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’

#121

Post by judah » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:38 PM UTC

nomat wrote: post #83

judah wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fr…

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?

I don't believe so, no.

DePaul claimed they blocked Shapiro from speaking due to "security concerns"[0]. In particular, students in favor of safe spaces and trigger warnings threatened to riot, block the doors, and prevent student access to the event. DePaul capitulated to this bullying by banning Shapiro.

Related: California State University-Los Angeles planned on hosting Shapiro to speak, but demanded[1] the student group which invited him to pay $600 to the university in security fees. When the student group refused, the university blocked his speech.

I'm not aware of this happening to speakers holding majority political viewpoint; it affects the minority viewpoints primarily. Frame it in terms of race: imagine a modern campus saying, "We allow blacks to speak, but only if they pay hundreds of dollars to provide security against the white riots that will inevitably arise."

[0]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/1/ben-shapiro-b...

[1]: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26367/

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

#122

Post by sp332 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:38 PM UTC

panglott wrote: post #115

djrogers wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The study cited in that link (which I link directly below) says 20% of students who admitted to being raped said they reported it to police, compared to 32% of non-students.

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

#123

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:38 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#124

Post by tomwalker » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:40 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…

If someone has an anxiety disorder of this magnitude then their diagnosing physician would provide the student with the paperwork required to delay their course.

This would be for however long is needed to seek the treatment to return to a stable enough level of mental health to return to university.

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

#125

Post by sp332 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:41 PM UTC

jtuente wrote: post #80

sp332 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the part where they are victims, and all we're trying to do is minimize the damage. That's a calculated risk that each person is going to have to take for themselves.

They were victims; they're not actively victims in the moment of a discussion. The damage has already been done. Conversely, you can say that you're helping with the recovery and healing process. But it's important to acknowledge the aspects of the past, present and future as they relate to trauma.

Causing someone a panic attack in the present is not damage that "has already been done".

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

#126

Post by ebola1717 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:41 PM UTC

Jeema101 wrote: post #113

jordigh wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

Classrooms aren't treatment centers. Regardless, your point is a much fairer one to raise than the "intellectual rigor" argument the University is making.

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

#127

Post by panglott » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:42 PM UTC

rapsey wrote: post #24

jpfed wrote: post #2

What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. It's really hard to actually create a safe space. You have to actively intervene to prevent (or provide redress for) the "wrong" kinds of speech. I can totally see why a university would not think safe spaces were worth it, or even consistent with their goals. But trigger warnings are a rea…

> If you think this is a consideration worth extending to a veteran, it seems perfectly consistent that you'd want survivors of rape or abuse to know that a discussion of rape or abuse was coming up. And at what point does it stop? Who decides what is a trigger warning? If someone is afraid of wolves. Must I now stop wearing my wolf shirts? When does it simply turn into censorship and shutting down topics and discuss…

I suspect that there are more sexual assault survivors than combat trauma survivors, so if your threshold is the incidence of combat-traumatized veterans, then you don't need to extend the limit further to include sexual assault survivors.

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

#128

Post by qntty » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:43 PM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #119

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 n…

If we coddle people in wheelchairs, they'll never learn to wheel themselves up stairs. In the real world, there are stairs everywhere and they need to get used to that. I sprained my ankle one time in college and I crutched my way up the stairs just like everyone else. Why can't they do the same?

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

#129

Post by ebola1717 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:43 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #43

peruvian wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes both ways. People constantly say they're triggered when they're just offended or inconvenienced. If everyone followed your definition, we'd never had problems.

> People constantly say they're triggered when they're just offended or inconvenienced. Do they? I only seem to see the latter online when people are being facetious about it. Do you see examples of people saying they were triggered and shouldn't have been and they are not referencing panic attacks?

Furthermore, we clearly have the ability to separate the cases where someone is saying "triggered" to mean offended or inconvenienced from meaning a panic/anxiety attack.

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

#130

Post by Chathamization » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:44 PM UTC

judah wrote: post #69

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…

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 fr…

> Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas.

The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment (most people stop taking classes after getting a degree), and below that is probably education for employment (if I see someone with a degree taking a class just for the education, it's usually related to something they want to do for their job).

Universities are aware of this but pretend that's not the case, which is problematic. It'd be like if grocery stores started pretending their purpose was to provide an area for debate, and every time you wanted to get a gallon of milk you had to both pay for it and argue with the cashier about politics for 5 minutes. You don't want to do that? What, are you afraid of being exposed to new ideas?

I don't mind discussing things, but sometimes you just want a gallon of milk (or degree). Of course, you could go to the convenience store down the street, but they only carry cheap milk powder.