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’

#191

Post by weberc2 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:22 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…

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?

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

#192

Post by cmdkeen » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:23 PM UTC

Chathamization wrote: post #166

jbigelow76 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment Go to university and you should expect "free and open exchange of ideas", go to a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment".

> Go to university and you should expect "free and open exchange of ideas", go to a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment". Sure, theoretically. In the real world, not so much. Want to be a lawyer high up in a corporate firm? Get a research position doing the kind of work PhD's do? Good luck going down that path by going to a trade school. Heck, look at the example of Susan Finley. After 46 succ…

Law is also the sort of degree that is full of potentially triggering discussion. Law is also the sort of career in which you can't just opt out of the discussion.

There are plenty of wider discussions to be had about this whole thing. Ensuring that faculty are good teachers, which includes the empathy to broach difficult subjects with sensitivity and moderate debate. The provision of welfare services to students to assist them to make the most of their studies.

Listening to a minority whose refusal to engage and demand that others cave in to their views harms society - and in many instances harms the very people making the demands. Victims of sexual assaults need a justice system that is better at understanding issues of consent, victim blaming and the harm victim may be put through by a trial - and how to weigh that up against the right to confront your accuser. Ethnic minorities need a society better educated in history, understanding of cultural differences and similarities who continue to be more progressive and accepting than previous generations.

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

#193

Post by deong » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:23 PM UTC

qntty wrote: post #55

mikeash wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure we can find someone who is uncomfortable at the mere mention of the word. Not that we should necessarily accommodate such extremes, but how do you decide where to draw the line?

You guess and invite people to correct you if you're wrong? How is anything that requires judgement decided? Eventually there will be an accepted norm but at the beginning there never is.

That's a nice solution if everything is more or less working properly. The problem is, "What do you do when they tell you you're wrong about everything?"

One of the links in the article was to an article by a law professor talking about the difficulty of teaching rape and sexual assault law. The point being made there was that the entire subject has become off-limits -- literally, a large number of her colleagues had simply elected not to teach it anymore.

If your complaint is that, today, students are demanding an abuse of the notion of trigger warnings and safe spaces to effectively prevent exposure to potentially upsetting discussions, and that we are harming the long-term development of students by doing so, then by definition, you believe the corrections you'd get would essentially take the form "bring back all the trigger warnings we had when you started this process".

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

#194

Post by jackcosgrove » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:23 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #178

Swizec wrote: post #14

This is a really hard topic to think about. On the one hand, I worry that we're moving towards a mind-police driven society where we actively discourage people from saying anything that goes against the grain of society. Be it by activist groups, or algorithms optimizing for clicks and user retention. On the other hand, it is important to be courteous to each other and not upset people needlessly. Discussions should…

On the third hand? Now you've triggered my alien phobia! Seriously, though, reasonable people should behave reasonably, and a lot of the problems go away. But we aren't talking about reasonable people; we're talking about college kids. I remember myself as I was then, and I was a jerk. I was much more concerned with winning (in whatever form) than being reasonable or nice or considerate. So... yeah, the administratio…

Good point about values being better than rules. Values are also a much more inexpensive way to observe norms than rules, in addition to being more effective.

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

#195

Post by gregd » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:24 PM UTC

Erik816 wrote: post #65

zyxley wrote: post #6

The "so called" part of the announcement feels like it's meant to be particularly patronizing. "You rassafrassin youngsters, with your so-called rap music and trigger warnings!"

It is meant to be a nod to the intellectual bankruptcy of the entire concept of safe spaces and trigger warnings. Taken to their logical conclusion, these policies would lead to a gutting of the entire premise of a liberal education, which is what the University of Chicago has always sought to provide (source: proud alumnus, particularly today). You simply cannot protect people from ideas they disagree with while als…

There is a difference between safe spaces meant to coddle ignorant privileged white kids from having to hear ideas they've never heard before, and safe spaces as a refuge for marginalized students who need a break from racist, classist, bigoted, body shaming, heteronormative, colonial, hegemonic treatment from others on campus. There is a difference between privileged white kids demanding trigger warnings for topics that call out their privilege and a rape survivor needing a trigger warning so they don't have to watch a rape scene in an assigned movie and have a PTSD flashback and nightmares for 2 nights in a row.

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

#196

Post by kd0amg » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:25 PM UTC

Chathamization wrote: post #166

jbigelow76 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment Go to university and you should expect "free and open exchange of ideas", go to a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment".

> Go to university and you should expect "free and open exchange of ideas", go to a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment". Sure, theoretically. In the real world, not so much. Want to be a lawyer high up in a corporate firm? Get a research position doing the kind of work PhD's do? Good luck going down that path by going to a trade school. Heck, look at the example of Susan Finley. After 46 succ…

Get a research position doing the kind of work PhD's do?

Avoiding exposure to ideas that challenge your own is not a good strategy for becoming an effective researcher.

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

#197

Post by Nadya » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:25 PM UTC

coddingtonbear wrote: post #71

zyxley wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Mention of rape" and "discussion of rape in enough detail to cause discomfort" are not the same thing.

That might be true, but there are a variety of cases where we've decided to stop using a word in general in order to avoid causing undue distress; "slave" (i/r/t "master" and "slave") in a computing context is now generally always phrased in another way, for example.

That's mostly self-contained on Github. Where busybodies have little else to do but open issues on projects in the name of social justice without ever contributing to the project itself in a meaningful manner. See: /r/gitinaction

The word "master" was also under fire not too long ago. They replaced it with "head". I'm honestly surprised a certain political group haven't jumped at the opportunity to get "head" replaced due to being too phalic.

[0] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464182/Harvard-Univ...

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

#198

Post by mcjon77 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:28 PM UTC

Chathamization wrote: post #130

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…

> 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 s…

Yes, most people go to universities for the credential in order to gain employment. However, the reason why that credential is valuable in obtaining employment is because it implies that the holder of the credential has developed certain skills as part of their education.

One of those skills is the ability to think critically about a variety of topics. My assumption is that University of Chicago believes that in order to develop those critical thinking skills, it is a REQUIREMENT to learn an environment with a free and open exchange of ideas.

Students that want the credential BUT they do not want to complete one of the requirements of that credential should reconsider whether the credential is right for them or perhaps find another university.

To use your grocery store/gallon of milk analogy, a more accurate version would be if I went to a grocery store and asked for a gallon of milk, but demanded that it be zero calories and made from tomatoes. The store owner would tell the customer that they can buy tomato juice or water, but there is nothing labeled as MILK which meets their requirements.

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

#199

Post by tzs » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:28 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #173

coddingtonbear wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be true, but there are a variety of cases where we've decided to stop using a word in general in order to avoid causing undue distress; "slave" (i/r/t "master" and "slave") in a computing context is now generally always phrased in another way, for example.

That just gives me an intense urge to use master/slave all over the place.

I've went the opposite direction. I now describe the organization of a typical plantation in mid-19th century America as being run by a white leader with black followers doing the work.

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

#200

Post by 0xfeba » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:28 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?

Exactly. I think a few agenda driven actors got a hold of the idea, and pushed forward their own version of what a trigger warning is for. I've heard a couple anectdotes about some student needing some ultra-sensitive care, but these are the outliers--if even true. Yet, this is all I hear about in online forums.

That said, I do hear some vitriolic defenses of them as well.

Moral of the story: Don't trust anything you read on the internet, I guess.