“Universities need to be mindful that inviting a speaker to speak at a university…especially an elite one like UChicago confers a greater level of legitimacy on whoever is invited.”
I am not sure I agree. My S was involved with various organizations that invited speakers to campus. As he introduced them, he was required to read a statement to this effect: Xx is a guest of (college). His statements reflect his own thinking and do not necessarily reflect the views of (college). (If the speaker was running for office at that time) We neither endorse nor oppose any candidate for political office. As Xx is an invited guest, we expect that he will be treated accordingly. There will be no signs allowed in this auditorium, and no disruption to his ability to speak (such as booing, shouting, etc). If there is a Q and A session, we expect the questions to be respectful, civil and germane. Anyone not complying will be escorted out by uni security.
See how easy that is? If people can’t accept that asking a speaker to speak is not unequivocal acceptance of that person’s ideas, then they don’t belong in a university setting.
@alh, you are very smart. You are almost sneaky smart. You fly around under the radar…
Every once in awhile you fly a little higher and your cover is blown.
You aren’t fooling anybody. You are very smart.
I should probably tie what I just wrote into the thread because this thread is solely about safe places and triggers.
That case I was talking about with Demosthenes that was about free speech… I didn’t want to post a link. The story was partially about triggers. After reading the questions…I just lost interest in talking about the story. The story wasn’t that important.
Now I mentioned triggers so this post is relevant.
@Pizzagirl - there’s a difference between “confers a greater level of legitimacy” and “equivocal acceptance of that person’s ideas.” Speaking at colleges absolutely does the former–I know firsthand: I’ve done it and promptly placed it on my resume.
“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.
–Why?”
One, because absolutely everything can be violently upsetting to someone (see discussion of anxiety disorders above). Two, because it tells students that the world of literature, history, biology, and so on is some kind of minefield they have to cross that might blow them up at any time. Three, because it reduces individual works of art and science to ingredient lists: the Bible contains three kinds of incest, twelve incidents of warfare, and an undercurrent of misogyny. How can you have a spirit of exploration and examination reading a nutrition label? Where are the warnings about what you might miss if you DON’T read this book?
" I’ve never seen Lone Survivor, so I have no idea whether it’s graphically violent or not."
@pickpocket - then I’m sure you also noticed that Price advocated nothing of the sort, nor did Price advocate that “all professors must” do anything. As for the “pendulum,” well, I’m not sure how you’d claim better knowledge of the state of affairs on college campuses than Prof. Price, who currently teaches at several…
One thing to also keep in mind is that the massive newsmedia awareness of safe spaces and trigger warnings have only come to the fore within the last decade.
The discussion taking place on those issues…including on this thread is similar to ones I’ve read about desegregation and loosening of college/school dress codes during the '50s and '60s or more recently…discussion about LGBT rights which were still taking place when I was an undergrad in the mid-late '90s…a contestation between those who decry changes/reducing marginalization of minority groups as a “bad thing” in the tone of “the sky is falling” and those who were strongly in favor of those changes.
I’m feeling that in 2-3 decades, younger generations would look upon those decrying those changes in the same light those in later generations look upon pro-segregation/pro strict dress code arguments made by more conservative White groups/individuals…including “well-meaning ones” several decades ago.
@marvin100 You are correct, Prof. Price didn’t advocate for required warnings (nor did I say they did). But there is a vocal crowd (still a minority I think) that really does want to cleanse campuses of anything that could be offensive or ‘triggering’. And I was voicing my surprise that the definition of ‘triggers’ could have advanced so far as ‘apple’.
My view on trigger warnings is really quite simple, and i will explain it using examples. Last fall, my school had these “stalking cubes” with discussion questions on all of them relating to, well, stalking. But on one side of all of these cubes, there was a notice saying that these questions are meant to provoke discussion, and it gave the number for the counseling center for people who were disturbed. Also, in my sophomore year the theater department put on a student-written play about sexual assault, and apparently afterwards there was an optional discussion session afterwards so that people could process it.
And that’s what I think we need: I think a heads up is useful, but what matters even more is to offer resources. I think part of the problem is that feeling this kind of distress isn’t normalized, and if it were I think it would help a lot. There was an incident back in high school that really stuck with me in which I saw a girl comforting her “best friend” after we watched a Vietnam War documentary, and then later that same day I saw the girl gossiping about and making jokes about her friend to other people. I really internalized that incident and it gives me a tendency to hide the fact that any of those kinds of things bother me.
If we did more to let people know that it’s okay to be sad or scared and that they can get through it, that can make a world of difference. And besides, even if trigger warnings don’t exist in the real world, doesn’t mean that emotional support doesn’t exist.
And similarly, there is a vocal crowd (still a minority, I think) that really does want to absolutely forbid any use of any sort of thing that could be called, by those terms or any other, “trigger warnings” or “safe spaces”.
So why do threads like this happen where the discussion seems to treat those fringes as the only games in town?
Once again, a lot of people haven’t read the Dean’s letter or looked at the website :-L
UChicago isn’t forbidding any professor from giving trigger warnings … at most, they’re just discouraging their use. And they certainly aren’t going to require professors to use them, as some people have urged.
If Erika Price is ever lucky enough to teach at UChicago, then she can give all the trigger warnings she wants.
I am curious. It does not seem that trigger warnings are a big issue in high schools. High school classes have some content overlap with college courses. If trigger warnings are so necessary in college, why aren’t high school students and their helicopter parents demanding protection. There are plenty of marginalized high school students. Who is protecting these snowflakes while they are in high school?
These same students get to college and realize that they now need trigger warnings for protection. Is it possible that they have repressed memories or is it that college professors (I know since I am not one that I could not possibly have a reasoned perspective) and college administrators are coddling these young adults?
"In other words, students who may be susceptible to mental health issues, like post-traumatic stress disorder or panic disorders, are underserving of a warning that a lecture or guest speaker may aggravate those issues or traumatic experiences.
And just below a promise of inclusivity, respect and diversity, the university also stated that it would not provide zones on campus for students to freely visit where they can be sure to avoid hateful and re-traumatizing rhetoric. (In case, say, someone invites George Will, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist who likes to tell college audiences that rape victims are a privileged class on campus.) "
UChicago is a second rate institution who wants to be a top rated institution. However by their current action they are racing to the bottom. They try so hard to live up to their motto : where fun goes to die
Indeed. K-12…especially middle/HS can be a dark time for many students.
I got a taste of it in middle school and I’ve lost count of how many college classmates/post-undergrad colleagues recounted K-12/hometowns with accounts of marginalization and bullying so bad they’ve moved far away from the area for good after HS and will never consider attending a middle/HS reunion.
