University of Chicago on Trigger Warnings

[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

Don't you think they need treatment and deserve trigger warnings to avoid episodes? It's odd you presume they are not in treatment.

OP here. One big assumption about trigger warnings is the professors are in the business of figuring out what would be a "trigger." We are not trained psychologists or therapists--we simply do not have the skills to deal with PTSD. It is a lot of responsibility to thrust upon a faculty member to ask them to teach their subject matter so as to avoid unknown psychological trauma. The onus should really be on the student to talk to the professor before class to figure out if a class would be a good fit for the student. No student is forced to major in any particular discipline--if reading certain texts and talking about certain subjects are traumatizing enough to require a student to skip class or an assignment, choose a different discipline. If a student really wants to major in something, then s/he will have to figure out a way to master the information with his/her therapist.

[Anonymous]

OP, you speak very well on this topic. Kudos!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

OP here. You raise important points and a common concern among parents of color. My thoughts:

(1) The responsibility of the professor is to ensure that students have an accurate understanding of the topic studied--and if a student makes arguments in class that are factually incorrect, unsubstantiated, and motivated by bias (even if unintended), then the professor needs to correct the statements and teach how analysis from the discipline (sociology) is performed. So, if the class is about the sociology of race, the job of the professor is to try to get students to think about and analyze race the way sociologists would do so--and spouting off wrong historical data to make a point is NOT what a competent sociologist would do. Class is not the Jerry Springer show, despite students' desire to be "entertained." I am surprised that the professor allowed such historical inaccuracies to go on uncorrected--if other students in class are not correcting the inaccuracies, then the professor needs to step up. There are a lot of ways in which professors can make such tirades educational--have the student state the peer-reviewed sources, statistical surveys, sociological studies, etc., for such views.

(2) Classroom discussions need to be civil and students need to show mutual respect for each other. Making racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., comments ruin the atmosphere of collegial, intellectual, and rigorous discussion. It effectively shuts down alternative views (i.e., AfAm students now feel uncomfortable speaking up in class) and stops the inquiry.

3) Is is not the job of students of color to serve as "tokens" in the classroom. However, students, regardless of color, race, sex, etc., need to contribute to the discussion. In other words, I don't expect black students to speak on behalf black Americans, however, neither are they given a pass to remain silent if they have information that would change the flow of the conversation. It is everyone's job to speak up.

(4) Freedom of speech does not equal a passing grade. It is not an excuse to spout unfounded, inaccurate information.

(5) I wouldn't give up on students who come from racist backgrounds. Confession--my family growing up was, in fact, pretty racist and VERY sexist. College was a hugely liberating and eye-opening experience for me, personally. My professors, classes, and college friends taught me see the world in very different ways that I had been exposed to at home, and they gave me the vocabulary and critical thinking skills necessary to see my upbringing with a clearer lens.

(6) Some unsolicited advice--I don't know the background of the AfAm students in the course, but students need to go to office hours and talk to the professor (i.e., engage in dialogue!). The vast majority of us are, in fact, pretty reasonable and are in this because we want to teach (we are certainly not in it for the money). Unfortunately, by not participating in subsequent classes, those two students have shot themselves in the foot. They need to understand they they may very well be viewed as disengaged and/or unprepared for class discussion. They can't let their disgust get in the way of their getting a good grade. The professor is not a mind-reader, s/he doesn't know why the students aren't talking in in class. For all s/he knows, they agreed with the other student!

You raise very valid points, however, I disagree with some of point No. 6 and bolded opinion (an opinion of which you are definitely entitled) which is what makes debate a learning experience on both sides. While you opine these students have shot themselves in the foot, you nor I are privy to their mindset. We don't know whether they were concerned about receiving a failing grade nor do we know the mindset of the professor. African-Americans, students or adults, know there are times when you just go along to get along in a situation that might compromise your well being (I am not speaking about physical safety here). This is cultural. While that thought process could happen with anyone regardless of ethnicity, we'll stick with these two black students for discussion purposes.

I would also suspect that sometimes one might think entering a debate where you will have no impact is fruitless. You mentioned that these students need to understand they may be viewed as disengaged or unprepared for discussion. There are tons of threads in this very forum that assume African-American students are solely admitted to colleges because of affirmative action and have inferior grades so it would not be that far a reach that some in that class may have thought they were unprepared or disengaged solely from that mindset. Interesting that you have that viewpoint while that thought though it never came up in a five-person discussion I had with people who did not know these students. Also, (and I have to smile), I highly doubt the professor thought those black students agreed with the denigration of their heritage as lazy and uneducated (still smiling!) though there may have been other students in the class who concurred with the very verbal student. Well, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the professor.

Additionally, while engaging with the professor is obviously the best scenario, we don't know the mindset of the professor. I am well-educated and articulate, but I can appreciate any hesitancy on the students part to discuss this event if there was an inkling of concern or suspicion of the professor's thoughts on the matter. It's a slippery slope dealing with someone who can control your future, and we just don't know the relationship with the professor and these two students who I know came from an excellent high school with grades and test scores to match.

I would conclude by saying we just don't know what lenses these two students were viewing the situation from in that class, but I will reach out to the parents to continue this discussion as I am very curious what grade was received for the class. While you and I base some of our thoughts, assumptions, and opinions from our experiences, I most certainly welcomed your candor (especially in No. 6) and your willingness to take the time to answer from your perspective. This is what debate and communication is all about. We can agree, and we can agree to disagree.

I will not be posting anymore but thank you again for your thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Don't you think they need treatment and deserve trigger warnings to avoid episodes? It's odd you presume they are not in treatment.

OP here. One big assumption about trigger warnings is the professors are in the business of figuring out what would be a "trigger." We are not trained psychologists or therapists--we simply do not have the skills to deal with PTSD. It is a lot of responsibility to thrust upon a faculty member to ask them to teach their subject matter so as to avoid unknown psychological trauma. The onus should really be on the student to talk to the professor before class to figure out if a class would be a good fit for the student. No student is forced to major in any particular discipline--if reading certain texts and talking about certain subjects are traumatizing enough to require a student to skip class or an assignment, choose a different discipline. If a student really wants to major in something, then s/he will have to figure out a way to master the information with his/her therapist.

This. Faculty members really do not have the qualifications to deal with PTSD and never will. We are trained and we are good at our subject matter. Most of us just do not have even the right kind of talents to be good at dealing with people with PTSD, although we are very good at the things we were hired to do. Unfortunately, a person with PTSD needs a professional to help them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Don't you think they need treatment and deserve trigger warnings to avoid episodes? It's odd you presume they are not in treatment.

OP here. One big assumption about trigger warnings is the professors are in the business of figuring out what would be a "trigger." We are not trained psychologists or therapists--we simply do not have the skills to deal with PTSD. It is a lot of responsibility to thrust upon a faculty member to ask them to teach their subject matter so as to avoid unknown psychological trauma. The onus should really be on the student to talk to the professor before class to figure out if a class would be a good fit for the student. No student is forced to major in any particular discipline--if reading certain texts and talking about certain subjects are traumatizing enough to require a student to skip class or an assignment, choose a different discipline. If a student really wants to major in something, then s/he will have to figure out a way to master the information with his/her therapist.

This. Faculty members really do not have the qualifications to deal with PTSD and never will. We are trained and we are good at our subject matter. Most of us just do not have even the right kind of talents to be good at dealing with people with PTSD, although we are very good at the things we were hired to do. Unfortunately, a person with PTSD needs a professional to help them.

Precisely. Additionally, to complicate matters, PTSD manifests in an individual as a result of many factors, both genetic and environmental. So, if two individuals encountering the same exact situation, one may experience PTSD and the other may not. It is as impossible for professors and faculty to anticipate every situation that might be a 'trigger' as it is to anticipate which students may experience a PTSD episode in response to certain stimuli in a class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Don't you think they need treatment and deserve trigger warnings to avoid episodes? It's odd you presume they are not in treatment.

OP here. One big assumption about trigger warnings is the professors are in the business of figuring out what would be a "trigger." We are not trained psychologists or therapists--we simply do not have the skills to deal with PTSD. It is a lot of responsibility to thrust upon a faculty member to ask them to teach their subject matter so as to avoid unknown psychological trauma. The onus should really be on the student to talk to the professor before class to figure out if a class would be a good fit for the student. No student is forced to major in any particular discipline--if reading certain texts and talking about certain subjects are traumatizing enough to require a student to skip class or an assignment, choose a different discipline. If a student really wants to major in something, then s/he will have to figure out a way to master the information with his/her therapist.

This. Faculty members really do not have the qualifications to deal with PTSD and never will. We are trained and we are good at our subject matter. Most of us just do not have even the right kind of talents to be good at dealing with people with PTSD, although we are very good at the things we were hired to do. Unfortunately, a person with PTSD needs a professional to help them.

Precisely. Additionally, to complicate matters, PTSD manifests in an individual as a result of many factors, both genetic and environmental. So, if two individuals encountering the same exact situation, one may experience PTSD and the other may not. It is as impossible for professors and faculty to anticipate every situation that might be a 'trigger' as it is to anticipate which students may experience a PTSD episode in response to certain stimuli in a class.

+ a million.

As someone very familiar with neuroscience, let me make it as simple as possible: the very concept of "triggers" is hype, not science.

The idea of "trigger warnings" in educational settings is, well, I can't find the right polite expression...

[Anonymous]

this is why chicago > northwestern.

Northwestern's president earlier this year in wapo was kowtowing to the safe-space/trigger warning crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this is why chicago > northwestern.

Northwestern's president earlier this year in wapo was kowtowing to the safe-space/trigger warning crowd.

I'm sure you and the Yale and MIT/Stanford posters can't possibly think students are not going to apply to good schools that continue to review policies on trigger/safe-space.

While many may disagree about safe space, that is not enough for the vast majority of applicants not to apply and guarantee they will apply. Unless Northwestern and Yale are mirror images of Maine's Governor LePage then high school students will continue to apply to Yale, Northwestern, Brown, Harvard, etc, by the thousands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great job by this university. More should make this explicit

Students and professors should be free to discuss topics like how the Niqab oppresses women without being Called racist and all discussion eliminated

People need to express ideas and debate Not simply call each other names or ban responses.

A fundamental values to western civilization

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Students and professors should be free to discuss topics like how the Niqab oppresses women without being Called racist and all discussion eliminated

Wait, who's trying to ban responses now? The goal here should be a full-contact exchange of ideas and viewpoints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Students and professors should be free to discuss topics like how the Niqab oppresses women without being Called racist and all discussion eliminated

Wait, who's trying to ban responses now? The goal here should be a full-contact exchange of ideas and viewpoints.

Good point but calling names is not a valid argument unless you are in elementary school

But I do hope that now that school will be holding proper debates on the failure of conservatism in the 2008 Great Recession

He failure of deregulation of financial markets was a major disaster. Countrywide and no doc mortgages. Free markets have limitations. What ever happen to chile anyways ??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this is why chicago > northwestern.

Northwestern's president earlier this year in wapo was kowtowing to the safe-space/trigger warning crowd.

There are obviously many things going on, but this certainly makes U Chicago look like a more attractive learning space for people looking for, well, learning.

[Anonymous]

It's a silly marketing ploy at the expense of actually welcoming students--ooh look at us heroically pushing back against forces of illiberality. I saw one college president say that instead of coddling students they are just coddling donors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a silly marketing ploy at the expense of actually welcoming students--ooh look at us heroically pushing back against forces of illiberality. I saw one college president say that instead of coddling students they are just coddling donors.

It may be a “silly marketing ploy,” but as a parent who funded the college education of two kids, I appreciate it.
Good for them.
There are not enough colleges that get in the news for the right reasons.

[Anonymous]

It's only a matter of time before someone is sued because they did not include a trigger warning. It's a slippery slope.