Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 444 posts

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

#281

Post by ebola1717 »

jotux wrote: post #272
ebola1717 wrote: post #187

This statement by the University is willfully ignorant. The University provides an officially sanctioned LGBTQ Safe Space ( https://lgbtq.uchicago.edu/page/safe-space ). Clearly the University isn't ensuring that people who think gay people are evil are also represented in those safe spaces. Furthermore, some ideas are clearly off limits. The University is not going to allow and promote legitimate arguments about whe…

>Furthermore, some ideas are clearly off limits. The University is not going to allow and promote legitimate arguments about whether the Holocaust was justified, or whether we should return to slavery and colonialism. Why are certain topics off limits? If someone wants to give a talk about why they believe the Holocaust is justified they should be free to do so, just as I am free to ignore it or go argue he's wrong.

Please show me an accredited University that has done that. This is not a view any university shares, for good reason.

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

#282

Post by crazy1van »

acbabis wrote: post #28
trevin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that it's equally as impossible to set up trigger warning policies. While some trigger warning like the ones you mentioned are valid, the term has been perverted to include all sorts of things[0] where you could get in trouble for talking in public about insects or needles. It's an impossible task to list out and educate people on everything that might possible trouble or offend. Once you open that door, th…

Many news outlets will say "Warning, the following story contains graphic imagery," and people don't think this is unreasonable; nor do they expect more specific content warnings in the future. This tells me it's possible to be considerate of common triggers while still drawing the line somewhere

> Many news outlets will say "Warning, the following story contains graphic imagery," and people don't think this is unreasonable

Yes, but students shouldn't expect that warning before a class on horror films. If you're unable to see graphic imagery, you should drop the class.

Similarly, students shouldn't expect to be warned about a discussion of slavery in a course about the American civil war. And you really shouldn't be able to get a degree in American history if you're unable to study the civil war.

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

#283

Post by Solarsail »

weberc2 wrote: post #214
adrianratnapala wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> But trigger warnings are a really simple common courtesy. >No, they aren't. They are neither simple, nor are they, You are mostly right, but there is danger here. Traditional courtesy and political correctness do overlap a lot -- they tell us to do the same sort of things. They are not the same. As you suggest, personal consideration is not the same as political sensitivity. But when the backlash against PC comes,…

Clarifying question: What do you mean by "fear of being PC"? I'm a bit confused about the scenario you're describing.

Not the GP, but referring to the more broad anti-PC movement... Lets say The War On (the war on) Christmas. Fear of being PC in a context like that may work out as somebody avoiding the term "Hanukkah", even while speaking about / to a Jewish person, for fear of papering over Christmas, or looking like they're trying to change the name of the holiday.

Some other anti-PC things, like use of the term "black people" in preference to "people of color" or "african-americans"; Or describing men and women in drastically different terms, or painting them as inevitably vastly different (to avoid papering over the differences or making them look non-existent) are their own kind of cultural sensitivity. Or in some cases, even a similar sort of language policing that has long been attributed to political-correctness, just on avoiding terms that people view as originating from it.

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

#284

Post by vacri »

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…

> the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness

I disagree. To me, political correctness is about not limiting other people's opportunities through stereotyping them. Making jokes about gangstas when the black guy is around or talking about terrorists like they're all muslim reinforces stereotypes and makes it harder for people of that demographic. Political correctness isn't about preventing offense, it's about not limiting opportunity, and in my opinion, the 'hacker' crowd that's supposed to be all about meritocracy should be strongly for political correctness. Trigger warnings don't fit into this - you're not claiming someone is something they're not (directly or indirectly).

I like what the U of C has done here, but it's not about PC.

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

#285

Post by wutbrodo »

wflynny wrote: post #244
superuser2 wrote: post #78

It's important to acknowledge that the term "safe space" means different things to different people. To the Yale protestors (who were widely supported at UChicago) the entirety of university housing at Yale was meant to be a "safe space," so it was incumbent on the university to fire professors who voiced unwelcome opinions in that space. To many of the people who are angry about this letter, "safe space" means a sup…

While I agree with you, I think it's worth noting that Yale's system of on-campus housing is drastically different than that at most universities. The residential college system offers much closer and personal interactions with a set of deans, faculty, and staff that is reinforced over the entire four years at the school. Whatever one's stance on the Yale controversy, I think it's important to distinguish Yale's hous…

I'm personally somewhat familiar with the distinction, but I don't really see how it's relevant. Pretty much every college dorm, including those that are less tight knit and personal than Yale's system, offers a safe space and protection from harassment. If anything, the fact that Yale fosters closer relationships with administrators and faculty should make it _more_ likely that students would take gentle advice from their house master with equanimity instead of unhinged screaming and calls for his ouster.

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

#286

Post by jpt4 »

acbabis wrote: post #28
trevin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that it's equally as impossible to set up trigger warning policies. While some trigger warning like the ones you mentioned are valid, the term has been perverted to include all sorts of things[0] where you could get in trouble for talking in public about insects or needles. It's an impossible task to list out and educate people on everything that might possible trouble or offend. Once you open that door, th…

Many news outlets will say "Warning, the following story contains graphic imagery," and people don't think this is unreasonable; nor do they expect more specific content warnings in the future. This tells me it's possible to be considerate of common triggers while still drawing the line somewhere

> Many news outlets will say "Warning, the following story contains graphic imagery,"

Since blood leads, this is, in my personal estimation, done primarily to increase immediate viewer count, not avoid - and thus retain in the more distant future - discomfiting sensitive current viewers.

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

#287

Post by jackcosgrove »

ebola1717 wrote: post #281
jotux wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Furthermore, some ideas are clearly off limits. The University is not going to allow and promote legitimate arguments about whether the Holocaust was justified, or whether we should return to slavery and colonialism. Why are certain topics off limits? If someone wants to give a talk about why they believe the Holocaust is justified they should be free to do so, just as I am free to ignore it or go argue he's wrong.

Please show me an accredited University that has done that. This is not a view any university shares, for good reason.

Not exactly the same, but Northwestern U has an avowed Holocaust denier on its faculty who is protected by tenure.

Institutions matter more than shared values sometimes.

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

#288

Post by seesharpp »

superuser2 wrote: post #78

It's important to acknowledge that the term "safe space" means different things to different people. To the Yale protestors (who were widely supported at UChicago) the entirety of university housing at Yale was meant to be a "safe space," so it was incumbent on the university to fire professors who voiced unwelcome opinions in that space. To many of the people who are angry about this letter, "safe space" means a sup…

I think you nailed it here. My safe space is Alcoholics Anonymous, and having that safe space probably saved my life.

It's unfortunate that the term has been somewhat taken over and always incites such ferocious debate on HN and other communities on the internet. I doubt anyone here is against there being LGBTQ support or Narcotic Anonymous groups on campus.

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

#290

Post by crystalmeph »

Chathamization wrote: post #265
mcjon77 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 orde…

> 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. I don't think that's actually the case. In my experience, employers care whether or not a person is generally competent (often using degrees as a t…

I don't think mcjon was suggesting that interviews for technical positions frequently veer off into discussions about literature.

Rather, I think the experiences you are "supposed" to get in a traditional 4 year university education - such as discussions about literature and other topics not directly related to your degree - are widely believed to improve your ability to think in ways that perhaps aren't directly quantifiable, but nevertheless provide significant benefit to your employer.

These benefits can manifest, for example, in employees that are able to handle disagreements among themselves rather than running to their manager every time they butt heads. Or employees that are simply able to learn new systems without extensive hand-holding through every step of the process.

Post reply on HN