So, again, business as usual, administrative grandstanding notwithstanding.
You are not wrong.
Even when doing sit-ins at restaurant counters etc., I do not recall anyone disrupting other people from eating or yelling at other customers. I do recall the protesters and sit-in people being yelled at though.
Posters on here seem to not understand the difference in behavior vs. similarity of intent. Like MLK, I give some college students the benefit of the doubt that they would like change (as they define it), but wanting change and how one goes about it are two different things.
prompted this response:
The response misses the most important point - MLK also vigorously advocated NOT doing those things.
And you wrongly imply that he quietly accepted such behavior by saying he did not do it personally, as if he accepted other people doing it. That is just plain wrong to imply, as he clearly was against such behavior and dissociated himself from such people. Whatever one thinks of MLK, one thing is for sure, no one ever confused him of a person condone any violence or rudeness - nothing remotely close to the safe space, needy students of today.
Or, instead of silly, it could be the least costly, most efficient, and least disruptive way to approach an issue that one sees getting out of hand at other colleges.
The issue here is one of “what is a lot and what is not” is the way many on here are viewing this. I posit it is not a matter of sonly a few students or being fringe. It is a matter of a school asking itself: “Do I want anything similar to X happening here at all? And if not, how to I get in front if it?” I venture this what the UChicago admin was thinking.
After witnessing the Oberlin demand letter, the Princeton demand letter, the Dartmouth demand letter, the Claremont demand list, the Amherst demand letter, the MIzzou demand letter and the list goes on - all which asked for safe spaces and the like and all which involved actions that DISRUPTED the school learning environment for other students, I would say UChicago had a point in letting students know that such demands and actions would not tolerated.
As a former CEO, I often took actions which prevented X from even being thought of happening or being instituted in my company when I noticed similar companies were doing X, as I wanted to make sure X did not occur at my company. Now understand, X was not occurring at my company, and I had no clue if it were ever going to be the case. However, one thing for sure is people copy and follow others. I often just nipped things in the bud with a letter to avoid having to deal with something bigger and more costly to contain and to get rid of later on.
And, just as important, my preventive approach let people know, who would want X, that applying to work at my company was not for them. Problem solved without ever facing it and costing me money. It probably even saved money by eliminating potential employes who would want X and try to get it implemented.
Clearly, missing the forest for the trees.
It is not grandstanding if the the letter is a warning shot to potentially disruptive INCOMING students, i,e., no ludicrous demands list to request school-mandated safe spaces or amy protests that disrupts the education of other students etc.
I put it this way - if any students now disregards the above and participates in such behavior, UChicago can just reference this letter and get rid of them. Ignorance of the policy could not be an excuse.
Therefore, while business as usual from the policy level, the letter was a rather effective shot across the bow of incoming students who, most likely, were not aware the long-standing UChicago policies. However the students are aware now - and that is the purpose of the letter - to make the students fully aware of the college’s policy and to behave according and not to even think to request any PC special treatment.
The variable you have removed is that X doesn’t exist in isolation. X has happened in response to other variables, and by categorically saying X is bad and has no relation to anything else, you ignore the entire matter. In the end, the vast majority of uses of both the practices in question help people. I would argue that that effect is vastly more impactful and important than a slight disruption of a learning environment. Heck, that disruption would be a learning moment for students on campus as well, wouldn’t it? So I guess everyone wins.
I feel like I need to preface this with that I strongly dislike the way MLK is often roped into debates, and this instance is no different. The white-washed “oh he was so peaceful and great and such a leader” approach that many have taken over the years is a huge disservice to history, as well as the many other movements of the time that did not agree with MLK’s peaceful approach and had very significant impacts. People who have been erased from history instead of mere white-washing.
But the final bolded section in @marvin100 's post is incredibly relevant here, more than just that frivolous branch of debate - that last bit really summarizes the problem have with most of the opposition to these things - instead of trying to be solution oriented and look at why trigger warnings and safe spaces exist in the first place, they are focused on as the main debate when vastly more important issues are adjacent.
Yes, there are isolated incidents of people going too far with both safe spaces and trigger warnings - but to focus on these very infrequent and overpublicized methods over the subjects and discussions themselves is missing the point. If the incidents were brought up as the problem rather than the concepts themselves being the problem, you would probably make a much more positive impact.
UChicago made its statement in the context of recent events. One we have clearly established made no change in policy whatsoever and amounts to grandstanding. They are probably at least partially regretting at this point, unless of course it gets more Alumni donations, right? I fear that they did this for selfish reasons at the cost of the greater debate, which they have seemed to step back from after the initial statement.
Of COURSE they did it for selfish reasons. They are an institution. Everything they do is done to benefit themselves. That’s not a bad thing - indeed that’s their job. If they announce an expansion in financial aid, for example, that makes them look good and benefits them (not just the students). So?
Sorry, hit post too soon. Anyway, U of Chicago is not obligated to have a debate they don’t want to be in, just because you might want it. (Any more than Liberty U is not obligated to debate why you have to be a committed Christian to qualify for their school.).
Deans are not CEOs and students are not employees.
Weird to fire a “warning shot” to a group of students you’ve just selected to join your school. Starting from a position of distrust rather than goodwill is antithetical to all credible pedagogy theory in both practice and consensus.
As for “disregards the above”–like, how? By having a safe space? The school allows them. By requesting a content warning? The school allows professors to issue them.
I’m enjoying how frequently pressing “like” on what seem to be diametrically opposed posts in this thread, because I like (and sometimes even agree with) the content of both.
Anyway, just wanted to say that. Carry on…
I do not get your point, as it is a truism.
Nothing happens in isolation. However, everything has an effect, some very negative and disruptive to everyone, ad costly as well. And if X has an negative, disruptive effect the school does not want, then it has a right to eliminate/stop X, regardless of the other variables.
On a more philosophical note, saying X was caused by/was the result of other variables is not a proper justification without more information, i.e., was X a proper response to those variables and were the other variables interpreted correctly? You seem to blanketedly accept that any claimed justification and stated variables should be given credence and legitimacy, which we know is not the case.
Maybe an example might help - which school looks smarter now, UChicago for putting out this letter to students or Mizzou for allowing the extended protests for safe spaces and the like? Which school paid the the highest price for its actions? I venture to say UChicago paid no price. In fact, it probably gained in value because it saved its admin from reviewing applications from students the school early does not want attending. Mizzou, well, the drop in enrollment and the drop in donations tells that story.
I don’t think this is true–it would take borrowing someone else’s hands for me to count the number of kids I’ve helped get in to UChicago whose app essays have focused on vehement passion for social justice.
Marvin - FYI, post 552 you attributed someone else’s writing to me.
My apologies, @Pizzagirl ! I’ll be more careful next time!
You are playing with titles and clearly do not understand the role of job specifications.
Students are not employees (duh), but they all function a student handbook just like an employment has an employee handbook. Both these handbooks specify how students or employees should act at school or on the job. If you do not think these handbooks served the same purpose, then you are do not know much about students or employees, as both function under the guidelines of the school or company. Hmm. maybe it has not occurred to you that a school is a company, and a company is a “school” where people learn and improve their skills.
Deans may not be CEOs (duh, again), but they can institute policy with the approval of the CEO or President or as highlighted in the job specifications. This letter could easily be part of the Dean’s job specs - to make sure students know UChicago operating policies on PC issues, safe spaces, how to protest, and how to not be disruptive to other students, while protesting.
Just so you know, I often did not write the letters myself - it was usually left to the the division chief or manager who worked more closely to the employees. However, I was the one who initiated the letter and the message therein.
No, employee handbooks and student handbooks are not the same–and I’m both the owner of a business and a career educator (and both of my parents are career educators and administrators, and both of my siblings have been educators in the past; I know a bit about the topic under discussion here).
But that’s irrelevant: this dean’s letter has nothing to do with either one. I’s not a policy change at all, nor is it a response to any particular incident or to students who have already started school at UChi.
It’s a grandstanding broadside/dogwhistle aimed at SQW alums, no more, no less, as it leaves school operations as business-as-usual: content warnings are neither mandatory nor barred (same as before), safe spaces are neither mandatory nor barred (same as before).
You made a slight error - no biggie - I wrote the above, not Pizzagirl.
What do you think a student handbook or employer handbook is?
The handbooks may be nicely written, welcoming, and inviting, but they are a list of do’s and don’ts with some very clear warning shots of what will not be tolerated at the school or company.
For example, my new employee handbook explicitly states that visible intoxication in front of clients is grounds for immediate dismissal. I see this as no different than telling a new student that harassing or disrupting other students and their leaning environment with your grievances will not be tolerated.
Trust has nothing to do with this - it is about setting expectations for operating in one’s place to which you were invited. It is not distrustful to list expectations to students/employee re behavior and even dress code. You have to tell people what the limits are when they are using your facilities - schools and companies alike.
The Dean’s letter is not in [the student manual](http://studentmanual.uchicago.edu/sites/studentmanual.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/StudentManual_2015-16_8.5.16.pdf) nor does it amend anything that is in the student manual. In fact, the student manual doesn’t include the words “safe space” or “trigger warning” (or “content warning”). This is an irrelevant sidetrack, @awcntdb
And I’m sorry for misattributing your comments. I already apologized to @Pizzagirl , and I extend the same apology to you–I’ll be more careful.