From texaspg’s link…
https://www.yahoo.com/news/behind-u-chicago-trigger-warning-000000448.html
I would add that there is another central question and it is about control. It’s about power.
From texaspg’s link…
https://www.yahoo.com/news/behind-u-chicago-trigger-warning-000000448.html
I would add that there is another central question and it is about control. It’s about power.
“@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 top tier law schools don’t focus on being practical training grounds for lawyers. You can’t graduate and hang up your shingle and be ready to practice criminal defense lawyer or real estate, for example. What law schools try to inculcate in their students is the framework for analyzing a legal problem in various contexts. Rape law is actually a very fertile area for study because states define and address sexual assault crimes differently, laws about rape have changed dramatically over time, the crimes raise unique issues of if, and when, the legal system should shield a victim from areas of cross-examination, there is that tricky notion of consent, . . . Not only do you deny students an opportunity to stretch themselves by studying this demanding area of criminal law if you take it out of a curriculum, but why wouldn’t we want our best and brightest law students to be knowledgable about such an important societal issue. After all, these are students who may go on to careers making or enforcing these very laws.
It does seem that the letter needs clarification from U of C administration. I did not read it as abolishing any existing safe havens or supports for students. I thought it was intended to proactively nip in the bud any attempts by students or others to collectively alter curriculum or deter controversial campus speakers based on content in the guise of such content triggering students, not to deny them the ability to take refuge with others who might share their feelings or reactions to such content.
@pittsburghscribe Yes! But many in the media and on here just like to look for a heated controversy.
It was rather obvious to me. I am surprised it wasn’t for you. Here are a few problems:
He complains about the timing of the letter:
As @al2simon has explained a few times, this is not a new position, but a position that Chicago has held for a long time. The booklet “Academic Freedom and the Modern University: The Experience of the University of Chicago” accompanies this letter. This booklet was published in 2002.
So, let me explain this, Nick. Gannon can’t get this basic thing right, even though as a history professor one would hope he would take a few seconds to learn about the history of a situation before writing a long essay demonstrating his ignorance.
He tries to ridicule the reaction to safe spaces:
Brown University did just this regarding a debate about sexual assault. They setup a “safe space” with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-doh and a video of frolicking puppies.
He then turns his attention to Charles Murray:
Now, I find Charles Murray a useful voice even though I disagree with him on many things. I have read his controversial book The Bell Curve which showed the differences in IQ among various groups, including between racial groups. I have also read the book by his primary critic, “The Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould. Interesting though that despite Murray writing about a highly controversial topic, 52 researchers on intelligence wrote that Murray’s writings represented the “mainstream science on intelligence”. In contrast, Stephen Jay Gould was posthumously described as being a fraud in the New York Times, having made up some of his data.
Charles Murray mixes both well researched facts and his personal opinions. Understanding the difference in what he writes requires both critical reading skills and an ability to accept uncomfortable truths.
I think these comments, from readers of the NY Times about the U of Chicago letter, summarize the reasons the U of Chicago administration sent the letter :
"As an alumnus of UChicago, I applaud them for taking a stand in favor of free discourse. Universities shouldn’t become an intellectual echo chamber by teaching students only what they want to learn and never challenging them with uncomfortable topics. And if anything, this is a feature - you’ll meet lots of people in life and be exposed to many ideas, some of which might offend you, whether the speaker meant it intentionally or not. By challenging students intellectually, you are giving them the tools to lay their own beliefs on solid foundations and successfully stand for their own views (or even change them when facts necessitate it).
Bear in mind, people are still free to form their own groups and professors are free to conduct their classes as they wish. The University is simply informing students that administratively, they will not sanction the banning of speakers nor micromanage professors on how they should conduct their classes."
"I never thought I’d see the day when the most determined enemies of free speech and lively debate would be this country’s universities and colleges, and the students attending those institutions would demand “protection” from ideas that might be uncomfortable to them -– that is, would want to be treated as children and not adults.
In doing the right thing, Chicago has struck a blow for intellectual rigor and an open and free society. Such rigor requires that all points of view (even those odious) be given an opportunity to be expressed (and if necessary defeated via reason and good sense), and it’s refreshing to see an institution make clear and plain to incoming students that this idea –- once considered central to a liberal education – is still valued."
I could not agree more with these comments.
I think highly of the University of Chicago, but I think this letter is just public relations.
^I guess they wanted to reiterate to “the public” that the U of Chicago is NOT the right place for college students who want to hide from ideas.
Lawyers, like doctors, are licensed to practice in every area. We don’t allow med students to say that they don’t intend to practice in surgery, so they’ll just skip that module. Nor do we let them say that since they are a cancer survivor, they want to be exempted from learning about cancer. The state is giving them a comprehensive license. They’re supposed to have basic competence across the board. We lawyers have a government-sanctioned monopoly to help others solve legal problems. Our training is seen as so crucial that impersonating us is a crime.
Sure, there are debates about what ought to be in the required curriculum. But this isn’t a close question. CC is a college admissions space, not a law space, and yet there are countless threads about rape enforcement, the merits of individual cases, whether the laws are strict enough, etc. Our conversations illustrate that this area of the law is really important to individuals and families in our society.
I worry that our disproportionate focus on discussions of rape relative to other horrific topics stems from and perpetuates a tradition of viewing women as emotionally fragile and hysterical, especially when it comes to sex and virtue. Countless law students are affected by the crimes of murder and attempted murder, and by racial injustice, religious persecution, and other ugliness we need to learn about to be knowledgeable lawyers. On the first day of constitutional law, our founders tell black students that they are 3/5 of a human being. I don’t believe anyone can progress in the law without learning these things.
I hope the U Chicago faculty get the memo too.
“@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?”
Dstark, it is really difficult to engage intellectually with you when you ask questions like this. Isn’t it obvious? Hanna did an outstanding job answering this.
Re this quote from one of the NY Times responses @menloparkmom provided: Are we sure that this is the case? For example, are students of Japanese heritage still free to start a Japanese Students Association? Are professors who want to caution students that a required reading includes a graphic description of rape free to do so?
Or is the letter the first step in a set of changes that would prohibit these things?
Neo-nazis, hate groups, and reactionaries everywhere celebrate. These are pretty much the only people who benefit from students not being allowed to protest speakers.
It’s also childish that a dean would push an exaggerated (and completely dishonest) narrative about safe spaces as if they’re some horrible ungodly thing. I say let students do what they want. It’s like he gets his information from Breitbart and Fox News.
Either way I definitely will now never have a desire to attend this school or send anyone there.
Oh come ON now.
It is beyond ridiculous to suggest U of Chicago is about to prohibit the Japanese Students Association. There is zero reading of that letter that can be construed that way. Zero.
Such a conclusion is about as ridiculous as suggesting that U of Chicago is going to get rid of its campus police since they no longer care if their campus is physically safe space any more.
Can we please just deal in reality here?
Isn’t it ironic that your first sentence invalidates the second?
I’ve long been amazed by the fact that some colleges that don’t have officially sanctioned Greek houses forbid their students to form or join unofficial, unsanctioned Greek houses. I’ve never understood why the college has the authority to do that. It seems to violate the students’ right to freedom of association. Yet some colleges do have such a rule.
If colleges have the authority to forbid their students from joining unofficial Greek houses, don’t they also have the authority to forbid the existence of a Japanese Students Association, either university-sanctioned or unsanctioned? And wouldn’t UChicago have a reason to want to do this because the Japanese Students Association might – deliberately or inadvertently – create a “safe space” for students of Japanese origin, something the university has just said it doesn’t condone.
“don’t they also have the authority to forbid the existence of a Japanese Students Association, either university-sanctioned or unsanctioned?”
Sure, private schools could. But they won’t. Let’s sing the chorus: the letter said “intellectual” safe spaces, not social or cultural ones.
My questions were a response to a post.
@Hanna, thank you very much for your thoughtful post. I appreciate it as always.
Sigh. Yes, Marian, they theoretically could forbid the existence of a Japanese Student Association. They could also start requiring female students to wear dresses and male students to wear coat and tie to class. They could also forbid dancing and then what will Kevin Bacon do. I suggest you spend a lot of time worrying about these very real possibilities. At least an hour a day to start.
There is zero evidence other than mental masturbation on the part of some that this is any step whatsoever towards forbidding Japanese Student Associations or the like. I expect better out of smart, thoughtful people on CC.
I don’t know if U of Chicago officially recognizes/sanctions Greek life or not, but I guarantee they would crack down on those before they’d touch a Japanese Student Association or similar.