University of Chicago on Trigger Warnings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does this work fairly for actual victims of rape or military vets or gays who have PTSD from actual trauma? Is it not fair to afford them a trigger warning for material that may indeed trigger a PTSD episode?

Don't people with PTSD need psychiatric treatment, not trigger warnings? I don't understand how you can be in college and study literature or history or (insert probably many different disciplines here) and not be exposed to some pretty dreadful stuff. I don't have PTSD but I majored in Russian and couldn't eat or sleep for three days after I read book I of the Gulag Archipelago. If I HAD PTSD...what would a trigger warning have done? It's not like there's an alternate reading you can do if you're studying 20th century Soviet history, that lets you avoid hearing about the sick shit they did to political prisoners. I just don't get what trigger warnings are supposed to do in the classroom. If you're so emotionally fragile that you can't read a book or participate in a seminar or listen to a lecture, you need treatment. You can't handle college, which is already a pretty "safe space" compared to the real world.

This. Maybe someone falling into the category of needing a trigger warning needs to choose a different college?

[Anonymous]

So.much.yes. Great move by UofC.

-liberal Dem

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great for you prof

Serious question what do you do when BLM or some other organization comes in and demands actions

Serious answer. You let them speak just like you would if David Duke or Alex Jones came to U of Chicago and were granted the right to speak.

It's not complicated unless you don't like what BLM has to say. Though I'm sure there are many who wouldn't like what Duke or Jones has to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hundreds of zombie-like Democrats will now converge on UoC moaning "triggered, feelbad" and will demand retraction, apologies, safe spaces.

Why don't you go back to the Political forum with this BS train of thought. I'm sick of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hundreds of zombie-like Democrats will now converge on UoC moaning "triggered, feelbad" and will demand retraction, apologies, safe spaces.

I'm a liberal Democrat and I agree with this policy 100% So shut your piehole

+1

[Anonymous]

Liberal democrat whose kid was already considering U of C.

I'm now really hoping he gets in and chooses to go there.

[Anonymous]

I'm also a liberal Democrat and an academic who wanted to cheer after reading the UofC statement on this issue. I teach at a graduate level so I don't encounter this trigger/safe space nonsense but it is an affront to everything that a good educational experience is intended to accomplish. I hope it withers on the vine. But I'll add that I've seen a lot of pushback by other academics on my FB feed who disagree, so I don't think that the OP or the rest of us are entirely representative of the academic world unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Kudos. Mega kudos to U. Chicago. A serious school. Too bad it is so tough to get into.
Scratched Claremont-McKenna from our list and Yale after the screamer lady bullshit that the admin. actually caved in to rather than stood up to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberal democrat whose kid was already considering U of C.

I'm now really hoping he gets in and chooses to go there.

+1. (But it was already extremely difficult and now it will be even more so.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The UofC sent a letter to its incoming first-years clarifying the College's stance against trigger warnings and intellectual safe spaces. Read the letter here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/08/25/dont-ask-us-for-trigger-warnings-or-safe-spaces-the-university-of-chicago-tells-freshmen/

FWIW, I'm a professor in the humanities, politically very liberal, and I am glad that the UofC is taking this stance. (Yes, I would not only support Donald Trump coming to speak to my university, but I would encourage all my students to listen to him speak with an open, yet critical, mind. I would also encourage them to ask challenging questions if such an opportunity arose.) I firmly believe that all students ought to be exposed to different ideas and perspectives and learn to engage in civil discourse with people who hold those views and have had different life experiences.

Oh dear; you would have been shouted down and called vulgar names by the screamer lady at Yale for expressing that (very legitimate) opinion.

[Anonymous]

This is wonderful! Good for this university, and good for you, OP, for promoting dialogue, discussion, and debate in your classroom.

I am curious as to your opinion of this professors views on teaching her PoliSci class at Gettysburg College:

Gettysburg College Prof. Kathleen Iannello announced in an Op-Ed penned for Philly.com that she will not even try to treat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and GOP choice Trump equally because, in her mind, Trump is a “lightning rod for promoting further hate.”

“My approach for the fall semester will be boldly honest: It is a disservice to students to attempt to provide balance when I know that balance is an offense to the truth,” Iannello wrote.

School officials are confident the class will be fair.
In the column, titled “Balanced Presentation A Dishonest Exercise In Presidential Race,” Iannello admits that, “as a liberal, [she has] no problem extolling the virtues of Democrats.”

To prove her fairness, Iannello notes that she has assigned readings of moderate Republicans and has even offered praise for Ronald Reagan. But Trump is another story, she claimed.

“His harsh and distasteful commentary regarding religious and ethnic groups, as well as women, only serves as a lightning rod for promoting further hate,” Iannello wrote. “He displays neither a record of public service nor an understanding of the word statesmanship. In the history of our country, it is hard to recall anyone less prepared to take office.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/23/bias-alert-professor-says-trump-is-so-bad-class-doesnt-have-to-be-balanced.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does this work fairly for actual victims of rape or military vets or gays who have PTSD from actual trauma? Is it not fair to afford them a trigger warning for material that may indeed trigger a PTSD episode?

Don't people with PTSD need psychiatric treatment, not trigger warnings? I don't understand how you can be in college and study literature or history or (insert probably many different disciplines here) and not be exposed to some pretty dreadful stuff. I don't have PTSD but I majored in Russian and couldn't eat or sleep for three days after I read book I of the Gulag Archipelago. If I HAD PTSD...what would a trigger warning have done? It's not like there's an alternate reading you can do if you're studying 20th century Soviet history, that lets you avoid hearing about the sick shit they did to political prisoners. I just don't get what trigger warnings are supposed to do in the classroom. If you're so emotionally fragile that you can't read a book or participate in a seminar or listen to a lecture, you need treatment. You can't handle college, which is already a pretty "safe space" compared to the real world.

+1

There is no cure for PTSD, only management of symptoms. It's courteous to forewarn people if class discussion will center around potentially traumatic material (child molestation, warfare, rape, human trafficking etc). With literature a victim has the option of putting the book down - if suddenly confronted with the topic being discussed, they can be retraumatized, shocked etc and feel uncomfortable just walking out.

I don't think this is the PC police run amok, I think it has to do with common courtesy springing from a broader knowledge of trauma in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The UofC sent a letter to its incoming first-years clarifying the College's stance against trigger warnings and intellectual safe spaces. Read the letter here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/08/25/dont-ask-us-for-trigger-warnings-or-safe-spaces-the-university-of-chicago-tells-freshmen/

FWIW, I'm a professor in the humanities, politically very liberal, and I am glad that the UofC is taking this stance. (Yes, I would not only support Donald Trump coming to speak to my university, but I would encourage all my students to listen to him speak with an open, yet critical, mind. I would also encourage them to ask challenging questions if such an opportunity arose.) I firmly believe that all students ought to be exposed to different ideas and perspectives and learn to engage in civil discourse with people who hold those views and have had different life experiences.

I also am politically liberal and black, and I believe no one should be provided a "safe space" with crayons and coloring book if you're over 7. Since we probably agree on many social issues, how would you address the issue of a student in a required sociology class denigrating and castigating African-Americans as being lazy, uneducated, and unproductive justifying it by altering historical fact and stating a First amendment right? When I was told about this spring last semester, I thought that the student was probably echoing what he has heard politically and probably at home.

I would have given this student the mental finger as I quietly and respectfully listened because I've heard it before, been there and heard that. Though I am significantly older and have a much different race related life experience, posters would probably state that I would want an safe space and should stay and debate. Why would any student be forced to continue that kind of debate when years of history have proven otherwise? Why is it those students' job is to debate and most likely unsuccessfully change the thinking of a student who probably has racist familial conditioning?

Professor, I tell you this story as told to me by the parent of one of the two African-American students in the course who left the class because the other student was allowed to give his ideas without rebuttal and the class was instructed to listen, a learning experience. The two AA students returned to the next class and respectfully declined debate because they were unsure how a debate would affect their grade.

Where would you draw the line, OP? I would love to hear your thoughts on this type of freedom of speech (or as the U of Chicago said "inquiry and expression") and the rights of the student speaker versus the rights of the classroom student listeners to not debate and "retreat" to a different environment of intellectual quiet or as some here would label as "safe space."

Your thoughts, OP, are definitely welcomed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does this work fairly for actual victims of rape or military vets or gays who have PTSD from actual trauma? Is it not fair to afford them a trigger warning for material that may indeed trigger a PTSD episode?

Don't people with PTSD need psychiatric treatment, not trigger warnings? I don't understand how you can be in college and study literature or history or (insert probably many different disciplines here) and not be exposed to some pretty dreadful stuff. I don't have PTSD but I majored in Russian and couldn't eat or sleep for three days after I read book I of the Gulag Archipelago. If I HAD PTSD...what would a trigger warning have done? It's not like there's an alternate reading you can do if you're studying 20th century Soviet history, that lets you avoid hearing about the sick shit they did to political prisoners. I just don't get what trigger warnings are supposed to do in the classroom. If you're so emotionally fragile that you can't read a book or participate in a seminar or listen to a lecture, you need treatment. You can't handle college, which is already a pretty "safe space" compared to the real world.

+1

There is no cure for PTSD, only management of symptoms. It's courteous to forewarn people if class discussion will center around potentially traumatic material (child molestation, warfare, rape, human trafficking etc). With literature a victim has the option of putting the book down - if suddenly confronted with the topic being discussed, they can be retraumatized, shocked etc and feel uncomfortable just walking out.

I don't think this is the PC police run amok, I think it has to do with common courtesy springing from a broader knowledge of trauma in the world.

Want to add I'm only referring to trigger warnings here. I think chilling of speech based on shutting down dissenters, disinviting unpopular speeakers etc IS billshit and should absolutely not continue on college campuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does this work fairly for actual victims of rape or military vets or gays who have PTSD from actual trauma? Is it not fair to afford them a trigger warning for material that may indeed trigger a PTSD episode?

Don't people with PTSD need psychiatric treatment, not trigger warnings? I don't understand how you can be in college and study literature or history or (insert probably many different disciplines here) and not be exposed to some pretty dreadful stuff. I don't have PTSD but I majored in Russian and couldn't eat or sleep for three days after I read book I of the Gulag Archipelago. If I HAD PTSD...what would a trigger warning have done? It's not like there's an alternate reading you can do if you're studying 20th century Soviet history, that lets you avoid hearing about the sick shit they did to political prisoners. I just don't get what trigger warnings are supposed to do in the classroom. If you're so emotionally fragile that you can't read a book or participate in a seminar or listen to a lecture, you need treatment. You can't handle college, which is already a pretty "safe space" compared to the real world.

+1

There is no cure for PTSD, only management of symptoms. It's courteous to forewarn people if class discussion will center around potentially traumatic material (child molestation, warfare, rape, human trafficking etc). With literature a victim has the option of putting the book down - if suddenly confronted with the topic being discussed, they can be retraumatized, shocked etc and feel uncomfortable just walking out.

I don't think this is the PC police run amok, I think it has to do with common courtesy springing from a broader knowledge of trauma in the world.

But isn't UofC saying they aren't going to provide blanket trigger warnings when students should reasonably expect that they will be exposed to potentially disturbing material as part of a liberal arts education? How do you take a history class without discussing warfare? How do you study art history without looking at pictures of rape? If you are an elite college, its not unreasonable to say to students--we're preparing you to be adults, and that means being capable of owning your shit, and if you have stuff to deal with here is an environment where you will learn how to do that and we're telling you now, you better be able to handle it. That's the warning.