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’

#271

Post by wutbrodo » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 9:58 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…

It seems to me that you have this backwards. Universities serve a purpose in society beyond job training; It's been that way for a long time and they're pretty explicit about that fact (witness the difference in prestige between universities and vocational schools). Someone who wants to go there just for job training and not get exposed to anything beyond their narrow horizons shouldn't have the right to demand their environment conform to their ideal.

> 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?

You have this precisely backwards. Grocery stores are designed and advertised as being for groceries: they're not debate areas that people decided to start using to pick up milk. A more relevant analogy would be people going into a church just to rest their legs in a pretty building, and then complaining about the guy droning on about God. We would quite clearly place the blame in that case on the people expecting the church to accommodate their ideal of "a pretty building to sit down in", in contradiction to the original and stated goals of the church.

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

#272

Post by jotux » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:01 PM UTC

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.

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

#273

Post by wutbrodo » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:01 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #204

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…

I would be fine with this if it were applied equitably. As it stands, centrist and conservative students have been expected to endure progressive indoctrination, and they've done so relatively quietly up until it their speech and activities began to be prohibited (I believe it was UIC where someone chalked "Trump 2016" on the sidewalks, and students tried to have it prosecuted as a hate crime).

It was at Emory

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

#274

Post by Chathamization » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:02 PM UTC

grahamburger wrote: post #235

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…

You're right, of course, but I sure wish you weren't. In the world that I dream of we are prepared for an apprenticeship by the time we're halfway through high school and exit the apprenticeship a few years later in to a career. I just don't see any reason that 12 years of schooling isn't enough to get to entry level skill set in any profession. Then we could save Universities for art and intellectual pursuits, spend…

I agree, and think it's crazy that we as a society give up on mental growth for most people past a certain point. There's an enormous amount of potential that gets wasted because of the erroneous assumption that most people won't grow past a certain point. I think most people would be happier taking new classes, meeting new people, working on new projects, etc. than they would be sitting at home watching TV or reading about celebrities.

There's some, limited support for this kind of continual growth, but not nearly as much as there should be.

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

#275

Post by emblem21 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:04 PM UTC

basseq wrote: post #170

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

1. If I started posting the N-word over and over again this very moment, you would instinctively consider that unreasonable, so let's stop pretending to not know the definitions of things.

2. You can't rigorously define the boundaries of context.

With those two axioms, we can conclude that the root of the matter, which protecting the feelings of children who have been catered to their whole lives, is not a path worthy of resource or virtue. These are the same overmedicated people who simulanteously hold the belief they are just specks of dust in the universe while screaming about the importance of their feelings. Too many TED talks, not enough TED debates.

They are of zero consequence when you account for these factors.

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

#276

Post by jonlucc » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:04 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #143

nomat wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why should student A who sees the negative of a speaker have the power of veto over student B who sees the positive of the speaker? What happens when student B complains about a speaker that student A wants to hear? Do we just ban everybody or allow a diversity of opinions? For that matter, if the speaker is invited by a student organization that the complaining student is not a member of, why should that student com…

Why not allow both? The group can have their speaker within whatever guidelines the school has (some schools ban foul language or other school-wide policies), and the other group is allowed to protest. Just like the real world where another company can do what it wants within the law, but I can also protest what and how they do it.

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

#277

Post by wutbrodo » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:05 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?

> 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 the manner that that's done leads to insanity if you actually apply it equitably. If students knew exactly what they needed to learn, going to college would be largely irrelevant.

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

#278

Post by ebola1717 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:05 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #249

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…

If someone denies the holocaust and promotes slavery, don't they have the right to express their views? It's a very slippery slope when you let someone (you? me?) decide what speech is too dangerous to hear. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is dangerous, but letting some whacko spout about why slavery is good is entirely different.

Again, that's counterfactual. Currently, if a professor tried to seriously discuss such views, they would be promptly let go. The point of contention is not whether "safe spaces" should exist - they exist in spades already, and the University supports them. The debate is what form they should take.

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

#279

Post by tnecniv » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:05 PM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #176

Chathamization wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Want to be a lawyer ... Perfect example! Law is one career where you can learn everything you need to know by reading books (ok, maybe all of them are that way..). Yet legislators (many lawyers themselves) in several states have introduced new laws to limit licensure only to those who have degrees. This would've excluded notables like Lincoln, Jefferson, Darrow, Marshall.

What's the justification for doing this?

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

#280

Post by Fraterkes » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:07 PM UTC

riot504 wrote: post #182

brightball wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in what classroom circumstances would a warning be necessary? I'm all for being courteous, I just have serious concerns about giving college students the impression that the world around them needs to adjust to them rather than vice versa.

A warning is never required. If you are unable to listen (or god forbid a disturbing image) to controversial issues that are literally occurring in real life you won't be able to handle the real world once college is over.

So why does the concept of a warning exist at all then?