3 ms·

Your comparison is hyperbolic for two reasons. First, most universities are NOT censoring content or attaching warnings to texts. Period. This is obvious from

by nmrm2 11y ago

Your comparison is hyperbolic for two reasons. First, most universities are NOT censoring content or attaching warnings to texts. Period. This is obvious from the article. Second, there's a difference between warnings and censorship. A few student groups are asking for warnings -- mostly about graphic accounts of rape in texts assigned in required courses -- not changes to the curriculum. Again, this is obvious and explicit in the article. And student groups can ask for whatever they want. So, no. Even taking this article on face value, "this" (whatever this is) is not how "American universities "really are these days". And it's not even what student activists are asking for, by and large. PS: Even if it were "this way", it's unclear to me what political movement such non-censorship is supporting. It's basically young rape victims asking to be warned when a lecture/reading is going to contain descriptions of rape. I'm not saying it's a good policy option, but excuse me if I roll my eyes when you compare it to a powerful tool of political oppression. Even the author of this opinion piece doesn't go that far. He basically just says "yeah there are jerks out there who are gonna make rape jokes, so you better grow a thick skin."

pavlov 11y ago
It's basically young rape victims asking to be warned when a lecture/reading is going to contain descriptions of rape. Is that really a reasonable request in a literature class? Does the same apply to any traumatic event and any field of study -- for example, if a medical student was robbed at knifepoint, should he be given advance warning about seeing blood or cut skin...? The quoted passage specifically mentions "people of color or students from a low-income background" in addition to survivors. How is that meant to be interpreted? What kind of writing do poor students need to be protected against?
- jtbigwoo 11y ago
  I'm getting off the topic, but my friends that referee high-level children's sports were talking about how taunting rules and trash talk have changed over the years. In the past decade or two, they're really tried to stamp out racial and sexual trash talk. Now they're encouraged to watch out for trash talk regarding economic class. The reasoning is two-fold. First, kids are getting smarter. If you call someone a racial slur you get kicked out of the league, but maybe you can tell them their mother's on welfare or their dad is an illegal immigrant. Second, children's sports are so much about money. High-level children's sports are pay-to-play. Top-tier club teams in many sports can cost $10k/year or more. The fact that there are any lower-income kids in the leagues at all is kind of surprising. Usually the less talented, richer kids are subsidizing a handful of more talented poorer kids. Some kids will do whatever it takes to get an edge or maybe even get the other teams best player to throw a punch and get kicked out.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  My point was that comparing warnings with Orwellian censorship is hyperbolic. The first question you ask is already covered well in other discussion threads. The second question I don't have an answer to. But that's the problem with trying to have productive conversations about a broad statement from a student group instead of discussing current and proposed concrete policies/policy proposals. In general, unless there's a concrete policy proposal on the table, we should tend to assume the best of people and avoid conjuring up Orwellian nightmares out of vague statements.
- DanBC 11y ago
  (I just accidentally downvoted you. Sorry.) The article mangles two concepts: 1) Trigger Warnings 2) Safe Spaces Both of these are being misused in some universities. Providing a warning to vulnerable people so that they can keep themself safe is fair enough. But some people point to the safe space policy and suggest that the trigger warning is not sufficient and that the material should not be taught.

by nmrm2 11y ago

pavlov 11y ago

It's basically young rape victims asking to be warned when a lecture/reading is going to contain descriptions of rape. Is that really a reasonable request in a literature class? Does the same apply to any traumatic event and any field of study -- for example, if a medical student was robbed at knifepoint, should he be given advance warning about seeing blood or cut skin...? The quoted passage specifically mentions "people of color or students from a low-income background" in addition to survivors. How is that meant to be interpreted? What kind of writing do poor students need to be protected against?

jtbigwoo 11y ago
I'm getting off the topic, but my friends that referee high-level children's sports were talking about how taunting rules and trash talk have changed over the years. In the past decade or two, they're really tried to stamp out racial and sexual trash talk. Now they're encouraged to watch out for trash talk regarding economic class. The reasoning is two-fold. First, kids are getting smarter. If you call someone a racial slur you get kicked out of the league, but maybe you can tell them their mother's on welfare or their dad is an illegal immigrant. Second, children's sports are so much about money. High-level children's sports are pay-to-play. Top-tier club teams in many sports can cost $10k/year or more. The fact that there are any lower-income kids in the leagues at all is kind of surprising. Usually the less talented, richer kids are subsidizing a handful of more talented poorer kids. Some kids will do whatever it takes to get an edge or maybe even get the other teams best player to throw a punch and get kicked out.
nmrm2 11y ago
My point was that comparing warnings with Orwellian censorship is hyperbolic. The first question you ask is already covered well in other discussion threads. The second question I don't have an answer to. But that's the problem with trying to have productive conversations about a broad statement from a student group instead of discussing current and proposed concrete policies/policy proposals. In general, unless there's a concrete policy proposal on the table, we should tend to assume the best of people and avoid conjuring up Orwellian nightmares out of vague statements.
DanBC 11y ago
(I just accidentally downvoted you. Sorry.) The article mangles two concepts: 1) Trigger Warnings 2) Safe Spaces Both of these are being misused in some universities. Providing a warning to vulnerable people so that they can keep themself safe is fair enough. But some people point to the safe space policy and suggest that the trigger warning is not sufficient and that the material should not be taught.