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

161–170 of 444 posts

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

#161

Post by noddingham »

tellah wrote: post #118
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.

That's not what the quote said, nor the context of it, the parent was trying to equate 'offending others' as 'being an asshole'.

The actual quote is "54 percent of students said the climate on campus prevents some people from saying what they believe because they are fearful of offending others."

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

#163

Post by weberc2 »

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…

This is a use case, but it's not the use case for universities. Universities employ trigger warnings for subjects that might offend particular groups.

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

#164

Post by danso »

I'm teaching a journalism class this fall in which I've made David Simon's "Homicide" a required book. It's a terrific book overall, but I chose it because of its examination of the system as a whole. But as you can imagine, a book that involves following the Baltimore homicide department around unavoidably gets pretty grisly, even with Simon's treatment of it (that is, in the way The Wire is quite possibly one of the most boring shows ever about police work, while being also the best show on TV ever). There's lots of details about murders and rapes (the central event involves the rape and murder of a child).

That said, it is a journalism class, and students who actually become journalists should expect to report on such traumas on a fairly regular basis. So I don't feel that concerned about using the book for journalism class. I'll probably warn students not to read the chapter about autopsies while eating. If I were in another liberal arts/humanities departments, I might take pause (but I have no idea what it's like to be an instructor in any other departments, so don't take my opinion as having any insight to other departments or their proclivities)

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

#165

Post by ThrustVectoring »

panglott wrote: post #133
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…

Absolutely. But what he actually said was "we don't condone 'safe spaces'".

The charitable way of interpreting that is "The university as an organization will not lend their institutional support for enforcing 'safe spaces'. If you want one, make it and enforce it yourself"

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

#166

Post by Chathamization »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #141
Chathamization wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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 successful years at NASA, they demoted her - because she didn't have a bachelor's degree.

If universities want to be mainly about debate and a free exchange ideas, they should give up their monopolies on the things most people are going there for (monopolies they really shouldn't have in the first place).

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

#167

Post by joesmo »

fixermark wrote: post #87
joesmo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation is not needed because you can't learn something you can't discuss and you can't properly discuss anything with trigger warnings and safe spaces. I guess we traded trigger warnings and safe spaces for logic in school these days.

I don't see why you can't properly discuss anything with trigger warnings and safe spaces. You can discuss any topic you want, in the proper location, with people who want to discuss it. That's basically just human interaction etiquette, codified.

Totally agree. The students can leave. They will get a zero. They will fail the course. They will eventually have to drop out. That's the natural order of things.

But let's not pretend you can have a conversation with people that do not want to have one. The problem is these idiots also want to pass the course they didn't attend and didn't learn anything from or they want the course censored. Either way, by making these demands, they are the ones attacking students who actually put in the work to learn and students that want to actually learn and not get rid of classes or lessons they don't agree with. No matter how you look at it, it ends up in censorship if you begin to entertain the ridiculous censorship demands of students.

If I was the school's president, I would make sure these people who disrupt class and attack other students' freedoms fail for their lack of work and get kicked out for their attacks on education and other students' ability to obtain a proper education.

Have the president say to the student: "You don't want to participate in the discussion? Here's a fucking zero. Now get the fuck out of my class and if it continues, get the fuck out of my university. Most people here are actually here to learn, not disrupt the education of others." That's basically what U of Chicago is saying ahead of time now and what most universities refuse to say because the money is so plentiful right now.

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

#168

Post by zubat »

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…

It's dogwhistle politics. It's unlikely that anyone in the thread can claim authoritative knowledge on this topic - but it gets aired constantly in the media, so now everyone feels as if they should have a Strong Opinion, and their opinion lands ever-so-neatly on the side endorsing that view.

Universities themselves are never in quite so simple a position as that. Like any large group of people there are conflicts of interest, ambitious power plays, and grandstanding gestures. U of Chicago happens to sit on an end of the political spectrum that allows it this united front. That doesn't mean its day to day is actually more free or open to questioning than a school like Oberlin that aimed to endorse safe spaces and trigger warnings top-down. Any genuine discussion of freedoms vs securities is most likely lost in the scuffle.

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

#169

Post by generalledger »

nomat wrote: post #116
Erik816 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pret…

Most of the times these clubs that pay for speakers are given a stipend to spend on events from the school. When universities bring in people like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos, it is almost always the campus Republican group that pays, in part with the money provided by the school, and in part with money raised by the group itself. Campus Democrats also get money for the exact same purpose.

I would say that the students certainly do have the right to complain and protest as long as it is not violent and not terribly disruptive. Complaining and protesting is PART of the open exchange of ideas. Physically blockading events is not, shouting down speakers while they are speaking is not, and in general throwing an adult-sized tantrum until you get your way is not.

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

#170

Post by basseq »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #112
basseq wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would agree. (And was responding to the parent comment.) It begs two questions, though:

1. What's "reasonable"?

2. Does the meaning of "reasonable" change? (E.g., a criminal-law class vs. a computer science class) To me, this could be redefined as "topic appropriateness".

Post reply on HN