University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’ • Hacker News Board

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#111

Post by sp332 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:31 PM UTC

djrogers wrote: post #88

sp332 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, students get harassed and raped at a pretty high rate. And suicide is the #2 cause of death among young adults. Physical security and "acceptance" is a big public health issue.

thays just not true - the rate of rape and sexual assault is lower for college students (at 6.1 per 1,000) than for non-students (7.6 per 1,000). [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/14/campus-rape...

The cited study: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf It points out that students are very unlikely to report rape to the police, but somehow assumes that they will answer questions about it on a survey. It also shows wide variations from one year to another. It's not a bad study, but the data doesn't really inspire confidence.

Edit: from page 3 "From 1997 to 2013, females ages 18 to 24 consistently experienced higher rates of rape and sexual assault than females in other age brackets."

and from page 4: "However, there was no significant difference in the rates of female students and nonstudents who experienced attempted rape or other sexual assault. This suggests that differences in the rates of completed rape largely accounted for differences in the overall rates of rape and sexual assault between students and nonstudents."

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#112

Post by PhasmaFelis » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:31 PM UTC

basseq wrote: post #52

wflynny wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mentioning the word rape is not a discussion of rape.

The article links to another on teaching rape law to criminal-law students.[1] From that article: One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. So in some cases, even mentioning the word is included in this issue. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap...

I would call that an unreasonable request. But that doesn't invalidate the existence of reasonable requests.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#113

Post by Jeema101 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:33 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #73

basseq wrote: post #22

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…

> "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 Whether trigger warnings are effective or not is a different matter, but of course if you portray them as being about being off…

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#...

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#114

Post by qntty » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #93

qntty wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never heard of that concept of "safe space" before. Do you have any examples of it?

"It’s unacceptable when the Master of your college is dismissive of your experiences. The Silliman Master’s role is not only to provide intellectual stimulation, but also to make Silliman a safe space that all students can come home to. His responsibility is to make it a place where your experiences are a valid concern to the administration and where you can feel free to talk with them about your pain without worryin…

Silliman refers to a residential college (dorms etc.), not the entire university.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#115

Post by panglott » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

djrogers wrote: post #88

sp332 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, students get harassed and raped at a pretty high rate. And suicide is the #2 cause of death among young adults. Physical security and "acceptance" is a big public health issue.

thays just not true - the rate of rape and sexual assault is lower for college students (at 6.1 per 1,000) than for non-students (7.6 per 1,000). [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/14/campus-rape...

The Instapundit is attempting to debunk public-health assessments of the incidence of sexual assault with crime-report data, when a key argument of anti-rape activists is that rape/sexual assault largely goes unreported. And given the way that women are treated who make allegations of domestic violence, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, I would not be surprised if that is correct.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#116

Post by nomat » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

Erik816 wrote: post #96

nomat wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

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.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#117

Post by zzalpha » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #73

basseq wrote: post #22

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…

> "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 Whether trigger warnings are effective or not is a different matter, but of course if you portray them as being about being off…

But that's not what trigger warnings are for... it's not just about mild discomfort. They're to prevent panic attacks.

I'm sure no true Scotsman would have a problem with that definition...

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#118

Post by tellah » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

cpeterso wrote: post #13

The University also seeks to eliminate so-called 'spoiler warnings'. 54 percent of students said the climate on campus prevents some people from saying what they believe because they are fearful of looking like assholes.

Where did you find that? I've been trying to find any data from the campus climate surveys, but most links are just about who participated.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#119

Post by PhasmaFelis » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:36 PM UTC

There seems to be whole lot of slippery-slope happening in this thread. Asking people to respect trigger warnings for the most common types of PTSD (generally, rape/sexual abuse) does not lead inevitably to banning everything that anyone has every been uncomfortable with. This is about reasonable accommodation.

Consider the example of disability laws: you're required to install a wheelchair ramp/lift if an employee needs it; you're not required to let a quadraplegic person be a lifeguard.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#120

Post by rsync » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:37 PM UTC

cmdrfred wrote: post #90

sp332 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When my grandfather got back from WWII, he went to work at a printing press. One day a neon sign fell and shattered just across the room from him. When he became aware of himself again, he had ripped up all of his fingernails trying to dig a foxhole in the concrete floor with his bare hands. Recovery is always the goal, not keeping someone continually vulnerable. And over time, in more controlled circumstances, expos…

Why didn't he and his fellows advocate for "trigger warnings" then? Perhaps a greater sense of personal responsibility? I'm honestly curious.

I quote Martin "Marty" Hart from season 1 of "True Detective":

"there was a time when a man kept his bullshit to himself"