5 ms·

I believe the "lower-stakes contexts" you mention are qualitatively different. Rape, Violence, or War are related to traumatic experiences. You might not find

I believe the "lower-stakes contexts" you mention are qualitatively different. Rape, Violence, or War are related to traumatic experiences. You might not find it so controversial if it they were visceral descriptions of Arachnophobia, Acrophobia or fear of drowning. Religion or Politics, on the other hand, are related to controversial ideas. Discussing controversial ideas should never be shielded: at best it leads to enlightenment and new points of view and opinions; at worse it is a waste of time (perhaps because some ideas are poorly fundamented). So for example, the visceral passages in those books might have been safely replaced by an explanation of the results (for the students who find it traumatic only) without much loss. Of course, ideally one would separate himself from the situation and not be affected, instead focusing on understanding objectively the social and historical context for the book, or maybe the prose, and so on; but it's completely understandable some may find those experiences too traumatic.

a_c_s 11y ago
Yes, that is indeed a distinction that can be made, but in practice I don't think it is - which is my fear. Quoting from the article: "However, the student said her professor focused on the beauty of the language and the splendor of the imagery when lecturing on the text. As a result, the student completely disengaged from the class discussion as a means of self-preservation. She did not feel safe in the class." For this student, it seems like they aren't able to disengage from the triggering sections or treat the discussion as an academic exercise. Even with the replacement of visceral passages (an accommodation I think is quite reasonable for those students who need it), it seems like this student would still not be able to see anything but the rape. This is certainly understandable, but being able to break something and examine it with different lenses is a key part of studying texts and an important life skill.

a_c_s 11y ago

Yes, that is indeed a distinction that can be made, but in practice I don't think it is - which is my fear. Quoting from the article: "However, the student said her professor focused on the beauty of the language and the splendor of the imagery when lecturing on the text. As a result, the student completely disengaged from the class discussion as a means of self-preservation. She did not feel safe in the class." For this student, it seems like they aren't able to disengage from the triggering sections or treat the discussion as an academic exercise. Even with the replacement of visceral passages (an accommodation I think is quite reasonable for those students who need it), it seems like this student would still not be able to see anything but the rape. This is certainly understandable, but being able to break something and examine it with different lenses is a key part of studying texts and an important life skill.