Hillel, Catholic centers, etc do not ban or forbid non-Jews/non-Catholics from being in their buildings and attending their events. Certainly you see the difference between this and segregation.
What godforsaken area do you live in where a gay student is told in the classroom he should die??
I don’t think anybody here is saying that there are any ideas or positions that should be banned from free discussion at universities.
The issue is whether there should be situations/places where certain ideas should not be subject to free discussion.
Of course, I also don’t think anyone is claiming that there should be complete freedom of speech without exception at universities, either. (The “fire in a crowded theater” case, if nothing else.)
There’s often a big difference there between the reality and the rhetoric ascribed to individuals’ opponents, on both sides.
And in the few colleges where I have happened to attend events at such religious spaces, they were privately run and off campus, or if on campus, privately paid for.
Can one of you who feels FIRE or Lukanoff acted unethically in the Yale “shrieking girl” video explain your thinking in some way that is more than a reference to FIRE’s perceived conservative bias? I understand the argument that they are sensationalists (just like the real media) but I don’t understand how filming and then disseminating a recording of a very public argument can be considered unethical conduct?
Not trying to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you are agreeing that shouting down speakers (like the three examples given in the original article) is not acceptable. However, you think that “safe spaces” or “trigger warnings” might be justified in some circumstances?
What colleges were these? That sounds very unusual for Hillel’s or Catholic centers, etc. Also, most universities employ rabis, imams, chaplains, etc and have places of worship so that students can practice their religion.
Yale’s Hillel is independent, at least according to their website.
211
I believe Lukianoff exploited the students for self-promotion. That is unethical, in my opinion. Putting the students in harm’s way for self promotion is immoral, in my opinion.
As exacademic wrote, there was a thread.
There was a whole lot of discussion as to whether students at Yale have a right to privacy in their colleges, which are their homes. This was filmed in the college courtyard. I think I remember that filming in a college courtyard is not allowed by Yale without permission. I believe I have that correct. Either way, it doesn’t change my impression of Lukianoff. He put students at risk for self promotion. It wasn’t necessary for his cause.
@al2simon, I was simply pointing out that there’s a lot of strawmanning going on by both sides in this whole argument (not as much this thread, but the wider argument).
@Pizzagirl We live in NJ!! You wouldn’t believe the hate rhetoric he has had to endure at school… and BTW his school had a gay student suicide recently … so at some point a hostile environment is dangerous and a place where you can be safe in your own skin is important for students…
also I have never heard of LGBT student centers or black students centers or Hillel or Catholic services etc ever restricting those who enter to be of their own “ilk” … they are open to all who want to go there,…but there is the assumption that they are “hateful” rhetoric free and “safe spaces” for their students…
You sure about that Al? (Don’t forget that many Universities are public.)
I have no doubt that college have interfaith places for prayer and reflection, and offer community links to individual outside organizations for greater worship.
For example, I pulled up a SUNY at random :
I think you’re right about public universities (though the SUNY Albany Hillel does get about 20% of its budget from student fees). The universities I know well all employ religious staff, but they’re all private. I stand corrected.
@alh, thanks for the response. I remember the thread, and I kinda remember the argument that Lukanoff should not have been permitted to film the altercation. I have to admit that argument seemed kind of strained to me. It is very hard for me to believe that any college student would have any type of expectation of privacy while engaging a faculty member, out of doors amongst a large group of people.
But I really don’t get the idea that somehow he or his organization engineered the confrontation for his own ends. I see no logic in or evidence of such, other than the kind of post hoc propter hoc thinking that because Lukanoff is a conservative who advocates as he does he must have been the bad actor here.
This is from a dean who obviously doesn’t understand the meaning or original purpose of trigger warnings or safe spaces.
Trigger warnings were put in place to warn students who were survivors of a particular kind of trauma - sexual violence, perhaps, or war, or mass shootings - that the content they were about to consume in class would be related to that trauma and might stir up some negative feelings. The purpose was not to shield students from these things; it was to allow them to prepare themselves mentally for it and decide whether or not they were able to handle the potential ‘triggering’ of PTSD flashbacks and related issues that might crop up. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, there is something perverse about thinking it’s okay to spring a war movie on an Afghanistan veteran or a graphic sexually violent passage on a rape survivor. (It also was not originally intended for mild discomfort or offense, and I suspect that it’s only rarely used that way anyway. In fact, trigger warnings in generally are pretty rare.)
Safe spaces, similarly, were never designed or intended to be used as a place where individuals could ‘retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.’ The original safe spaces were devised as a place with members of minority groups could come together and talk about their experiences of marginalization without being denigrated or facing harassment or hate speech from others. The concept originated in women’s groups - women who could come together and talk about women’s marginalization in the workplace and society without pushback from men. It was amplified in the gay community, and some of the first safe spaces were actually gay bars - places where LGBTQ people could be themselves and live their lives without fear of getting harassed.
Neither of these concepts has anything to do with academic freedom. You can have academic freedom and also have trigger warnings and safe spaces. You can have rigorous debate, be challenged to think and learn, and be free from censorship and still have trigger warnings and safe spaces - if they are used as they were originally intended to be used. In fact, I would hope that a modern university would promote itself as a true safe space - a space where anyone, regardless of their identity and background, can come and be free of harassment or hate or denigration because of the way they choose to live their life and what they choose to do and believe.
The problem is when news and media outlets define these terms incorrectly and irresponsibly, like the Chicago Tribune writing that safe spaces are “designed to shelter students from certain speakers and topics.” No, that’s not what they’re for.
Basically, the letter sounds like it’s coming from a dean who’s trying hard to be edgy.
When Yale did nothing after a professor was confronted by an angry rabble and shouted down, for the egregious crime of disagreeing with a vocal minority, that spoke volumes about the university’s commitment to its values when doing the right thing involved angering some students.
Ironically, Yale stopping students (presumably the “angry rabble”) from shouting down a professor would be a violation of THEIR free speech. Freedom of expression doesn’t entitle you to an audience, and it doesn’t mean forcing students to listen to something they don’t want to hear. It’s probably not ideal for them to do as students, but it’s certainly part of their full freedom of expression - as is protesting a speaker they don’t want to hear from and petitioning the university to reject speakers that they don’t feel align with their values. All of that is a part of freedom of speech, too.
Q.E.D.
I think you’ve succinctly summarized the logic, Ohiodad51
^. That too, although I guess it depends on whether you put the emphasis on conservative or advocate.
@juillet, the issue isn’t what trigger warnings and safe spaces were originally designed to do, it is what they have sometimes become. I at least agree with you that as formulated in your post both can be a net positive and actually assist a student’s intellectual growth, which, outside of fund raising, is what universities should be about. However, as happens all to frequently, what was originally a good idea is at times stretched and prodded into an unrecognizable shape, sometimes for a purpose outside of the original intent. I think the real debate here and elsewhere is how frequently the concept of safe spaces and trigger warnings are being misapplied.
“Chicago Tribune writing that safe spaces are “designed to shelter students from certain speakers and topics.” No, that’s not what they’re for.”
I agree that that shouldn’t be what they’re for. But it seems they have been used that way in some cases, notably Brown U. and the crayons/play-doh room during the rape culture debate.
“there is something perverse about thinking it’s okay to spring a war movie on an Afghanistan veteran”
“Spring”? I don’t know of any course where a movie title is not made available to students before the screening. It’s not plausible to me that a veteran would sign up for a course on central Asian history or whatever and then be surprised that the content included “Lone Survivor.” I wouldn’t think it was okay to call the movie “Mary Poppins” on the syllabus, but I think it’s fine to have relevant course content in any medium. If anything, it is perverse to imagine that potentially upsetting works can be listed on a liberal arts curriculum like allergens on a cereal box.
l’ve also never seen a real-life university trigger warning aimed at veterans. If you have some examples, I’d love to hear about them.
First of all…old people are judging young people through their own old eyes and their own old experiences. Try to remember when you were 20.
Second…because I engage with somebody publicly, I should expect to be filmed? That’s a stretch. A long stretch.
In non-college contexts, trigger warnings may be given before showing video (on a web site or television) of violent crimes occurring or violent events during wars (in either case, people getting killed or seriously injured in the video).
I think it matters that those warnings are not called trigger warnings. The audience is not presumed to be an explosive about to go off. Labels like “Viewer discretion advised” or “R rated” have their flaws, but at least they do not send the message that we’re barely holding it together.