University of Chicago letter(Safe spaces and Trigger warnings debate)

[Andre Dia]

This university published a letter for future students to read. The college doesn't support safe spaces nor does it support trigger warnings. Do you think this should be an example for other colleges and universities? Or should this be condemned? This is what the letter states:

"
Welcome and congratulations on your acceptance to the College at the University of Chicago. Earning a place in our community of scholars is no small achievement and we are delighted that you selected Chicago to continue your intellectual journey.

Once here will you discover that one of the University of Chicago’s defining characteristic is our commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression. This is captured in the University’s faculty report on freedom of expression. Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn, without fear of censorship. Civility and mutual respect are vital to all of us, and freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others. You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.

Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called “trigger warnings,” we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual “safe spaces” where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

Fostering the free exchange of ideas reinforces a related University priority–building a campus that welcome people of all backgrounds. Diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of our community. The members of our community must have the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas.

I am enclosing a short monograph by Dean John W. Boyer, the Martin A. Ryerson Distinguished Service Professor in History and Dean of the College, which provides a helpful primer. This monograph, entitled Academic Freedom and the Modern University: The Experience of the University of Chicago, recounts the history of debate, and even scandal, resulting from our commitment to academic freedom.

If you are interested in some of the source material mentioned in Dean Boyer’s book, you can find links to the important reports (e.g. the Kalven report, the Stone report, etc.) at the website maintained by our University provost at http://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/.

Again, welcome to the University of Chicago. See you in September!



" /END of letter.

 

[Whispered]

Supported and followed. Colleges are a place for intellectual discussion, not censorship of certain ideas just because someone may be offended.

If someone is not mature enough to handle intellectual discussion of ideas they disagree with, they should not be in college.

 

[Lissa]

i agree bc college rlly is the time to expose urself to alternative views and grow intellectually

BUT the terminology they used prob wasn't the best
they seem to be trivializing trigger warnings and safe spaces, acting as if they are only ways for ppl to remain ignorant when in fact i've seen them be very beneficial for some students

in a lot of my courses we tend to discuss potentially triggering topics (rape, death, etc.) & my professors always warn us at least the class before, bc u never know what ur students could be dealing with on a personal level & it's easier to just skip a day of class than to potentially harm the progress you've made

i don't think providing trigger warnings for stuff like that is being too protective, i think it's being respectful and considerate

 

[Whispered]

i don't think providing trigger warnings for stuff like that is being too protective, i think it's being respectful and considerate

i think this is a classic example of where a word/phrase is hijacked and starts to have a completely different meaning. there's now-a-days a difference between a professor telling the class "next time we will discuss x article about rape" and saying "TRIGGER WARNING" which has become, at least in many people's eyes, something that is overused anytime anything remotely politically incorrect, potentially offensive, or even with the smallest hint of causing maybe one person out of the 7 billion on the earth emotional distress is about to be said.

furthermore, while i can understand a professor warning the student, i feel the students also have some responsibility, if they are going through a hard time in their life, to make their professors aware of their situation. then it can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (more time on tests, different test questions that don't reference things that would cause emotional distress, etc). This way, professors would not have to try and imagine any situation that could cause someone harm to warn about, but would be able to work with students to ensure they are able to both have the intellectual discussions common in college courses, as well as steer clear of things they are uncomfortable participating in for valid reason.

 

[Rosey]

I chose depends because of lissa's quote V

in a lot of my courses we tend to discuss potentially triggering topics (rape, death, etc.) & my professors always warn us at least the class before, bc u never know what ur students could be dealing with on a personal level & it's easier to just skip a day of class than to potentially harm the progress you've made

Like... if something happened to me, I can't really think of a topic that would be brought upon a college campus to REALLY heavily discuss (I go to a very small-ish community college so idk what these universities do?) I really wouldn't want to be around that [specific topic], at all, but other topics would be okay?
Like I said, it depends.

 

[Cowboy_Pirate]

Honestly I can see where, as a person who's been through a traumatic experience, if such topics were to be brought up I would like a warning but at the same time I don't need a safe place or what have you, even if they're brought up without a warning. Yes traumatic things happen but you can't hind from it. Maybe it's just me idk. And as for letting the professor know, it may not be something that's just going on rn. Like someone wouldn't just go up to a professor and be like "just so you know I was raped 5 years ago" (just an example) but at that same token it's not something that gets easier to deal with either.

 

[ButterflyHeart]

I think the problem with with usage of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" (I think as @Whispered mentioned) is that yeah, they have been very overused, or at least misunderstood as a form of blatant censorship.

A trigger warning in my opinion is something that gives you flashbacks of traumatic events, and possibly something that can send you in some form of distress. I don't think it's merely something that makes you uncomfortable for the heck of it, or that makes you angry.

I think there's a general understanding across college campuses that it's a form of shutting down what you're not happy with hearing; if that's the case then I don't think that's okay.

As for safe spaces, that's something a lot more ambiguous for me. When I advocate for safe spaces, I'm thinking about the blatant comments (sometimes just innocent or ignorant) said in a space that are racist, classist, etc. and then go unquestioned or unchallenged by the rest of the room. It's not supposed to be meant to shut down people or antagonize them.

A safe space, in my opinion, is supposed to promote freedom of expression and free thinking, but not at the expense of disrespecting the cultures or identities of the people in the room. I also think there's a difference between making ignorant comments and asking a question about someone's identity or background. A comment is more assuming or biased whereas a question is with an intent to learn more.

 

[Whispered]

I think the bottom line to me is this: If you were so emotionally affected by an event that you are uncomfortable even going to a professor in private either before registering for a class or before the class is in full swing and mentioning "Dr. Soandso, I noticed in the syllabus that we cover 'x y and z', and I'm concerned that we may get into some subject matter that is a sensitive subject for me. 'X' happened to me and causes me emotional trauma, so if you are aware that the discussion will go that direction if you could please let me know, I would appreciate it"...

If you can't do that, then I question your ability to manage a job that your college education will lead to, as in the real world, be it management, office work, etc. nobody goes around saying "trigger warning" before everything remotely triggering to someone. If you get triggered by something, the onus is on you to inform people you worry may trigger you, not on people who don't even know you to just assume that someone may be triggered.

Furthermore, all universities have a "disability services" and "assistance services" - two separate things but both applicable here. If your traumatic experience truly affects your ability to learn or study, go talk to the disability services or the assistance services who can, most times without even needing professor approval or knowledge of the exact issue, approve more time on tests, approve absences for emotional reasons, etc. Note that this doesn't involve forcing people to watch their every word and potentially have a chilling effect on discussions for a couple people, but still allows them the ability to take part in learning as they can.

Lastly, although it may appear that "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" do not actually censor any discussion, it should be noted that they do, by design, have a chilling effect on discussion by forcing people to remain extremely careful in how they speak for fear of offending someone. This is tantamount to censorship itself. The threat of censorship usually causes a chilling effect that ends up in someone being too fearful to speak, thus being censored.

 

[ButterflyHeart]

If it's about a conversation topic that will be specific covered in class; then all of that makes sense related to trigger warnings. It should be the responsibility of the student to warn their prof about topics that bring back traumatic memories. With the exception of maybe some topics (i.e: rape) it mostly can't be assumed, I agree.

I see both "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" as both anticipatory actions; both shouldn't be something established during the moment of a conversation. They should also be practices that most of the group in a convo agrees with, and can understand. I think trigger warnings have less to do with censorship; the few times I heard a prof mention it for the next lecture, he advised students who were triggered that they were not required to attend the next class. (And possibly, have a separate convo with the prof about the topic during office hours.)

Again, when I think of safe spaces, I'm thinking about those outright racist/classist/sexist etc. comments from people: sometimes said out of disrespect, sometimes said out of complete ignorance and belief in that comment. Generally, I think about the comments said about a group of people that have been historically oppressed to some extent. (I.e. Not comments about anyone's preferred genre of music or political affiliation). If someone for the first time is trying to believe something other than "Hispanics are only good as housekeepers" (a random example), then yeah, it's going to be kind of scary for the person and they will feel attacked for what they believe in. It was a stereotypical belief, so it's something that can be called out.

Though, like I said above, I think a conversation should be declared a "safe space" if most of the room is in agreement.

 

[Disantha]

LOL this letter is from my school

People at UChicago were super divided over it. My stance it on is generally that trigger warnings (when used the way they were originally intended to) are fine and good - e.g. providing a warning before a particularly graphic scene or disturbing topic is probably a good idea, so that those who might be more adversely affected can excuse themselves if they feel the need to (e.g. an ex soldier with PTSD quite justifiably should not be forced to, say, watch a graphic war movie if they don't want to). I think trigger warnings only become problematic when they morph into a way to censor dissenting viewpoints or uncomfortable content - e.g. trying to prevent a speaker from coming to campus to give a speech because the speaker's political views are not popular or controversial. When confronted with opposing viewpoints, the solution is not censorship, rather, the solution is to engage those viewpoints on the merits of their arguments (or lack thereof) - if you believe someone's viewpoint to be wrong or unintelligent, then you should show why it is wrong or unintelligent as opposed to not giving it a voice it all. Of course, the problem is that people are generally terrible nowadays at actually engaging in an argument, but I digress.

Cases that fall into the latter description - of trying to censor certain speakers or content - aren't really cases of proper "trigger warnings" at all.

Trigger warnings are supposed to be just that - warnings. For example, to have a trigger warning before a graphic war movie is not to say that the movie has to be removed from the curriculum. It's just there so that those who might be affected can get a heads up, and can plan accordingly (e.g. something like making an arrangement with the professor for an alternative assignment, or even something as simple as just sort of mentally preparing themselves for what they're about to see so they're not caught off guard). Trigger warnings in their true form aren't really censorship at all. But for some reason the term "trigger warnings" has become used as a sort of catch all term, to include censorship-esque actions. So when debating "trigger warnings", it's important to define your terms and be clear about what definition of trigger warnings you're defending or attacking. I don't think very many people have qualms with trigger warnings in their intended use - anyone who would object to trigger warnings for say, survivors with PTSD is probably kind of an ******. Most of the debate seems to center around this new, secondary interpretation of trigger warnings as pseudo censorship. But arguably (as I've touched on above) - cases like this shouldn't even really be considered trigger warnings at all, since it goes beyond mere warning.

 

[Myth]

Hey my mom works at U of C
I like the letter and I agree with it completely