I think that UChicago might be slightly hasty in denouncing all safe spaces. If used correctly they can actually allow for debates to take place in a rational manner by removing the instant emotional response. To me a safe space is more about being free from personal criticism rather than intellectual criticism. Sure you can’t conduct the whole debate inside a safe space but you can definitely create one in which people can air their views. This is a crucial step when dealing with issues like race, gender, etc.
But I’m sorry, you’ve got to be pretty obtuse to interpret the letter as - “so they are dismantling the LGBT (or Jewish, or black, or Korean, or whatever) associations and if students walk around calling gay students the f word or Jewish students the k word or black students the n word, or if they decide to paint some nice welcoming swastikas on the Jewish kid’s door or leave a noose outside the black kid’s door, it’s all hunky dory with us - We will look the other way because no safe space.”
Sorry, I think that “interpretation” on the part of runswimyoga’ student/friends is ridiculous and lacking in common sense.
The letter to the students is so full of contradictions that I think almost any interpretation is possible. Depending on which sentence you’re looking at, you can come away with very different ideas about how the university views speech that is uncivil or threatening.
And when the letter says that the university doesn’t “condone” safe spaces (note the wording – they’re not just saying that they won’t create them, they are saying that they disapprove of anyone creating them), I can see why some people might interpret this as meaning UChicago will not only close its LGBT groups, Hillel, black students’ groups, etc. but will also take action against students who create such groups on their own. I don’t think this is what the university meant to say, but I can see why some people think that it’s what they read.
Mystery solved:
Ivies have loyal football fans?
That is an awesome article, Marvin!
Honestly the people doing victory laps over this letter have the same interpretation as the LGBT activists have. To each group, the message sent was “U of C won’t put up with this PC BS.” And the invocation of the Yale incident (Halloween costumes/residential college) suggests that there’s an assumption that the purview of Ellison’s statement isn’t limited to classrooms or lectures. Plus, U of C is always talking about the life of the mind, so its presentation of self is that intellectual exchanges are happening everywhere and any time.
FWIW, both my kid (who received the letter) and I did not initially read it the same way that most other commenters have. As a former professor (who taught and was trained at peer institutions), I thought this was a heads-up that U of C had a better approach to facilitating difficult yet productive intellectual discussions among a diverse student body. Basically, I thought U of C was saying that we’re going to ask/expect you to advance in situations where other universities would let you retreat. And that the school’s implicit promise was, even though this might seem risky, we’re going to give you the skills and inculcate the values that will make it rewarding – not just here but for the rest of your life.
As experience should have taught me by now, LOL, “because that’s what I would have meant if I’d written or said that,” is not a very trustworthy method of textual interpretation! Subsequent events suggest that the mainstream/dominant interpretation (no more PC BS) was more accurate than mine. If I’d been right (or if Pizzagirl were right), Zimmer would have written a very different op-ed. If you think it’s obvious what something means and yet many of your readers are misinterpreting what you meant, you clarify by addressing or refining the language that’s leading them to mistaken assumptions. I’m not saying Zimmer (or Ellison) had an obligation to correct errors on the internet/in the media, but given that Z decided to go another round, it’s significant that he also chose not to explain what the language about safe spaces and trigger warnings would (and would not) mean in practice.
Personally, I’m not too concerned about the climate at U of C. Teachers and students will push back where necessary and, frankly, they collectively have more control over the terms of intellectual engagement on campus than administrators do. And, to the extent that this episode piques the interest of the anti-PC crowd, once the HS seniors among them look at what’s actually being taught at U of C, only the most open-minded and intellectually ambitious will seriously consider enrolling. But I will say Ellison’s letter is starting the year off on a sour note for my kid and others. I’ll be curious to see how this issue get handled during O-week.
For those defending the dean’s letter for having the courage to reject “intellectual safe spaces”-- what do you think he meant by those? Who, in what context, is trying to create “intellectual” safe spaces, and where are they doing it? Where do they go - to what physical space - when they supposedly “retreat” from alternative perspectives? What building materials do they use to create these dangerous intellectual safe spaces?
If there’s no physical component to any of it, if railing against “intellectual safe spaces” is all one big circumlocutory metaphor for “we love academic freedom,” then how can it be anything but grandstanding? The dean’s “we do not condone” has no teeth other than to say “this is how we think here and how you must think, too, dammit.”
It’s not that hard to believe that he’s borrowing from the political force of the phrase “safe space” because he knows he can thrill the anti-pc crowd.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/behind-u-chicago-trigger-warning-000000448.html
Boyer says the letter was intended as a cover letter to read the book.
The letter is intellectually dishonest clickbait, and as such, is unworthy of the very goals it claims to espouse.
This is a good rundown of some of the problems:
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/26/12657684/chicago-safe-spaces-trigger-warnings-letter
I have to admit that I got a giggle out of the response to the letter in one of NU’s student-run, defiantly non-PC, humor sites: “Administration Declares Northwestern A Safe Space From UChicago Students”.
I haven’t heard of Kevin Gannon before, and certainly never heard of GrandView University. However, this essay does show that his talent for reasoning is quite limited.
Not that I know of, but some of them have loyal ice hockey fans.
33 @hebegebe
Wow, what a devastating critique - you could not have more firmly demonstrated your unwavering commitment to the principles of free and open intellectual discourse than you did here in this highly detailed and persuasive rebuttal.
“I think that UChicago might be slightly hasty in denouncing all safe spaces. If used correctly they can actually allow for debates to take place in a rational manner by removing the instant emotional response.”
My U of C parents would say that removing the instant emotional response is the job of the individual, not the job of the environment, and U of C wants you to practice that skill. Students have to develop the ability to keep their rage, sadness, or fear from overcoming their intellect. Lots of adults fail to gain this ability, and we can see the results all over cable news.
“I thought U of C was saying that we’re going to ask/expect you to advance in situations where other universities would let you retreat.”
That’s what I got from the letter, too. But you correctly point out that people who aren’t bringing the same assumptions about U of C to the table are likely to read it differently. That may have been a rhetorical error, or it may have been a savvy move to get publicity.
I think the cover letter and book to Chicago students was intended to “trigger” exactly the kind of “intellectual” debate that is happening here. Do we want to protect our kids from these types of debates/discussions, presuming that they are conducted politely and intelligently and that all sides listen to each other? I think the letter is great. Maybe if the media and those on this CC website would calm down, the kids would learn to listen to each other without anger or fear. Safe spaces would not be needed. Although I still like my idea of single dorm rooms.
^There are singles in several residence halls for those who need them.
Housing the entire student body in singles would entail costs well into the hundreds of millions, and I’m not convinced this problem warrants that kind of response.
If the letter was intended to “provoke debate,” why was it so transparently dishonest in its presentation of safe spaces and trigger warnings? That’s not how you start a real honest debate, that’s just clickbait trolling - it worked in terms of “triggering” the usual squad of grumpy old people and right-wing media consumers, I guess. Of course, the stated commitment to “courageous intellectual inquiry” is hardly enhanced by presenting such a comically bad strawman argument. It’s one thing when you see this kind of argument presented at a clickbait news site, but it’s quite another to see it presented as the official policy of a respected university.
Given that law students are asking to be excused from learning law at law school – Harvard Law School, no less! – I don’t think it’s a straw man. Some students really are seeking edited educations, and U of C isn’t the place for that.
@Hanna, why do students need to study rape laws in law school? Aren’t there other ways to study the basics of law rather than studying rape laws?
Most attorneys I know do not know rape laws.
I guess you can argue that if enough subjects are stricken from the curriculum, there won’t be anything to study.