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

311–320 of 444 posts

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

#311

Post by yawaramin »

rayiner wrote: post #268
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. 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…

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.

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

#312

Post by harmegido »

sverige wrote: post #137
jpfed wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. The point of extending the courtesy of trigger warnings isn't that you will, with 100% certainty, prevent anyone from entering a state of psychological distress. That's obviously not attainable. But let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There's really obvious stuff that instructors could warn about, but aren't. After I posted a similar…

First, the very act of learning can cause psychological distress. It may involve being forced to consider that some of your long-cherished ideas are wrong. This creates a crisis since either you abandon the wrong idea you've held or you ignore the new information you've acquired. One of the most effective ways of learning is to hear and consider ideas opposed to the ones you currently hold. But these kinds of things…

Your post is an amazing contradiction, all within about 20 seconds. An incredible read!

Am I missing some joke or sarcasm? I'm normally pretty good at detecting it in text. How can you advocate for learning to explore all ideas, even if they may seem opposite to what you (or others) may hold and at the same time say its repugnant that a teacher would show a taboo idea in video form?

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

#313

Post by teacup50 »

rayiner wrote: post #268
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. 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

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

#314

Post by cuckcuckspruce »

tnecniv wrote: post #279
wyldfire wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The Bar Association is a modern guild. They don't want competition.

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

#315

Post by teacup50 »

jonlucc wrote: post #276
talmand wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Protesting the speaker's ideas is always fine.

Protesting the speaker's existence is difficult to intellectually justify as a healthy exchange of ideas, including critique.

These days, what we see is a lot of the latter -- up to and including attempting to prevent attendance of the event -- and very little of the former.

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

#316

Post by nradov »

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

No that's totally different. Broadcast news programs are often watched by small children. Parents reasonably want to shield children from graphic content which they are too immature to understand. However university students are almost entirely adults and thus expected to have the intellectual and emotional maturity to deal with the real world unfiltered.

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

#317

Post by comex »

seibelj wrote: post #104

Some 18 year olds fight in wars and die. Other 18 year olds cry and throw tantrums when someone says a word that they don't like hearing. The world we live in!

As it happens, veterans as a group have a high incidence of PTSD, which is what trigger warnings are supposed to be about.

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

#318

Post by Navarr »

mcjon77 wrote: post #198
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…

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…

> it is a REQUIREMENT to learn an environment with a free and open exchange of ideas.

This is going to get buried, but I feel like I need to write it somewhere.

The biggest argument I've seen /for/ safe spaces is that, outside of them, it is very possible for a certain type of conversation to be drowned out. Safe spaces, by limiting some types of conversation, can allow other types of conversations to foster.

In a purely "free speech" environment, someone can just yell their opinion on repeat, talking over everyone, etc. A safe space can allow certain topics room to talk that they might not get otherwise.

I agree with the concept that UoC should not have to _provide_ safe spaces or trigger warnings, but I feel like both can have their place for an exchange of ideas (safe spaces) or to prepare people for something they're uncomfortable with (trigger warnings).

Viewing them solely as a political attempt to stifle free speech reads rather privileged, based on the above notion I gained elsewhere. I can't quite describe why, which is disappointing to myself - but perhaps safe spaces are needed in order for minority topics to gain the room they need to be discussed.

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

#319

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#320

Post by BurningFrog »

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…

Yeah, all these words mean different things to the Social Justice/Progressive left and the rest of us.

It's one of the surest tells that a movement is wrong when they refuse to use the regular meanings of words and start redefining them in their own usage. People who are right never have to resort to such contrivances.

Post reply on HN