IMHO, faculty who are using minority students to promote their (faculty) political agendas are unethical. Because students will have to live in the same dorms, go to the same parties for many years. How will the BLM students feel, when they go to the same Dartmouth library, next week, and sit next to the same white students, whom they called names the week before? Both, URM and ORM students. Kids are naïve, they are still kids, who want to make world a better place. Faculty is using students in their own proxy wars. My list of universities, known for such approach (opinion based on the news stories): Duke, Yale, Dartmouth. I am very grateful to U Chicago for their approach.
Seems like Chicago’s statement is that they will not “support” trigger warnings, as opposed saying that they will not “allow” trigger warnings.
Seems like no actual policy change in this respect (instructors are neither required to nor disallowed from giving trigger warnings). The statement may be more to say that they do not intend to change the policy in the future.
Having actually been in college recently I can tell you that this is not an issue that is being blown out of proportion by the media. At least not in my opinion. Someone in a class I took recently said to a professor that they had a “visceral reaction” to the words homosexual and heterosexual when the professor used them. They then proceeded to waste about 5 minutes of class time explaining to the professor why it was wrong to use those words. I could recount a dozen other examples, at least, of people being offended by things which any person not on a college campus wouldn’t even think twice about. I’m quite far left, but I found it to be incredibly annoying, and going to college and listening to these inane arguments actually pushed me farther to the right.
Peter Salovey, the president of Yale, met with students and expressed how “deeply troubled” he was in speaking with students of color who were “in great distress.” (after they attached faculty member Nicholas Christakis). Please, note, that Salovey met with the attackers, not with the victim. Salovey expressed solidarity with the attackers, not with the victim. IMHO, the whole event was sponsored / encouraged by Yale administration. And I feel bad for the URM students at the center of it. They were filmed. Their names are published. This story will stay with them forever. Yale just played them.
If I remember the Skokie Nazi demonstration, it ended when two guys wearing sunglasses and porkpie hats drove a police cruiser thru the demonstrators, causing many Nazis to jump off a bridge.
Okay, so grandstanding, basically?
So edgy, very wow.
I think there’s nothing wrong about asking/letting students have a headsup if particular material is disturbing or graphic. Say it on the first day and let people decide whether to take the class. If it’s a mandatory/core class and there’s a text that for instance, includes graphic sexual assault or something, then just mention it and let the student decide whether or not they want to read it.
I think that an academic classroom should be a place for free thought and discussion. I do not think it can be a safe space because of its very nature, and strongly oppose any restrictions placed in this environment. Safe spaces are important for activist/healing groups. However, I don’t think it hurts anyone to give individuals a headsup/choice when it comes to some very sensitive subjects or text in mandatory classes. If a student chooses a class, then they are accountable for evaluating whether the class’s content and discussions are appropriate for them or not.
My university is an academic peer of UCh and, IIRC both require extensive classics reading. However, we apparently already do sensitivity training for professors teaching the Hebrew Testament and the New Testament in a core (mandatory) class, so I highly doubt they will follow in UCh’s footsteps.
@californiaaa, you’re pushing what sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy theory involving faculty collusion in disrupting the academy. Quite aside from why in the world faculty would want to disrupt their own security, you do realize that getting faculty to agree on anything (much less keep quiet about it) is a lot like herding cats, yes?
<@californiaaa, you’re pushing what sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy theory involving faculty collusion in disrupting the academy. Quite aside from why in the world faculty would want to disrupt their own security, you do realize that getting faculty to agree on anything (much less keep quiet about it) is a lot like herding cats, yes? >
My point is: individual faculty groups are fighting for power within the university and using students (mainly, URM) to advance their personal agendas. Thus, “student’s” protests have, surprisingly, adult demands, such as reallocation of resources from one group of faculty to another, hiring / firing, etc.
Remember, Mizzou? President Thomas Wolfe was fired because of police brutality in Missouri. Any logical link? No. But it was an opportunity for a group of faculty / administration to gain power.
It is not surprising that URM applications at Mizzou plummeted after that event. URM parents are not stupid. They don’t want college to use their kids for political scores.
How do you think the mother of the Yale student (the girl at the center of the video, Halloween costume event) felt, when she saw her daughter on TV, at FoxNews, at the center of racial controversy?
“If I remember the Skokie Nazi demonstration, it ended when two guys wearing sunglasses and porkpie hats drove a police cruiser thru the demonstrators, causing many Nazis to jump off a bridge.”
Well done! Post of the day!
I viewed this letter as both a statement of values and market positioning. The leaders of UChicago are consciously remaking the university to set it apart from others.
The letter says “This is what we stand for, and we hope you believe in this.” While it won’t have any effect on the Class of 2020, it can significantly effect future classes in terms of the type of students that apply to Chicago, and those that avoid it.
BTW, I do support BLM.
@californiaaa, so to be clear, you’re only talking about a very, very small number of faculty, right?
Just like this entire thread started out talking about only a very, very small number of students.
Amazing what people will overgeneralize from, innit?
<so to="" be="" clear,="" you’re="" only="" talking="" about="" a="" very,="" very="" small="" number="" of="" faculty,="" right?="">
Certainly. Probably, one-two persons per University.
@californiaaa so you think some of the faculty are using blacks and undocumenteds to further their agenda. That is a very interesting theory. I guess the free speech movement is alive and well at 50
Let’s be very clear. Greg Lukianoff, of FIRE, filmed the students. And put them on the internet without their permission. It got him on talk shows. Lukianoff was on the Yale campus, in that college, as a guest of the Christakises. The whole situation arose because Erika Christakis sent an email to the college that criticized a university wide Yale email from The Intercultural Affairs Committee. Lukianoff and his friends are responsible for the damage to those students. I find Lukianoff morally despicable.
You can not blame Yale for filming those students and throwing them to the wolves. Blame Greg Lukianoff.
exacademic: thank you for taking the time to write those posts.
.
Interestingly, the assumption thus far has been that a small and vocal group of students are advocating trigger warnings and the like, while most roll their eyes. I’d assumed this was the case as well.
In recent conversations among the class of 2020 (I hope stating this isn’t a sign I lack class, as some have suggested) sentiment seems to favor trigger warnings.
At least, “likes” - an imperfect proxy for support - suggest that’s the case, as various posts on the matter have dominated social media conversation and those supportive of trigger warnings have gotten a better reception.
The most common argument appears to be as follows:
- Some students have suffered traumatic experiences
- Trigger warnings can help them avoid being triggered - by preparing them for a discussion on a difficult matter
- If this can help even a small number of students, why should we hold back?
A counterargument that immediately springs to mind is that if a teaching book means issuing trigger warnings, some faculty will drop the text altogether. I’m not sure what to think of all this.
I will note that less than 15% of the class has liked any post on either side of the debate, so the “small, vocal minority” theory could still hold true. Who knows.
@yogamum you stated "I assumed the apple didn’t fall far from the tree there. I’d bet mom and/or dad are obnoxious attorneys. " Most obnoxious attorneys don’t watch fox news. They prefer CNN or MSNBC