I really respect the University of Chicago’s commitment to academic freedom and open discussion, and their rejection of what Jonathan Haidt coined “safetyism.” That’s the kind of educational environment my husband and I want for our kids, where they can ask questions, explore ideas freely, challenge and be challenged. And where their professors and peers can do the same. I know several universities have signed the U of Chicago letter over the years, but many of them have since succumbed to student pressure, while Chicago still has not. What other schools are like Chicago?
Chicago is a fine school, but I don’t buy the premise that it stands out among elite institutions in terms of freedom of thought/speech. Zimmer’s letter was performative and self-aggrandizing; the attention and resonance from people outside the institution, such as the OP, was exactly the goal. If Zimmer wanted buy-in from the entering class, as per the pretense of addressing the letter to them, he would have sent out his message before the commitment deadline, so that students in that class would still have an opportunity to self-select according to their own values and the impression being made on them by the administration. But no, he waited until the fall, and then took a scolding and paternalistic tone with students who had already committed to spending up to 80K/year to enroll. This plays well with the “put those spoiled kids in their place” crowd, but it’s disingenuous. He wouldn’t have dared to risk his precious yield by addressing still-undecided students in this way.
Is so-called “safetyism” a real problem on college campuses? I would argue that to the limited extent that it’s not a red herring, it’s equally a concern at either end of the ideological spectrum. Look for schools that cultivate diversity of all kinds - cultural, economic, racial/ethnic and ideological - and the discourse will happen, both inside and outside the classroom. Most of the people who are shrieking about being silenced are simply being fragile about encountering real disagreement (sometimes for the first time in their lives) which is really the point of open discussion in the first place.
Read the fascinating articles about how speech has been muzzled at Liberty U. I agree with Aquapt… if criticizing the university president for a wide range of potential crimes (committed on U property and while on fundraising trips with major donors) is “triggering” to the board of directors, they should all have stepped down for their collusion and participation in the coverup. Financial crimes, sexual exploitation… I’ll stop here.
There are many schools that like to say that they don’t do things like safety spaces and trigger warnings but in reality the whole place is one big safety space.
I’m pretty sure the campus considers itself a “safe space” for all students and student expression so I don’t know whether it’d work for you, but it reminded me of this initiative at St Olaf. Speakers come to present different viewpoints about an issue, there’s an annual theme, etc.
I think there are quite a few schools that seek diversity in this way. Of course, they’re doing so by assembling a class that is diverse in terms of more-easily-measured factors like geography, racial/ethnic background, economic/social class, participation in a variety of extracurriculars, etc. (Because nobody is directly quizzing college students or applicants about their value systems, with the possible/looming exception of Ron DeSantis.)
As one example, one of my kids went to Rice, and she encountered a much wider range of views there than she did at her SF Bay Area high school. It’s not a very “activist” campus, and it leans progressive like most of higher ed, but many different views are intelligently represented and the discourse is generally open and respectful. (And this is accomplished without ideological grandstanding on the part of the administration!) Of course, what Rice and Chicago have in common is their large endowments and financial aid budgets. It’s harder for a school to prioritize diversity when they can’t afford to provide need-blind aid. Hence, financially-accessible public institutions are another place to look for diverse student populations. IMHO it also helps when there’s a strong relationship between the school and the surrounding community, such that students put their developing values to the test by engaging with real-world issues beyond the walls of their campus, rather than spending four years in an isolated bubble.
TBH, while I understand the concern, I’m not sure this works well as a first filter. There are so many criteria by which to choose a college, and so many colleges that could likely satisfy you on this front… I would look for fit in terms of academics, geography/setting, social/extracurricular opportunities, and of course affordability, and then compare the front-runners in terms of various metrics of freedom of speech, etc. But that’s just me.
A “trigger warning” is also for the veteran who is suffering from PTSD that they got during their security operations. If the class includes the opening scenes for “Saving Private Ryan” such a person can have a full-out breakdown. Most places will have a warning for people with PTSD that the sounds and sights of combat could trigger their PTSD. That would be considered a “trigger warning”.
As for “safe spaces”. Again, every college will have them, but they will often have names like “Chapel”. All it means is that there are spaces in which people either avoid certain topics, or in which people can say things without judgement. An AA meeting creates exactly one of those “safe spaces”.
So first, you need to be clear as to what you exactly mean. I’m absolute certain that you do not mean a place where there are no warnings for veterans and no AA on campus.
What you are actually looking for are colleges which have fewer trigger warnings and fewer safe spaces, and that these are limited to situations where you also feel would require a warning or a safe space.
BTW, not judging you - there is no agreement across the political spectrum as to what should require a trigger warning and where and how extensive safe spaces should be. Almost everybody across the political spectrum will consider people on one of their sides (politically) as mean and uncaring, and the people on the other side as ridiculous.
I think that, in this case, websites like Niche that provide a lot of feedback from students would be very helpful. While FIRE provides a lot of valuable information about freedom of speech, you also want to know how students feel.
On the FIRE list, the the five schools about which Fire provides a Warning are all religious schools.
(Warning Schools: The following schools have policies that clearly and consistently state that it prioritizes other values over a commitment to freedom of speech. These colleges were excluded from the rankings and were scored relative to one another.)
Agreed. I’m not sure why a trigger warning is a bad thing. I typical see it in reference to things such as sexual assault, child abuse, child death, etc. These can be very traumatic topics for those who have experienced them. I don’t know why showing compassion for this is viewed as a negative.
In the right wing media-verse, Trigger Warnings are a dog whistle for 'snowflake liberals who can’t read about a mass shooting by a 19 year old with a psychiatric history without immediately demanding gun safety regulations".
So colleges that are perceived to be safe havens for liberals (the usual suspects- Oberlin, Bard, Reed and their ilk) come under attack. How a couple of colleges which educate a miniscule number of students every year have become the bete noire of Fox News confounds me…