The professor failed the students. The student called him on it. And the professor talked about free speech bs. That wasn’t his role. He brings in FIRE. Lol.
Where did the student in the video complain about classroom safe places for example? Show me where and I will watch the video again.
The student was complaining about the professor’s role and he wasn’t doing his job. She was talking about her home. She is right.
Listen to the student and listen to the professor.
Here’s a real-life example of how people are attempting to dramatically expand “trigger” warnings to the point where they interfere with legitimate academic instruction:
It’s an article by Professor Jeannie Gerson at Harvard Law School.
Gerson teaches a class in which “rape law” is covered. She says that some students are arguing that the law of rape shouldn’t be on exams, Some students are even arguing that rape law should not be taught at all because of its potential to cause distress (One student even asked that the word “violate” should not be used—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering).
The professor thinks that not teaching young lawyers about rape is crazy. I think she is right–if this were adopted everywhere then it would really hurt rape victims’ ability to get justice–and I think that trying to force her not to teach rape law is a violation of her academic freedom and hugely interferes with the education of her students.
That’s an example of why UChicago has taken the stand that it has. It’s not because they have it out for disabled vets suffering from PTSD.
“I think they would say that they defend student civil rights regardless of the politics of the student.”
That doesn’t have anything to do with the conservatism of the organization. The ACLU is a liberal/progressive organization that has often advocated on behalf of conservative individuals. FIRE is a conservative organization because of the philosophy and worldview that it is trying to promote.
“Assault may have been my word not his… he was on the phone with me trying to convey the feelings his soon to be UCH friends (who are national activists working for safer K-12 schools for LGBT students) had…”
And this merits a big eye roll. Do he and his friends REALLY think U of Chicago in general is not going to be fully supportive of efforts to make/keep K-12 schools safe for LGBT students? Where does he think he’s going to? Oral Roberts U?
So “afraid of an assault” when you’re already going to institutions that espouse the values you have. Sorry, that’s ridiculous to me. It’s like my worrying about an elite college not being supportive of women having the right to vote.
Actually, as @al2simon explained, it is a core UChicago belief.
In other words, if your son chafes against what UChicago is saying, UChicago doesn’t want your son, despite how talented he is. Fortunately for your talented son, UPenn will likely be more accommodating to him.
For UChicago, this exposure is a huge win! While it repels kids like your son, it becomes a magnet for the sizable percentage of kids that think PC culture has gone overboard.
Serious answer: If this represents a change in policy, I think it would be best to bring it up a year before putting the new policy in place. This would give potential applicants a heads-up and give current students time to transfer elsewhere before the change goes into effect.
“Here’s a real-life example of how people are attempting to use “trigger” warnings to interfere with legitimate academic instruction”
Another example occurred at Northwestern (Medill - journalism school) in a media/ethics/law class. A black student objected to a Medill alum who worked for ABC News coming in and showing the video of the Laquan McDonald shooting in Chicago. The video had been circulated on the Internet for some time and the showing was in the context of discussing what media outlets should and should not show, which was a huge ethical issue in the journalistic community surrounding videos like these. This was not prurient or sensational; the video could have also been the Daniel Pearl video from ten years ago, but it was necessary to show something disturbing in order to have informed discussion of the pros/cons of airing such a video and what responsibility the media has.
Like the Harvard law rape discussion above, it is impossible for a young journalist wannabe to shield herself from such controversial videos and claim to be educated in media/ethics/law.
“My son’s LS professor told students on the first day of class that the class would not be discussing rape law for this very reason.”
Was this in the required first-year criminal law course? If so, what a shame that the professor made that choice. The other students are being deprived of a core topic. This is professional school leading to unconditional licensure. Everyone needs to know the basics.
It’s one thing to possibly make reasonable accommodations for law students who have been rape victims.
But now we’ve effectively prohibited the teaching of rape law to future lawyers (at least in one classroom). This seems to be wrong and a very poor decision. Shaking my head.
And if I stand in my front yard and scream at my neghbor kids for playing on my grass, I have no expectation of privacy. And of course the residential colleges are academic institutions. Academic institutions are not just class room buildings. Don’t be silly.
How exactly did the professor “fail” the students? It is not his job to agree with whatever the student says. What a weird idea.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
You hold what is quite obviously a minority opinion there.
I tried. It was hard to hear the professor because of all the screaming though.
^and Yale tells them filming in their colleges is against Yale rules.
I don’t see how the fact students were filming excuses Lukianoff from filming. Lukianoff posted the video, not students.
I will agree Christakis should have insisted no one film anything in the courtyard. I don’t see how you can argue Christakis shouldn’t be enforcing Yale rules.
Yale has those rules for a reason. They aren’t arbitrary.
At another school maybe, but this is UCHICAGO !! Expecting them to not vigorously defend freedom of expression is like going to Notre Dame and expecting them to stop talking so much about Jesus and football.
Anyway, as I said before, UChicago has had this policy for years.
Oh please, dstark. You are interpreting anything other than “the professor rolled over and completely acquiesced to her POV” as “failing the student.”
There wasn’t even a real incident to point to. It’s not as though there really was a Slutty Anne Frank or Sexy Pocahontas costume and the student said - I’d like your help facilitating a dialogue with the offender - and he refused. He merely held a different, though reasonable, opinion. He and his wife mistakenly thought Y students had enough moxie to deal with such situations in positive ways with dialogue. I guess he was wrong and they needed mommies to fight their battles else temper tantrums will result.
Whatever about the filming. Whether or not filming was permitted doesn’t change her behavior. It is positively Trump-esque to focus on the irrelevancies as opposed to substance.
Simple. The quoted policy language is designed to address actual commercial filming. No one in their right mind would ever think to apply that policy to a cell phone video. No rational person would have an expectation of privacy while screaming at a professor, surrounded by dozens of students, in the middle of a protest. Get real, please.
It is definitely not irrelevant. It absolutely goes to what actually happened. There are several narratives going on in this thread about this incident and a few facts.
It is a fact this filming was against Yale rules. It is a fact Christakis should have known this.
It is possible to creative various narratives as to why Christakis did not enforce Yale rules.
It is a fact this young woman suffered serious repercussions because this film was posted.
It is a fact that Lukianoff publicized the film.
Again, there are various narratives constructed around those facts.
ETA: I believe I am a rational person. ymmv. Also, I have done my best to be very careful in the language I’ve used in this thread, even when I vehemently disagree with a poster.
My condemnation of Lukianoff is deliberate. I do not believe he is participating in this discussion or, more likely, lurking, but I am not discounting the possibility.
“How do you grow if you are always surrounding yourself with ideas you already agree with?”
^ exactly!
U of Chicago has ALWAYS stressed that a core goal of the College is to challenge students in order to make them learn how to THINK! That certainly was what my DS found in his classes there. He knew how to learn, but was not coddled by profs when his ideas were not supported by fact.
That is why I applaud the letter to incoming students- it reiterates the core values of an UG education there.
Any student whose does not want his ideas to be challenged by faculty or other students should apply elsewhere.
That wasn’t his role. He brings in FIRE. Lol.