University to Freshmen: Don’t Expect Safe Spaces or Trigger Warnings

Parents Forum
41

Maybe it’s because I went to Harvard rather than Chicago, LOL, or maybe it’s a function of working through these issues in a different time/climate/context, but my understanding is that universities value free speech because it gives us all the chance to become much smarter. OTOH, free speech doesn’t have that effect when speakers use it merely to assert their right to voice their own opinion without being encumbered by concerns about what others think or how its expression makes others feel.

The professor who had the most impact on me wrt this issue (both in terms of what he said and how he approached his own work) was John Rawls, a philosopher whose academic mantra was basically that you always need to understand and address the best case for for the other side. And if the proponents of that view aren’t making the best case, then you have to make it yourself before you develop your critique. His approach went beyond “no straw men” – it was something more along the lines of “reconstruct before you deconstruct.”

There’s a level of humbleness (my view could be wrong), intellectual flexibility (let me see how this looks through different eyes/from a different position), generosity (let’s start from the premise that an intelligent, rational, and intellectually honest person could hold the opinion I disagree with), and just plain hard work (before I reject an idea, I should make sure I really understand it and learn whatever I can from it) in this approach that seems really at odds with the dismissiveness of other POVs that I see here (and elsewhere).

While I’m not a fan of trigger warnings or safe spaces, it’s not because I think that those who advocate for such things are overly-sensitive or entitled or oppressive. It’s because I think this approach short circuits necessary/important/productive conversations that have the possibility of taking us all to a place of better understanding. Here’s where the distinctive culture of certain kinds of universities comes into play. That promise – that hard discussions can contribute to better understanding – will only be realized if certain norms of discussion are acknowledged and consistently invoked/insisted upon – not to shut people down but to keep the conversation going (and its participants productively engaged) as long as there’s still progress to be made.

So, in my mind, the correllary of the academic commitment to free speech (1st amendment logic is quite different), is a duty to listen, to attempt to learn, and to respectfully and substantively engage your interlocutor.

What I see in this thread (and I think it’s what at least some of the Facebook posts are responding to) is a sense that the disavowal of safe spaces and trigger warnings represents a victory in the war against PC rather than a heads-up that this is a University that has a different/better approach to these issues. (Both DD and I, left to our own devices, read the letter as offered in the latter spirit, but each of us, watching a different discussion unfold, now sees that that wasn’t how it was taken and each has an understanding of why that happened). Long story short, I’m all for abandoning trigger warnings and safe spaces in favor of more rigorous standards regarding respect for and attention to different POVs. But it would suck if the University eschewed those protections in favor of a rhetorical free-for-all in which people feel not only that they have a right to be dismissive of others’ experiences and interpretations, but that this dismissiveness is somehow a sign of their commitment to an intellectual life.

42

The letter is interesting as an argument. Some of you may have been at the lecture given by the head of the U Chicago writing program (McEnerny) at the admitted student day. I see a lot of his points about writing realized here. The letter is not an attempt to engage or to start a conversation. It’s programmatic and provocative (the term “intellectual safe space” does not refer to actual safe spaces but evokes that whole discussion; the mention about trigger warnings does the same and is also not absolutely necessary to include in a letter about academic freedom) and as @exacademic points out it leaves little room for engagement and discussion. I can see how that may be necessary (hey people, before you even get here, this is how we do things here, end of argument) but it is unusually blunt. I hope that this letter and the book will be a subject of a class or a part of a class that a lot of freshmen get to take so that some more substantive and interactive learning about the background of TW, safe spaces and academic freedom can occur.

43

@exacademic

I heard of a term somewhere else to describe this called ** steel manning** that I really liked. I think it means seeking out the best argument of the other side and then wrestling with it, rather than its opposite which would be “straw manning”

I have always disagreed with providing trigger warnings and safe spaces, but In that spirit, the argument I found FOR trigger warnings and safe spaces that made some sense to me was the following

For Trigger warnings: As a common courtesy, allow folks who are listening or participating in a discussion that it is going places and discussing topics that may “annoy, offend, frighten, traumatize” them. They then have a choice on whether to participate or not. Kind of like a “PG-13” or “R” rating on a movie or a “This program contains material that may be unsuitable for some viewers”. As long as it is a “request” and “courtesy” and “not a hard requirement” that results in censorship, I think, this sounds reasonable.

For Safe Spaces: Sometimes, people are exhausted with debate. they just want to relax and not be bothered or forced to defend their position at every turn. When a person feels that way, they can retire to their safe space. We all need a space where we can recharge right? For example a church, a meditation hall, a quiet moment in a coffee shop, a man cave, etc etc. All these would qualify as “safe spaces” in my eyes, where the person can choose not to engage in a vigorous debate with the opposite side on contentious issues.

I can see why these both make sense, although I am still grappling with whether a University is required to provide both or whether the onus is on the students to find them on their own. I still feel it should be the latter, but airports provide meditation halls and “chapels” and so do hospitals. I think someone using such a space would frown and disapprove if somebody else entered this space and started talking loudly or using foul language or started disrupting the peace correct? or how about someone entering a place of worship and challenging attendees about whether their religion make sense? In both cases, they would be asked to leave and take it outside. Is this any different from safe spaces in colleges?

Clearly both can be taken to extremes and become ridiculous and result in open censorship that Universities must certainly guard against, as they have a very specific mission, unlike airports, places of worship or hospitals, but could a little courtesy be so harmful?

44

Exacademic and Marlowe1: I’ve read and appreciate your posts. For me, it’s good input. Regarding the University of Chicago, the things I’ve liked about its statements on the issue of free speech is that is they have been connected to the University’s historical approach to the issue, they typically do not have a gloating or self-righteous tone, and they come down clearly and eloquently on the side of free speech, with all its complexities and discomforts.

Still, as the University’s statements have come out, I’ve typically felt a little uncomfortable with them, because, I think, I am more on one side of the issue than the other. But to me, my discomfort is a good thing, and a sign that the University has got it more or less right. The discomfort causes me to look at myself and to examine my own biases and to question whether my thinking is sloppy, and to what extent the other side is correct.

I hope the University continues to take firm and consistent stances on the issue. Over the decades, the pendulum of opinion will swing back and forth. If the University of Chicago wants to preserve its distinct position among Universities, it must do this. It might not be the most popular University, or the highest rated, or the most heavily endowed, but over the long haul I think it will stake a valid claim that it is among the “best”.

45

To the extent that political correctness limits free speech, it can be an issue. When the barometer by which a statement’s acceptability is judged is how the other person feels about it - if they feel their views have been trivialized, the statement must be offensive - that has the effect of stifling any discussion that challenges those views.

I personally believe (though I won’t speak for anyone else) that a university shouldn’t embrace this standard or encourage students who apply it to interactions with their peers. To create an environment where tough discussions can take place, and anyone’s views can be challenged with competing ideas, facts, and evidence - not by branding those views offensive, through accusations of racism, sexism, classism, etc, and not by claiming that a view is a “PC lie” students parrot on orders from some higher authority - a school can choose (as Chicago has chosen) to emphatically reject this standard.

One can agree with Chicago’s approach to trigger warnings and safe spaces, without agreeing with a certain presidential candidate and many of his supporters that denouncing racism, sexism, or homophobia is a surrender to the vast PC conspiracy.

If I say much more on this topic, I’ll probably end up talking in circles or making some foolish statement, so I’ll leave it at that.

46

I think trigger warnings are cool if the purpose is “get ready there’s potentially rough stuff ahead” , not so cool if “rough stuff ahead you may want to skip altogether”.

47

About time students are asked to step up and debate honestly and intellectually instead of hiding from ideas and topics they do not like.

And the best part is this is an elite school, which could cause a ripple effect downwards. People cannot dismiss this a non-selective, religious, or otherwise school. It is a thinking school realizing that non-thinking is not something which it wants to be a part.

Hope this is a trend.

48

Link doesn’t work for me.
“Website is offline”

49

At least UC has allowed such speakers. Condi Rice was hounded from Rutgers. Same thing happened to George Will at Scripps.

Does this letter from the dean insure that speakers will be supported and allowed to finish? As much as I dislike Donald Trump I still wanted to hear what he had to say. And did, as protesters were removed. That does not need seem to happen on college campuses.

Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez is a sane official who had a right to address the audience. But what if a scholar really did deny the Armenian genocide? What about Holocaust deniers?

50

the link just takes about 10 seconds to load…
then it opens up to the article

51

It does happen on college campuses.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/

52

Except, it’s much easier to have a detached, intellectual debate about rape or racism or terrorism or war, if you have never been In any of these situations.

https://hopejahrensurecanwrite.com/2015/01/23/in-defense-of-the-trigger-warning/

53

“terrorism or war”

I rarely hear about such consideration for survivors of terrorism or war.

54

I have no problem with people having different opinions or arguing ideas.

But arguing that a fact isn’t a fact…how does that move things forward? What can I learn from somebody denying facts except the guy is nuts? Or he engages in fear, anger and/or he is a manipulator.

Maybe that’s good to know. :slight_smile:

55

Not many colleges see the importance in intellectual diversity, which I believe is just as (if not more) important than ethnic and religious diversity

56

This statement is s false account of what trigger warnings and safe specs actually do to intellectual debate. It also sets up a false construct that “detached” needs to be part of an intellectual debate - far from it.

There is nothing saying that an intellectual debate cannot be emotional, even highly charged, and involve real people who have had real experience. Detachment is not a necessary element of intellectualism; however, what is a necessary element is understanding that others may have different point-of-views, regardless of how involved one is on one side or another.

The overarching problem with safe spaces and trigger warnings is they are used to avoid intellectual debate and thus are counterproductive to having all arguments and positions heard. Trigger warnings and safe spaces are used as intellectual shields and conversation stoppers, and thus are antithectical to what is true intellectual discourse.

In rare cases, such as a person having PTSD and other emotional issues, trigger warnings are still not necessary - all that is necessary if a jolting topic comes up is the person has the right to excuse themselves. No need to have this weird system of trying to anticipate every person’s reaction to something and giving trigger warnings. Just excuse yourself if unable to handle a topic of discussion. In such a case though, one should seriously consider professional help because the world will not stop for you, even if a college does, and one needs to learn to deal upfront with whatever that issue is because the world will run you over if you do not learn to handle your reactions yourself.

57

Outstanding. U of C is the grownup in the room. Sad that it seems exceptional though.

58

My school hosted Donald Trump a couple of weeks back. As annoyed as I may have been that he was there, I also found it REALLY cool.

59

The trigger warning and safe spaces debate has also been used in specific classroom settings. As in, someone doen’t want to read Faulkner’s Sanctuary ( A plug for my profile pic, sorry) because of a rape, and doesn’t want to hear it discussed. Does this position have merit? I don’t know. But is not colleg the place to go to have intellectual discussions about, well, why anything?

But the case with general speeches is this: you don’t have to go! When Trump visited UNC-Wilmington, was the entire student body required to go, like some mandatory lecture on high school lunch room manners? No. And nothing Condi Rice would have said at Rutgers, even at commencement, would have traumatized anyone.

60

I would argue that comments like this are based on a false premise.

Yes, there are widely-reported instances of students desiring an unreasonable degree of shelter from ideas and facts they don’t like.

There are also widely-exaggerated reports of students asking for reasonable ways of dealing with ideas and facts that they, for whatever reason, find severely problematic.

Oddly, though—not that it would be because it’s hard to clickbait-title this sort of thing, I’m sure that wouldn’t ever be any part of it—we seem not to hear a lot about the vast majority of students who don’t fall into either of those groups.

The current crop of students is, I believe, not substantively different from students as they were when any of the parents on this board were students. Why every generation seems to believe that the following generations are overcoddled and dangerously delicate (and yes, that’s every generation—there is documentary evidence going back millennia), that I don’t know. What I do know, however, is that we’re somehow falling into it again. Go figure.