If you agree with the UChicago policy of no safe-spaces or trigger warnings, you can join the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) in thanking the University of Chicago for its support of free speech and academic freedom by signing the following online petition.
http://salsa4.salsalabs.com/o/51462/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=19509
As has been extensively shown in this thread, that is not UChicago’s policy. In fact, the Dean’s letter has no policy implications whatsoever.
Accuracy really isn’t a big priority with those FIRE people.
Leaving aside the truth or falsity of such a claim, I’m hoping folks here can see how this sort of phrasing (Oh, it’s those people!) is utterly unhelpful, and can in many cases be counterproductive, even if the intent was actually neutral?
@MOMANDBOYSTWO “I guess watching all of the special events and freebies given to these kids has made me question why some of them are complaining so much.”
For clarification purposes- Who is it you are saying is complaining and what is it they are complaining about?
Marvin,
The Dean’s letter apparently represents the UChicago philosophy regarding the free expression of ideas, as al2simon has pointed out multiple times. This philosophy was to be discussed at orientation.
@marvin100 Perhaps the police are getting smart and staying out of harm’s way. I would not want to serve a neighborhood of people who dislike me just because I’m trying to do my job. So many police officers are minorities themselves. I don’t get the hatred. I feel sorry for the police. Tough job.
@runswimyoga Post #791 “For clarification purposes,” who has this thread been about for 53 pages (other than police officers, which is a tangent)? I wonder if some of the same kids who were wined and dined by admissions and given free tuition are now the ones up in arms about the Chicago letter and Yale’s Calhoun College?
To clarify, I am happy that colleges are reaching out to minority populations, because I really do want to see all people have opportunity. (Although I also know that not all the minorities that top colleges seek out are actually poor at all.) I just wonder why some kids are now turning on those same colleges that have the potential to give them so much. My mom, the daughter of an immigrant factory worker and a maid, got a full scholarship to Vassar. I could never in a million years picture her swearing at a faculty member or bashing a university publicly the way kids seem comfortable doing now. She worked hard on campus and was so grateful to get that education.
This is my last post on this thread. I will continue to read though, because I have actually learned a lot, in between snarky comments, (including a few of my own). Also plan to read Coates a bit, at the suggestion of @alh.
*Leaving aside the truth or falsity of such a claim, I’m hoping folks here can see how this sort of phrasing (Oh, it’s those people!) is utterly unhelpful, and can in many cases be counterproductive, even if the intent was actually neutral? *
yes
…
“Othering” was a useful concept for me to learn. I am sure there are better links and I wish someone would post one. But this one includes bibliography, which might be useful for someone, like me, wanting to explore the concept.
Marvin says:
Dean Ellison says:
It must be wonderful to think you have a better grasp of UChicago’s policy than their Dean of Students.
Moderator’s note: This thread is not about shootings and killings.
@alh #796
Good post.
That, to me, is the real shame of the Dean’s letter - he sets up a false dichotomy between “free and open intellectual debate” and those who would request trigger warning / safe spaces that serves no real purpose other than dividing people. No actual argument is even attempted, it is just asserted that the TW/SS are somehow a threat to intellectual freedom. The irony is that the sloppy thinking and dishonesty in the letter is completely inimical to the intellectual marketplace of ideas the Dean claims to be defending.
Directly on the thread topic, what are the precise meanings of the words “support” and “condone” in the phrase " we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ . . . and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat"?
I understand that professors are not forbidden to offer trigger warnings, but this sounds as though the University of Chicago positions itself institutionally toward the negative side on trigger warnings, rather than neutrality. It seems reasonable to me to advise students that they cannot insist on trigger warnings, or take them for granted. But do they mean that they actually disfavor faculty offering trigger warnings? Are there any consequences for the faculty, other than being frowned at?
I don’t think that it is right, actually, for a person to oppose trigger warnings, if that person has never needed a trigger warning and can’t imagine circumstances where he/she would need one.
The University of Chicago also says that they do not “condone” the creation of safe spaces. Does this mean that students cannot have a designated “safe space” on campus–because the room(s) will not be made available–if they feel that they need one? I would not favor having any classroom designated as a safe space while a class was in progress. However, the use of “retreat” is interesting in the University of Chicago message. To me, this suggests at least a subliminal understanding of the idea that a student might need to “retreat” in the face of intellectual hostility (and plenty of intellectual hostility has been expressed, just on this thread). Denying the opportunity to retreat, for a college student who needs to retreat occasionally, just seems wrong to me.
Also, for followers of academic bureaucracy, you may have noticed that the New York Times reported that neither the University of Chicago President nor the Dean was available for commentary on the letter. Instead, the reporters were referred to a faculty member (who is now Professor Emeritus, I believe), who (I think) chaired the committee that drafted a recent report on free speech at the University of Chicago. This does not quite make that faculty member Wilmer (in the Maltese Falcon sense), but it’s getting there.
Direct from the FIRE website:
“Importantly, UC has confirmed to FIRE that its statement that it does “not support so-called ‘trigger warnings’” is not a ban on that practice.”
So, at least with respect to the trigger warnings part of the Dean’s letter, this is NOT a change of policy, just as @marvin100 pointed out.
UChicago parent here. Here are my thoughts. Dean Allison’s letter was ham handed although I agree with the basic premise of the letter. Other UChicago statements on freedom of expression (particularly the one led by Prof. Stone) have been exquisitely written. This one was not.
I don’t think the UChicago administration in its wildest dreams (nightmares?) wanted to become a National symbol for this debate on freedom of expression. They’ve got enough to worry about.
I agree that Ellison’s letter was badly written and that the Stone report is a much better document. But re whether the U of C wants to be a national symbol wrt freedom of expression, that’s a status they’ve explicitly aspired to and actively courted.
What kind of symbol is a whole other question – and I’m sure there are divisions on that issue.
@alh Great post and links re “otherness” … thanks for posting that!
@NickFlynn I couldn’t agree more with your statement about the false dichotomy (and I learned a new word- inimical- I love learning new words)!!
@QuantMech great point about TW/SS and his use of the word “retreat” - I can’t help thinking fight or flight is a natural response to trauma…
What struck me when reading some students responses on Facebook was how many were talking about suffering from real mental illness, how the stigma affects them, and how hard it is to seek out and get the help they need on campus… they feel the negative connotation in his letter of terms used to support student’s mental health does a disservice to their plight.
I read that this generation of college students suffers over twice as many significant mental illnesses than students in the 1980’s and that mental health problems for college students are increasing…
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/mental-health-problems-for-college-students-are-increasing-071715#2
“according to Henriques, mental health survey results from the mid-1980s indicate that 10 to 15 percent of young adults could have been characterized as having significant mental health problems. Today, he said the number is anywhere from 33 to 40 percent.”
“The data is very clear. There’s a lot more mental stress than there was 23 years ago.
Dr. Gregg Henriques, James Madison University”
“The issue is absolutely clear,” Henriques said. “College students are endorsing on these surveys many more symptoms associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. The data is very clear. There’s a lot more mental stress than there was 23 years ago.”
“Counseling center directors seem to agree. In a 2013 survey by the American College Counseling Association, 95 percent of those directors said they had noticed a greater number of students with severe psychological problems than in previous years.”
That is another reason I feel it was an irresponsible letter. Mental health of students on campus needs to be taken seriously.
Just lost all respect for Chicago :(|) Guess I won’t be attending their school!
Were you admitted?
I would like to suggest to some of you that it may not be that Dean Ellison is unintelligent, uninformed, or a poor writer. Perhaps it is that Dean Ellison simply disagrees with the positions you all take.
Perhaps Dean Ellison doesn’t believe that the reported incidents at Northwestern, Brown, UCSB, Rutgers, Oberlin, Yale, UNC, DePaul, etc., are made up. Maybe he thinks that it is the people involved in those incidents who misundertand the true purpose of trigger warnings and safe spaces.
I am actually heading to U of Chicago as we speak, and was listening to a public radio discussion about this. I noted with interest that the majority of NYTimes commenters - a liberal bunch - were supportive of the letter.