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

381–390 of 444 posts

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

#381

Post by echaozh »

tedks wrote: post #355
yawaramin wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a very narrow view of universities and higher learning throughout history. The ancient Greek and Arab traditions in academia were very much that of open discourse and the pursuit of enlightenment through knowledge, not the entrenching of white males or indeed any other majority.

>The ancient Greek and Arab traditions in academia were very much that of open discourse and the pursuit of enlightenment through knowledge, not the entrenching of white males or indeed any other majority Yes, all those slave-owning Greeks and Arabs were really the pinnacle of open discourse and the pursuit of enlightenment. There was definitely no social model they intended to enforce on others, and their universiti…

Ad hominem? Did I get the spelling right?

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

#382

Post by joesmo »

norea-armozel wrote: post #248
joesmo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never said anything like that, but to your point, who decides what's abusive? Because clearly, letting students decide that has prevented actual education from taking place, education that people are paying for and expecting to get. If one can't teach classic English literature or American law because the students demand trigger warnings and safe spaces, they're the problem in this equation, not the professor, and th…

"Never said anything like that, but to your point, who decides what's abusive?" The given student association has a say in who it allows as members and as guests in to their private spaces. This has nothing to do with professors deciding to analyze the work of the Marquis de Sade (sp?). It's more about saying these associations have legal autonomy from the university itself when it comes to governing their private sp…

A classroom (or any other place at a university) is not a private space ruled by students. It is the university's space that it uses to educate students who purchase an education from the university. The university has complete control and a university, like the U of Chicago, should exercise said control to promote learning and remove people who object to teaching such objectionable things as (but not limited to) American law and literature. If one doesn't like what's going on, there are many competing universities in the business of child coddling and babysitting that one can attend.

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

#383

Post by rsync »

tedks wrote: post #373
rsync wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"[0] http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html" from the list: - Pregnancy/childbirth - Death or dying - Slimy things It's very difficult not to dismiss this as infantile.

Really? You don't think people are capable of being traumatized by pregnancy, death, or insects? Personal injury and insects are among the most common phobias and pregnancy should be fairly obvious as to why it's on that list (I don't want to elaborate because that could be traumatizing). Maybe you should try having more empathy for oppressed groups and individuals rather than writing off anything you can't immediate…

"Maybe you should try having more empathy for oppressed groups and individuals rather than writing off anything you can't immediately connect to your own experience as infantile."

None of the items I listed involve oppression or special subgroups of people. They are basic components of the human condition.

An inability to deal with the basic aspects of being alive is, ipso facto, infantile.

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

#384

Post by nikcheerla »

stcredzero wrote: post #294
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…

the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness is actually a softening of extremism How about an "arms limitation treaty" between the left and the right in the US? Both sides will give up most of their empirically unsupported, subjective, and intellectually dishonest tactics for muddying the waters and suppressing substantive debate. The left can give up trigger warnings while the right can stop denyi…

I'd love that. The problem is that it's really, really hard to criticize your own tribe. (People who made a habit of criticizing their tribe in the ancestral environment were killed off very quickly).

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

#385

Post by iofj »

wutbrodo wrote: post #277
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?

> 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? Should creationist students lobby to remove the teaching of evolution from the curriculum? I understand that it's not an identical situation, but the general point is that students are putting a certain level of trust in the university to educate them, and having a line-item veto on…

"leads to insanity if you actually apply it"

A better description of politics I could not have come up with.

"equitably"

Fortunately, no danger of that on either the left or the right.

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

#386

Post by nikcheerla »

tedks wrote: post #360
jotux wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the wikipedia you linked, specifically about trigger warnings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger#Trigger_warning... But your statement: > They're to prevent panic attacks. Seems to counter the arguments in the link: > Richard J. McNally, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, while writing for Pacific Standard,[13] discussed the merit of trigger warnings noting that "Trigger warnings are d…

That's probably very easy for a rich white man to say. If you have no reason to use a safe space, and are bothered by being considerate to people who have had to live entire lifetimes of oppression for their gender, race, religion, sexuality, etc., it's very easy to be dismissive of basic progressivism in such a way. But it's 2016, and the new generation that is coming to power is going to do away with the concept of…

This comment scares me in a way I can't really put my finger on.

Maybe it's the implicit assumption that oppression outweighs everything else – i.e someone who is black ipso facto lives a worse life than someone who is white, disregarding all other factors.

I feel like if a critical majority of people actually believed that all colleges were just "factories of oppression, sexual assault, and white supremacy", then we'd have some kind of civil war.

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

#387

Post by superuser2 »

wflynny wrote: post #332
wutbrodo wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. That's one way it's relevant, to answer your first sentence. The fact that Yale fosters this family-esque relationship with peers, faculty, and deans is one of t…

Chicago also fosters this family-esque relationship in housing, but also builds its identity on students in housing common spaces debating (including topics with political relevance) over meals and long into the night.

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

#388

Post by jotux »

tedks wrote: post #360
jotux wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the wikipedia you linked, specifically about trigger warnings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger#Trigger_warning... But your statement: > They're to prevent panic attacks. Seems to counter the arguments in the link: > Richard J. McNally, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, while writing for Pacific Standard,[13] discussed the merit of trigger warnings noting that "Trigger warnings are d…

That's probably very easy for a rich white man to say. If you have no reason to use a safe space, and are bothered by being considerate to people who have had to live entire lifetimes of oppression for their gender, race, religion, sexuality, etc., it's very easy to be dismissive of basic progressivism in such a way. But it's 2016, and the new generation that is coming to power is going to do away with the concept of…

His comment was specifically talking about treatment of PTSD and anxiety disorders. But I guess since he's white his conclusion, based on studies, is invalid?

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

#389

Post by Retra »

tedks wrote: post #373
rsync wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"[0] http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html" from the list: - Pregnancy/childbirth - Death or dying - Slimy things It's very difficult not to dismiss this as infantile.

Really? You don't think people are capable of being traumatized by pregnancy, death, or insects? Personal injury and insects are among the most common phobias and pregnancy should be fairly obvious as to why it's on that list (I don't want to elaborate because that could be traumatizing). Maybe you should try having more empathy for oppressed groups and individuals rather than writing off anything you can't immediate…

Whether or not they can be traumatized is not the issue. If those things traumatize someone, they should be getting personal professional care, not wastefully burdening every institution and individual they interact with.

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

#390

Post by nl »

teacup50 wrote: post #313
rayiner wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. That's an ideal that was never really true. Historically, a major function of universities has been being places where white male elites could congregate and maintain their power by excluding others: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-di... . I'm not a supporter of the movement to stamp out uncomfortable ide…

> That's an ideal that was never really true. Sure it was. In the 1960s and 70s, for example, when Universities were a hotbed of free speech and civil liberty activism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement

The interesting thing about the FSM speicifically is that was exclusively at Berkeley.

It is true that there were significant student protest movements at many universities in the 60's and 70's.

I don't think that this invalidates the OP's point that "historically, a major function of universities has been being places where white male elites could congregate and maintain their power by excluding others".

Look over the last 200 years or so of universities in the US. It's only since the 1950's that non-whites and females started attending in significant numbers.

Even if we take 1970 as a cut-off where that is no-longer the majority case, the OP's point is still valid.

Post reply on HN