of extremism: allowing for, rather than actively silencing, diverse political discourse. This is in stark contrast to neighbor Chicago school DePaul, who last month blocked[0] Jewish conservative minority voice Ben Shapiro from speaking. The extreme position here is blocking and preventing free speech and ideas through safe spaces and trigger warnings. Dismantling these, as the U of C has done, is worth celebrating. I hope they are the first of many. [0]: http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7923 http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7923
- nomat 10y ago
  I assume people like Shapiro collect fees from the school for speaking, so would it be correct to frame the issue as students not wanting their money to go into the pockets of a person that they don't support?
  - Erik816 10y ago
    Which is the "student vs consumer" argument. If you are a consumer, then you complain about how your money is not being spent to match your existing preferences. If you are student, you are there to be exposed to things you disagree with and don't support, so you don't complain when the University provides and pays for speakers (or professors) you disagree with.
    - nomat 10y ago
      That is a good point, and I agree with you when the case is that the idea or person you disagree with is a necessary part of the curriculum/class. But in the case where it's an extracurricular activity or student organization that isn't a core part of the degree, then why doesn't a student have the right to complain? edit: I believe that students are also consumers. The two are not mutually exclusive. Tuition is pretty high these days. I guess the difficult part is finding the right balance.
      - talmand 10y ago
        Why should student A who sees the negative of a speaker have the power of veto over student B who sees the positive of the speaker? What happens when student B complains about a speaker that student A wants to hear? Do we just ban everybody or allow a diversity of opinions? For that matter, if the speaker is invited by a student organization that the complaining student is not a member of, why should that student complain? Just don't go.
        jonlucc 10y ago
        Why not allow both? The group can have their speaker within whatever guidelines the school has (some schools ban foul language or other school-wide policies), and the other group is allowed to protest. Just like the real world where another company can do what it wants within the law, but I can also protest what and how they do it.
jordigh 10y ago
> "A trigger warning is advance notice about subject material that may be difficult for certain students to read, hear or see." But that's not what trigger warnings are for... it's not just about mild discomfort. They're to prevent panic attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger Whether trigger warnings are effective or not is a different matter, but of course if you portray them as being about being offended or mild discomfort that they sound utterly stupid.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- xg15 10y ago
  If you have a phobia, one natural reaction is to anticipate in which situations the "trigger" will occur and to actively avoid such situations. It's well-known in psychology however that this behavior actually reinforces the phobia and prevents it from healing. Trigger warnings seem like the same strategy only elevated on an institutional level. So while they do prevent panic attacks, they would actually do the traumatized more harm than good. The other thing is that people can develop phobias against almost everything. So no matter how many trigger warnings the university put up, there could always be one group which finds their particular triggers not marked up well enough.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Jeema101 10y ago
  Avoidance in the form of 'trigger warnings' may actually worsen the underlying problem for people with PTSD because avoidance can strengthen the underlying fear. Successful treatment often actually involves confronting the fear, little by little, until it no longer causes discomfort: "Exposure therapy is a type of cognitive behavioral therapy[118] that involves assisting trauma survivors to re-experience distressing trauma-related memories and reminders in order to facilitate habituation and successful emotional processing of the trauma memory. Most exposure therapy programs include both imaginal confrontation with the traumatic memories and real-life exposure to trauma reminders; this therapy modality is well supported by clinical evidence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
weberc2 10y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't universities been designating their entire campuses as "safe spaces"? Disinviting speakers and silencing students whose world views are insufficiently progressive? Or perhaps these issues are distinct, and I'm mistaken?
- icelancer 10y ago
  Sure, a lot of the liberal-leaning authoritarian-left ones have been. The University of Chicago is about as far from that as it gets.
  - weberc2 10y ago
    Sure, my comment wasn't about University of Chicago specifically, but about American universities generally. Thanks for the clarification though, I wasn't aware. :)
collyw 10y ago
Its not tough at all. So called trigger warnings never existed until recently and very few people had problems. I never heard of anyone breaking down in class due to difficult subject matters in my 5 years at university (or after).
- mikekchar 10y ago
  It happens. It happened in a high school class I was teaching once. Out of the blue my student just started crying. I tried to ask her what the problem was, but it made it worse. I later found that it was a PTSD issue, but I never did find out exactly what triggered it (and I don't remember exactly what we were talking about). The student eventually had to drop my course. She wrote me a very nice letter apologising profusely and saying that she thought I was a good teacher, but that she couldn't continue with the class. Having said that, I'm not sure a trigger warning is necessarily a good idea. It's a pretty serious situation and I don't think that you could come up with a blanket solution that would work.
- therealdrag0 10y ago
  That's like saying "What do we need wheel chair ramps for?" I've never seen a person in a wheel chair get stuck trying to access the building. Partially disabled people are a minority, partially people don't pay that much attention, and partially people are self-selected out of such situations. Panic attacks are a disability. Trigger warners are not to censor, but to INCREASE the audience participation. If anything, it's anti-censorship.
paulcole 10y ago
> After all, the "real world" won't hold your hand. This is where you lost me. It just sounds like such a "republican-dad" kind of thing to say and I don't even get what it means. Can you clarify and give examples?
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >give examples I wouldn't even know where to start. How about: a belligerent country invades your sovereign and abuses and kills the populace. That's happened repeatedly, to millions of people, throughout history.
- devopsproject 10y ago
  Your grade 1-12 teachers are, in some ways, paid to put up with your bullshit. They remind you about homework, listen you your excuses, etc. They understand that in many ways, you are still a child and that you do need help. College professors (based on my experience and popular wisdom) are less likely to fill that "parenting" role. You are expected to be responsible and to take the initiative. When you land a job, you are expected to perform. They expect that you will need help remembering to do your work, or to show up on time, or to be responsible for yourself. Today, it seems, that the "college experience" is being overthrown by the PC police. This is what some colleges are teaching those entering the workforce: Saying "Where are you from" is racist Saying "America is a melting pot" is racist Saying "Hey, can you guys help me look at this problem" is sexist\misogynist Telling a woman in leadership “I love your shoes!” is bad Referring to your co-worker’s girlfriend as “girlfriend” instead of “partner” is homophobic And on and on and on. And then these kids enter the workforce with an older generation who thinks the above list is absurd. There is going to be conflict and they older generation will wonder what happened to the youngins. They are incapable of living without finding ways to point to their victim hood or oppression. They will be at your job soon. Publicly shaming you or reporting you to HR for using the wrong word or asking "Did you and your girlfriend do anything fun this weekend?" Sources: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27028/ http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27028/ http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27984/ http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27984/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-codd... http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise... note to readers: victimhood and oppression do exist and I am not trying to belittle the very real experiences of many people in our society.
Kenji 10y ago
Quite the opposite, it's really simple. Trigger warnings do not belong into lectures. If you can't bear to hear the material you do not belong anywhere near an university. Safe spaces are areas created by fascist people who want to shut down any dissenting opinions and stifle free speech. Destroy PC culture once and for all. Congratulations, University of Chicago, a step in the right direction. The university is here to stimulate the mind. An exchange of ideas, a wealth of information that enriches your thinking. The university should be the source of the most controversial ideas, not shield people from them. It is a place where ideas are manufactured by people who have a love for learning and freely playing with ideas.
T2_t2 10y ago
I think the idea of trigger warnings is a really good one. "Here is a topic not everyone will be able to process. If you don't feel like you can be a part of it, please leave, because we WILL be talking about it." This is a very anti-censorship stance. Tyler Cowan said it best: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/04/why-i-like-trigger-warnings.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/04/why... However, triggers have changed from a thing individuals are warned of that they have a personal responsibility to avoid, to something the world is supposed to avoid for people. "I was triggered" has become an argument some groups make as a way to say something inappropriate happened. This is non-sensical, because the idea of triggers is that something random sets someone off because of a past experience. We can't remake the world because strawberries set you off! What's worse, this use of triggers as a preemptive is a very small step away from certain groups censoring others. Triggers are a great idea, but only if being triggered is not be an argument against something being done, and not if it is a phrase that holds any power as a preemptive. That is that part that needs to change, the preemptive, nothing that triggers anyone is acceptable part. I just can't see how that part can or will be changed.
- burnitdown 10y ago
  Which is ultimately why they are bad. Asking people to "tag" everything that could be offensive is moronic.
decwakeboarder 10y ago
> After all, the "real world" won't hold your hand. The "real world" will eat you alive if you can't discuss topics which make you uncomfortable.
pbrb 10y ago
Your last sentence pretty much nailed it. I believe that is exactly the message they are sending. I went to UChicago, and this is a core ideal that is part of what makes the school so great.
s_q_b 10y ago
This is simple. "Trigger warnings" are a form of censorship. "Safe spaces" are a form of self-segregation. Both are anathema to the academy. To address the proposed censorship policy first, universities are the birthplace of free speech. Free exchange of ideas is absolutely essential for the transfer and furtherance of human knowledge. Both instructors and students must be able to state their ideas without fear of reprisal. With regard to so-called "safe spaces," in my experience they are little more than ethnic enclaves with University funding. Whatever their original underlying rationale, "safe spaces" formed based on race, nationality, ethnic identity have become the norm. Further, universities are not supposed to be comfortable. They are designed to confront our deepest beliefs, to intermingle people of vastly different backgrounds, and to teach not only technical skill, but the ability to cooperate with those with whom we have little in common. They are supposed to submerge people of different backgrounds in the same environment. If you are comfortable, you are doing it wrong. Finally, who determines who deserves a "safe space" and what requires a "trigger warning"? Inevitably the answer is the ever-expanding administration. The concept that these hired bureaucrats should be policing faculty speech is both inane and dangerous. This new brand of political correctness ends with the shattered careers of educators. It ends with students educated about a reality that doesn't actually exist. It ends with censored education.

by basseq 10y ago

judah 10y ago

Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. Viewed in this light, the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness is actually a softening of extremism: allowing for, rather than actively silencing, diverse political discourse. This is in stark contrast to neighbor Chicago school DePaul, who last month blocked[0] Jewish conservative minority voice Ben Shapiro from speaking. The extreme position here is blocking and preventing free speech and ideas through safe spaces and trigger warnings. Dismantling these, as the U of C has done, is worth celebrating. I hope they are the first of many. [0]: http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7923 http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7923

nomat 10y ago
I assume people like Shapiro collect fees from the school for speaking, so would it be correct to frame the issue as students not wanting their money to go into the pockets of a person that they don't support?
- Erik816 10y ago
  Which is the "student vs consumer" argument. If you are a consumer, then you complain about how your money is not being spent to match your existing preferences. If you are student, you are there to be exposed to things you disagree with and don't support, so you don't complain when the University provides and pays for speakers (or professors) you disagree with.
  - nomat 10y ago
    That is a good point, and I agree with you when the case is that the idea or person you disagree with is a necessary part of the curriculum/class. But in the case where it's an extracurricular activity or student organization that isn't a core part of the degree, then why doesn't a student have the right to complain? edit: I believe that students are also consumers. The two are not mutually exclusive. Tuition is pretty high these days. I guess the difficult part is finding the right balance.
    - talmand 10y ago
      Why should student A who sees the negative of a speaker have the power of veto over student B who sees the positive of the speaker? What happens when student B complains about a speaker that student A wants to hear? Do we just ban everybody or allow a diversity of opinions? For that matter, if the speaker is invited by a student organization that the complaining student is not a member of, why should that student complain? Just don't go.
      - jonlucc 10y ago
        Why not allow both? The group can have their speaker within whatever guidelines the school has (some schools ban foul language or other school-wide policies), and the other group is allowed to protest. Just like the real world where another company can do what it wants within the law, but I can also protest what and how they do it.

jordigh 10y ago

> "A trigger warning is advance notice about subject material that may be difficult for certain students to read, hear or see." But that's not what trigger warnings are for... it's not just about mild discomfort. They're to prevent panic attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger Whether trigger warnings are effective or not is a different matter, but of course if you portray them as being about being offended or mild discomfort that they sound utterly stupid.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
xg15 10y ago
If you have a phobia, one natural reaction is to anticipate in which situations the "trigger" will occur and to actively avoid such situations. It's well-known in psychology however that this behavior actually reinforces the phobia and prevents it from healing. Trigger warnings seem like the same strategy only elevated on an institutional level. So while they do prevent panic attacks, they would actually do the traumatized more harm than good. The other thing is that people can develop phobias against almost everything. So no matter how many trigger warnings the university put up, there could always be one group which finds their particular triggers not marked up well enough.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Jeema101 10y ago
Avoidance in the form of 'trigger warnings' may actually worsen the underlying problem for people with PTSD because avoidance can strengthen the underlying fear. Successful treatment often actually involves confronting the fear, little by little, until it no longer causes discomfort: "Exposure therapy is a type of cognitive behavioral therapy[118] that involves assisting trauma survivors to re-experience distressing trauma-related memories and reminders in order to facilitate habituation and successful emotional processing of the trauma memory. Most exposure therapy programs include both imaginal confrontation with the traumatic memories and real-life exposure to trauma reminders; this therapy modality is well supported by clinical evidence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

weberc2 10y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't universities been designating their entire campuses as "safe spaces"? Disinviting speakers and silencing students whose world views are insufficiently progressive? Or perhaps these issues are distinct, and I'm mistaken?

icelancer 10y ago
Sure, a lot of the liberal-leaning authoritarian-left ones have been. The University of Chicago is about as far from that as it gets.
- weberc2 10y ago
  Sure, my comment wasn't about University of Chicago specifically, but about American universities generally. Thanks for the clarification though, I wasn't aware. :)

collyw 10y ago

Its not tough at all. So called trigger warnings never existed until recently and very few people had problems. I never heard of anyone breaking down in class due to difficult subject matters in my 5 years at university (or after).

mikekchar 10y ago
It happens. It happened in a high school class I was teaching once. Out of the blue my student just started crying. I tried to ask her what the problem was, but it made it worse. I later found that it was a PTSD issue, but I never did find out exactly what triggered it (and I don't remember exactly what we were talking about). The student eventually had to drop my course. She wrote me a very nice letter apologising profusely and saying that she thought I was a good teacher, but that she couldn't continue with the class. Having said that, I'm not sure a trigger warning is necessarily a good idea. It's a pretty serious situation and I don't think that you could come up with a blanket solution that would work.
therealdrag0 10y ago
That's like saying "What do we need wheel chair ramps for?" I've never seen a person in a wheel chair get stuck trying to access the building. Partially disabled people are a minority, partially people don't pay that much attention, and partially people are self-selected out of such situations. Panic attacks are a disability. Trigger warners are not to censor, but to INCREASE the audience participation. If anything, it's anti-censorship.

paulcole 10y ago

> After all, the "real world" won't hold your hand. This is where you lost me. It just sounds like such a "republican-dad" kind of thing to say and I don't even get what it means. Can you clarify and give examples?

forgetsusername 10y ago
>give examples I wouldn't even know where to start. How about: a belligerent country invades your sovereign and abuses and kills the populace. That's happened repeatedly, to millions of people, throughout history.
devopsproject 10y ago
Your grade 1-12 teachers are, in some ways, paid to put up with your bullshit. They remind you about homework, listen you your excuses, etc. They understand that in many ways, you are still a child and that you do need help. College professors (based on my experience and popular wisdom) are less likely to fill that "parenting" role. You are expected to be responsible and to take the initiative. When you land a job, you are expected to perform. They expect that you will need help remembering to do your work, or to show up on time, or to be responsible for yourself. Today, it seems, that the "college experience" is being overthrown by the PC police. This is what some colleges are teaching those entering the workforce: Saying "Where are you from" is racist Saying "America is a melting pot" is racist Saying "Hey, can you guys help me look at this problem" is sexist\misogynist Telling a woman in leadership “I love your shoes!” is bad Referring to your co-worker’s girlfriend as “girlfriend” instead of “partner” is homophobic And on and on and on. And then these kids enter the workforce with an older generation who thinks the above list is absurd. There is going to be conflict and they older generation will wonder what happened to the youngins. They are incapable of living without finding ways to point to their victim hood or oppression. They will be at your job soon. Publicly shaming you or reporting you to HR for using the wrong word or asking "Did you and your girlfriend do anything fun this weekend?" Sources: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27028/ http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27028/ http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27984/ http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27984/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-codd... http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise... note to readers: victimhood and oppression do exist and I am not trying to belittle the very real experiences of many people in our society.

Kenji 10y ago

Quite the opposite, it's really simple. Trigger warnings do not belong into lectures. If you can't bear to hear the material you do not belong anywhere near an university. Safe spaces are areas created by fascist people who want to shut down any dissenting opinions and stifle free speech. Destroy PC culture once and for all. Congratulations, University of Chicago, a step in the right direction. The university is here to stimulate the mind. An exchange of ideas, a wealth of information that enriches your thinking. The university should be the source of the most controversial ideas, not shield people from them. It is a place where ideas are manufactured by people who have a love for learning and freely playing with ideas.

T2_t2 10y ago

I think the idea of trigger warnings is a really good one. "Here is a topic not everyone will be able to process. If you don't feel like you can be a part of it, please leave, because we WILL be talking about it." This is a very anti-censorship stance. Tyler Cowan said it best: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/04/why-i-like-trigger-warnings.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/04/why... However, triggers have changed from a thing individuals are warned of that they have a personal responsibility to avoid, to something the world is supposed to avoid for people. "I was triggered" has become an argument some groups make as a way to say something inappropriate happened. This is non-sensical, because the idea of triggers is that something random sets someone off because of a past experience. We can't remake the world because strawberries set you off! What's worse, this use of triggers as a preemptive is a very small step away from certain groups censoring others. Triggers are a great idea, but only if being triggered is not be an argument against something being done, and not if it is a phrase that holds any power as a preemptive. That is that part that needs to change, the preemptive, nothing that triggers anyone is acceptable part. I just can't see how that part can or will be changed.

burnitdown 10y ago
Which is ultimately why they are bad. Asking people to "tag" everything that could be offensive is moronic.

decwakeboarder 10y ago

> After all, the "real world" won't hold your hand. The "real world" will eat you alive if you can't discuss topics which make you uncomfortable.

pbrb 10y ago

Your last sentence pretty much nailed it. I believe that is exactly the message they are sending. I went to UChicago, and this is a core ideal that is part of what makes the school so great.

s_q_b 10y ago

This is simple. "Trigger warnings" are a form of censorship. "Safe spaces" are a form of self-segregation. Both are anathema to the academy. To address the proposed censorship policy first, universities are the birthplace of free speech. Free exchange of ideas is absolutely essential for the transfer and furtherance of human knowledge. Both instructors and students must be able to state their ideas without fear of reprisal. With regard to so-called "safe spaces," in my experience they are little more than ethnic enclaves with University funding. Whatever their original underlying rationale, "safe spaces" formed based on race, nationality, ethnic identity have become the norm. Further, universities are not supposed to be comfortable. They are designed to confront our deepest beliefs, to intermingle people of vastly different backgrounds, and to teach not only technical skill, but the ability to cooperate with those with whom we have little in common. They are supposed to submerge people of different backgrounds in the same environment. If you are comfortable, you are doing it wrong. Finally, who determines who deserves a "safe space" and what requires a "trigger warning"? Inevitably the answer is the ever-expanding administration. The concept that these hired bureaucrats should be policing faculty speech is both inane and dangerous. This new brand of political correctness ends with the shattered careers of educators. It ends with students educated about a reality that doesn't actually exist. It ends with censored education.