Trigger Warnings

[dr. t]

Since no one wants to talk about unions, how about UChicago coming out against safe spaces and trigger warnings?

https://twitter.com/ChicagoMaroon/status/768561465183862785/photo/1

My own response is almost entirely in line with this post here: http://www.thetattooedprof.com/archives/650

To be honest, I'm somewhat wary of saying, as the author does, that I would change assignments based on a student's experiences. It necessarily implies that the texts I've chosen, texts which contain reproductions of the type of events that can be so emotionally and physically devastating, are not really necessary to the subject or concept I'm trying to teach. That, in effect, I'm using them for shock value or out of childish interest.

But that does not mean I should not provide a student with all the relevant information they need to make the decision as to whether or not to take the course in the first place. As a consequence, it feels like the University of Chicago has taken a bold stand for intellectual freedom by (deliberately?) misunderstanding an important concept in order to make themselves feel edgy and important.

[Glasperlenspieler]

I suppose I’m somewhat more sympathetic to the University of Chicago’s position. While I’m not against the use of trigger warnings per se and I do thing Chicago could have approached the topic better, it strikes me that their message is not so much an attack on a particular pedagogical practice as a statement that they are unwilling to condone the sort of shenanigans and serious attacks on academic freedom and intellectual integrity that have gone on in the past few years.

 

Consider:

-The Kipnis affair at Northwestern (http://jezebel.com/feminist-students-protest-feminist-prof-for-writing-abo-1707714321)

-Columbia students demant trigger warnings for greek mythology: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/14/columbia-students-claim-greek-mythology-needs-a-trigger-warning/

-Identity politics run amok at Oberlin (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/the-new-activism-of-liberal-arts-colleges) and Wesleyan (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/23/wesleyan-students-boycott-campus-newspaper-threaten-funding)

-Speakers being disinvited or disrupted for holding unappealing views at Cardiff (http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2015/10/28/comment-the-attack-on-germaine-greer-shows-identity-politics), Yale (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/), and Brown (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/06/brown-university-professor-denounces-mccarthy-witch-hunts.html)

 

And this is all in the past two years!

 

So while I agree that we ought to approach difficult topics with caution and let students make informed decisions about what is best for them and their intellectual development (and perhaps trigger warning are an effective way to do this). I can understand Chicago’s position and see it as taking a stand for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas, and I rather appreciate their reluctance to get pulled into the muck that these cases demonstrate.

 

Indeed, I tend to think that a lot of the above problems come from the increasingly consumerist approach to higher education that exists in this country where students see colleges and universities as offering a service and thus have the right to complain and demand change when the service doesn’t match their perceived needs and desires. I think there are some strengths to this approach but a number of risks as well. I certainly don’t know the best way to handle these difficulties and I’m not convinced that Chicago has the right approach, but I do appreciate them taking a stand.

Two other pieces of food for thought:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/253641-obama-hits-coddled-liberal-college-students

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/189543/trigger-warnings-on-campus

[TakeruK]

I agree mostly with the opinion from telkanuru's post. Maybe I am wrong in some way, but every person I've talked to who is against "safe spaces" seems to make it sound like if there is one single "safe space" on campus, then the entire idea that college is a place to challenge students is completely destroyed! I think this is ridiculous. 

Looking at the Yale example specifically, I fully support the idea that student houses should be "safe spaces", not "educational spaces". The Master of the House was completely in the wrong, in my opinion, to have written those statements. The role of the Master is not to provide education or to challenge students. Their role is to ensure that their house runs smoothly and most important, to act as a safety net so that students are able to come to them when they are in trouble. 

I also don't understand why students should not be allowed to protest speakers with unappealing views on campus. This is pretty common at my undergraduate school (outside of the US). If a speaker is being brought onto campus and there is a group of students that don't want the speaker there, the group of students should have a way to display their displeasure. And, if there is another group of students that want the speaker, there can be a counter-protest. The University doesn't have to agree to the students' request, but the University of Chicago's over-the-top letter that categorically says they will always refuse to listen to these protests is foolish. I think the U Chicago letter is actually more stifling of academic thought that anything else!

I also think that private US schools seem to be extremely paternalistic towards their students. In this letter, U Chicago is basically saying "We know what's best for you and your education, so don't get any ideas about protesting or demanding safe spaces.". At my current school, undergrads are pretty much forced to live on campus in special in a Harry Potter esque system (there's a way out but it's not evident). 

Ultimately, I do think higher education should be more "consumer based". I don't mean this in the bad way that people seem to use this word, i.e. students demanding their money back if they aren't happy with classes etc. However, from my experience with "elite" private US schools, I think the balance is currently too far in the area of "Hey, we're an elite and old institution so obviously we know what's best. This is the way we want to do things, so if you don't like it, then go somewhere else". And I don't think this is a healthy mindset for higher education institutions. It leads to the reluctance to change and an illogical stubborn desire to hold onto outdated ideals and traditions.

[Glasperlenspieler]

2 hours ago, TakeruK said:

I also don't understand why students should not be allowed to protest speakers with unappealing views on campus. This is pretty common at my undergraduate school (outside of the US).

Students should of course be allowed to protest a speaker they disagree with. This strikes me as an important and profitable way of engaging with ideas you don't accept. The problem arises when you protest in such a way that the speaker isn't even allowed to speak. That is a case of limiting academic freedom in such a way That some voices and ideas aren't even allowed to the table, which is deeply troubling to me. Intellectual discourse should not devolve into who can speak loudest.

 

To be fair, I do think some ideas ought not be allowed to the table. It seems perfectly legitimate to prevent David Duke from disseminating his views on campus. Where the line is between which ideas are acceptable and which are not in this sense is certainly not an easy thing to decidel, but I do think many recent cases are instances of going to far in prohibiting people from speaking whose ideas might be unappealing but whose right to discuss then should not be impeded.

 

2 hours ago, TakeruK said:

Ultimately, I do think higher education should be more "consumer based". I don't mean this in the bad way that people seem to use this word, i.e. students demanding their money back if they aren't happy with classes etc. However, from my experience with "elite" private US schools, I think the balance is currently too far in the area of "Hey, we're an elite and old institution so obviously we know what's best. This is the way we want to do things, so if you don't like it, then go somewhere else". And I don't think this is a healthy mindset for higher education institutions. It leads to the reluctance to change and an illogical stubborn desire to hold onto outdated ideals and traditions.

While I agree with you that one "safe space" on campus certainly doesn't destroy the academic integrity of the university, I guess I don't see the "elite" mentality you mention. One of the (non-elite) schools I mention is my alma mater, and what I saw in that instance was students demanding things from the administration that would have been in poor judgement, not feasible, and in some cases actually illegal had they been adopted. This struck me as a case of students who were not fighting against an elitist mentality, but rather did not want ideas they disagreed with to be allowed even to be considered and saw any resistance from the administration to now to their demands as unthinkable. Perhaps I'm wrong in interpreting the situation as I do, or in generalizing to other cases, but what I've read from other campuses indicates to me that this is not an isolated phenomenon.

It's very possible that I just have the intuitions of an anti-consumerist elitist fuddy-duddy, but in so far as Chicago's statement is an attempt to ward off what strikes me as an attempt to narrow the acceptable sphere of academic discourse, then I can't help but support. If, of course, I'm reading their statement wrong and they are implying something different, then I'll withhold my support.

[TakeruK]

1 hour ago, DerPhilosoph said:

Students should of course be allowed to protest a speaker they disagree with. This strikes me as an important and profitable way of engaging with ideas you don't accept. The problem arises when you protest in such a way that the speaker isn't even allowed to speak. That is a case of limiting academic freedom in such a way That some voices and ideas aren't even allowed to the table, which is deeply troubling to me. Intellectual discourse should not devolve into who can speak loudest.

I agree that intellectual discourse should not be whomever speaks the loudest. But, I have the opinion that freedom of speech and expression trumps intellectual discourse. That is, I believe freedom of speech is a right, while the ability to have intellectual discourse is a privilege and a "higher order need" that should not happen at the expense of other needs (like freedom of speech).

I admit I am not 100% sure what you mean by "protest in such a way that the speaker isn't even allowed to speak", because this can have a lot of different meanings. So, I'll use a few concrete examples. Overall, I think that as long as the protests are legal (within reason) and non-violent then the protests should happen. Some examples of what I think are acceptable ways of preventing a speaker from speaking:

- Lobbying your school officials to cancel the event

- Staging a legal protest in such a way that your protest is loud, distracting or disruptive enough to prevent the speaker from being heard or to reduce the effectiveness of their speech. I think this is fine because 1) the speaker isn't the only person with the right to speak in a particular space and 2) if you have enough people that are unhappy, maybe there's a good reason for it. (Technically this doesn't prevent the speaker from actually speaking, it only interferes with the message)

- Lining up outside of the speaking venue and handing out flyers or other information you want people to know about the speaker, with the goal of persuading people to leave the venue.

- Talking with the providers of equipment necessary for the event to happen and convincing them to cancel their agreements (e.g. if the AV equipment is outsourced, convince that company to not rent to the speaker's event, convince the caterers to cancel their contract, convince the school to refuse to rent the space to the outside group etc.)

Things that should not happen in order to prevent someone from speaking:

- Making threats or take violent actions at the speaker

- Making threats or take violent actions at people who may want to attend the event

- Illegally blockading roads, sidewalks or other passageways to the event

- Vandalism or other crimes

1 hour ago, DerPhilosoph said:

While I agree with you that one "safe space" on campus certainly doesn't destroy the academic integrity of the university, I guess I don't see the "elite" mentality you mention. One of the (non-elite) schools I mention is my alma mater, and what I saw in that instance was students demanding things from the administration that would have been in poor judgement, not feasible, and in some cases actually illegal had they been adopted. This struck me as a case of students who were not fighting against an elitist mentality, but rather did not want ideas they disagreed with to be allowed even to be considered and saw any resistance from the administration to now to their demands as unthinkable. Perhaps I'm wrong in interpreting the situation as I do, or in generalizing to other cases, but what I've read from other campuses indicates to me that this is not an isolated phenomenon.

I agree with you that this is a tricky matter and sometimes I have mixed feelings too. Generally though, I think when a student group writes up a list of demands in an open letter type format, these demands are not really exactly what the group wants. It is basically bargaining---the group doesn't expect the University to just simply say "okay, your demands are reasonable, let's implement them right away". So, the open/pubic list of demands are generally always beyond what they would be happy with so that eventually, through compromise, there is a middle ground solution. The list of demands should, in my opinion, be considered as "long term goals" and/or a position statement rather than actual feasible actions that can be implemented right away. They are a starting point for further negotiations. Sometimes though, these list of demands are more "over the top" but that's a subjective matter and I do think that it's not always clear whether the best strategy is to start with big huge demands or just big demands and work to a solution. In addition, sometimes a list of demands is actually not meant to effect any real change, sometimes the main goal is to simply send a message with the list of demands. 

[Glasperlenspieler]

18 minutes ago, TakeruK said:

I agree that intellectual discourse should not be whomever speaks the loudest. But, I have the opinion that freedom of speech and expression trumps intellectual discourse. That is, I believe freedom of speech is a right, while the ability to have intellectual discourse is a privilege and a "higher order need" that should not happen at the expense of other needs (like freedom of speech).

I admit I am not 100% sure what you mean by "protest in such a way that the speaker isn't even allowed to speak", because this can have a lot of different meanings. So, I'll use a few concrete examples. Overall, I think that as long as the protests are legal (within reason) and non-violent then the protests should happen. Some examples of what I think are acceptable ways of preventing a speaker from speaking:

- Lobbying your school officials to cancel the event

- Staging a legal protest in such a way that your protest is loud, distracting or disruptive enough to prevent the speaker from being heard or to reduce the effectiveness of their speech. I think this is fine because 1) the speaker isn't the only person with the right to speak in a particular space and 2) if you have enough people that are unhappy, maybe there's a good reason for it. (Technically this doesn't prevent the speaker from actually speaking, it only interferes with the message)

- Lining up outside of the speaking venue and handing out flyers or other information you want people to know about the speaker, with the goal of persuading people to leave the venue.

- Talking with the providers of equipment necessary for the event to happen and convincing them to cancel their agreements (e.g. if the AV equipment is outsourced, convince that company to not rent to the speaker's event, convince the caterers to cancel their contract, convince the school to refuse to rent the space to the outside group etc.)

Things that should not happen in order to prevent someone from speaking:

- Making threats or take violent actions at the speaker

- Making threats or take violent actions at people who may want to attend the event

- Illegally blockading roads, sidewalks or other passageways to the event

- Vandalism or other crimes

While I certainly see the second set of examples as being unacceptable, I guess I find the first set of examples more problematic than you do (that was more or less what I originally had in mind). I probably need to think about it more to clarify why. Perhaps I just have an over-idealized view of what intellectual discourse should be like, and would like to think the universities would foster that. Rather than speaking over someone, why not ask a devastating question in the Q and A that shows how much of a fool he or she really is. It's sort of like people who deliberately disrupt Trump rallies. I'm sympathetic to what they're doing, but it also sort of seems like they're stooping to his level (of course what role a university should take in restricting such action is another, and admittedly more complicated, matter).

 

26 minutes ago, TakeruK said:

I agree with you that this is a tricky matter and sometimes I have mixed feelings too. Generally though, I think when a student group writes up a list of demands in an open letter type format, these demands are not really exactly what the group wants. It is basically bargaining---the group doesn't expect the University to just simply say "okay, your demands are reasonable, let's implement them right away". So, the open/pubic list of demands are generally always beyond what they would be happy with so that eventually, through compromise, there is a middle ground solution. The list of demands should, in my opinion, be considered as "long term goals" and/or a position statement rather than actual feasible actions that can be implemented right away. They are a starting point for further negotiations. Sometimes though, these list of demands are more "over the top" but that's a subjective matter and I do think that it's not always clear whether the best strategy is to start with big huge demands or just big demands and work to a solution. In addition, sometimes a list of demands is actually not meant to effect any real change, sometimes the main goal is to simply send a message with the list of demands. 

You're certainly right that these demands can often be a bargaining chip or a symbolic gesture, but they also often strike me as naive or immature. Perhaps that's just a difference of intuitions. I guess my other problem is that they often strike me as counterproductive. Rather than a basis for further discussion, I think these moves can alienate the people that don't already agree. It's this sort of thing that frustrates me when people advance causes I support in over the top ways. It just adds fuel to the fire for people that are already against them.

 

I sense that you and I are actually on the same page to a large degree, but just tend to view things through different lenses. These are definitely difficult issues without easy answers.

[Glasperlenspieler]

Last post and then I'm done.

 

While I can't access the two articles he links to because they are behind paywall (if someone with access want to send them to me, I'd be grateful), this seems to indicate that my reading of the letter is more or less on the right track. Chicago isn't so much  concerned with trigger warnings and safe spaces as pedagocial practices. Rather, they're seeking to defend freedom of speech in such a way that all ideas can be profitably discussed: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2016/08/university-of-chicagos-free-speech-crusade.html

 

Furthermore, the University's free expression statement shows that this is not simply a new response to movements in academia that Chicago dislikes, but rather a retiteration of their commitment to certain values in the face of what they see as recent threats to them.

[TakeruK]

14 hours ago, DerPhilosoph said:

While I certainly see the second set of examples as being unacceptable, I guess I find the first set of examples more problematic than you do (that was more or less what I originally had in mind). I probably need to think about it more to clarify why. Perhaps I just have an over-idealized view of what intellectual discourse should be like, and would like to think the universities would foster that. Rather than speaking over someone, why not ask a devastating question in the Q and A that shows how much of a fool he or she really is. It's sort of like people who deliberately disrupt Trump rallies. I'm sympathetic to what they're doing, but it also sort of seems like they're stooping to his level (of course what role a university should take in restricting such action is another, and admittedly more complicated, matter).

In my experience, this doesn't really work. Put yourself in the shoes of a person who objects to a speaker. It means you have to attend the entire event yourself, subjecting yourself to the objectionable material and then speak to the speaker, and supposedly the audience who is going to be generally supportive of the speaker. Remember that this is a speaker/event that you strongly object to---perhaps they are speaking about an issue you strongly care about. This means you have to put yourself through a lot of distress to make your point, while the other person has everything arranged for them by the university and their supporters. And, the whole thing is uneven---the other side gets to speak for about an hour, and the opposing side only gets a few minutes.

And in addition, generally, the University can be more effective and more justified in preventing protestors from actually getting into the room where the lecture/event is being held. Sometimes the event is invite-only, so you can't go in to protest. Also, I am not 100% supportive of protests that actually go into the event and protest because if you, e.g. have a group of 20-30 students that disagree coming in with matching t-shirts, signs, etc. it will be even more distracting and disruptive than just protesting outside. 

I also think the students that protest the events aren't just protesting the speaker. They are also protesting the fact that the school is choosing to host the speaker. The message is not just "don't listen to this guy", it is also "hey University of X, we're a large group of students that don't like what you are doing". And, a responsible university would and should listen. I'm writing this from a perspective of my undergrad experience, where all the major universities are public and paid for by tax dollars and therefore they should be responsible to and report to the taxpayers (in an indirect sense). The private US schools are certainly very different from this.

14 hours ago, DerPhilosoph said:

You're certainly right that these demands can often be a bargaining chip or a symbolic gesture, but they also often strike me as naive or immature. Perhaps that's just a difference of intuitions. I guess my other problem is that they often strike me as counterproductive. Rather than a basis for further discussion, I think these moves can alienate the people that don't already agree. It's this sort of thing that frustrates me when people advance causes I support in over the top ways. It just adds fuel to the fire for people that are already against them.

I agree with you there. I'm not a fan of the over the top gestures myself and when I work with other students on writing messages to our universities, I tend to steer projects that I lead / am involved in towards more "moderate" messages. 

However, I try not to judge other causes based on their moderate or not-moderate messages. It's their decision and right to voice their thoughts. In addition, I think, for causes that we do agree with (but do not agree with their over-the-top-ness), instead of judging their words as a mistake, we should be more empathetic and recognize that these messages are a product of their frustration and anger. This probably means it's a problem that affects them in a more profound way that it affects us, so we should pay attention to perspectives outside of our own. What seems "moderate" and "fair" to us may be unacceptable to someone who have had much worse experiences. 

[TakeruK]

I do think we are basically feeling the same way. My main reason for advocating more "active" protesting is because I am seeing a trend in academia that I do not support and the University of Chicago's letter appears to support.

And, the trend seems to be that although people say that they are open to discourse and express sentiments like what UofC wrote, what they are really saying is: We want to have academic discourse on our campus, but discourse has to occur only in the ways we specify. And the ways they specify (e.g. the example @DerPhilosoph gives of asking a devastating question) does a lot more to support the status quo than it actually does to allow true discussion. It assumes that any action that is outside of "civilized academic discourse" where we all write/speak politely to one another is actually not intellectual. But remember, these actions on these campuses involve academics! Academics (at all levels, undergrads, grads, postdocs, faculty) do also support these actions and take part in them. It is a little patronizing to categorize these actions as anti-intellectuals. 

Therefore, I encourage other academics to accept that there are ways to having discourse that is not what one might define as traditionally academic. Legal protests like the ones I describe above are a type of academic discussion and they should be considered as one. If we restrict discourse to only media that we approve of, we risk losing important points of view.

[Glasperlenspieler]

Sorry, I said I was done, but I guess I lied. A couple more quick comments.

 

1) Another update as the story develops: http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/08/27/college-pushes-back-vs-political-correctness.cnn

Apparently the administration is not entirely happy with how the letter went down. A law professor attempts to clarify their views in the above interview. I'm pretty much in complete agreement with him.

 

2) Two quick responses to @TakeruK.

 

I guess a lot of my views come from the fact that there have been a number of times where I have changed my mind or even radically altered the way I've looked at something through calm rational conversation and gentle persuasion from my peers. When on the other hand someone shoves their views in my face, my first response is to shut down and I often gravitate toward the opposing view almost on principle. This may be a peculiar fact about my psychology, it's probably also heavily influence by my academic training in philosophy. Maybe I shouldn't generalize here or maybe it's idealistic of me to think that this will always work this way, but it's something I think we should strive for in academic and public discourse.'

 

To clarify, the sort of protesting that actually bothers me is going into an event and deliberately disrupting it. That takes away from people who do want to attend from being able to listen to the speaker. I'm pretty OK with about anything short of that.

 

Finally, while I get where your coming from about closing off new modes of discourse, I guess this is where my old-school intuitions really come in. It seems that one of the primary goals of a university (although certainly not the only one) is to uphold certain wissenschaftlich standards. I get that this can be constricting, and I think it should be done in such a way as to allow as much possibility for change as possible, but it still seems like an important role of universities. Again I think implementing this in effective, fair ways that also support diversity is extremely difficult and I don't have any solution for how to do this.

 

3) Not sure why @telkanuru got downvoted. I very much appreciate you opening up the discussion even if we disagree on the topic. I upvoted you to even it out.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2016 by DerPhilosoph

[ExponentialDecay]

My view of this is informed by the shitshow that happened at UMass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Triggering

I feel that student activism has become a performance and nothing more than a performance. The event I refer to above is an extreme, but it illustrates in bright colors my impression that, at this point, people are effectively trolling. I mean, a Republican campus club invited three gutter journalists to provoke a bunch of 19 year olds into becoming reddit memes, and the administration allowed it to happen. And I don't mean provoke in an intellectual sense. What does a guy saying "feminism is cancer" have to do with civil debate and intellectual inquiry? Nothing. It's one thing to have an educated conversation about social justice issues, but this gloating circus freakshow had no goal other than to create a base scene aimed at people who didn't have the wherewithal and maturity to stay away. 

I don't think it's as simple as, am I for safe spaces or against them. I don't think it's as simple as paternalism or being more consumer based. I think that university is a very specific social space that serves a very specific purpose, and this is a question of determining which forms of debate uphold that purpose, and which debase it. For this reason, I have a problem with things like boycotting Israeli academics because of their nationality, or not including necessary readings in a course because they may be triggering, or running speakers off campus when those speakers are there to present an intellectual idea that you disagree with. Yes, that means that, if an abhorrent idea can be couched in academic discourse, then it should be allowed to be on campus. That's because, at the end of the day, all knowledge can be learned from books; the purpose of the university is to train students to engage with ideas through academic discourse - to become citizens of a civil society. It is an institution that is distinguished by this very important social mission. If you want to engage with ideas in a non-civil form, there are many spaces out there for that: the internet, the street, social gatherings of various kinds that are geared towards discussing the ideas you are interested in in the way you want to discuss them. The university is not that. Of course it will be restrictive, or "elitist", if you want, because behavior correction necessitates some level of restriction. But that's the point.

[Cheshire_Cat]

When considering an appropriate response to individuals who disagree with you, you have to think about how you would want somebody to address your own disagreeable ideas. Do we really want to live in a world where the loudest and most annoying protesters win?

I  have grown up with the idea that universities should be safe spaces.  But not safe spaces for ones own beliefs to be coddled and confirmed, but rather a safe space for everyone, regardless of their beliefs, to share and learn from others without fear of judgement and retaliation.  And I think you have to have it one way or the other, not both.  Either the university can be a safe space for intellectual discourse and learning, or it can be a safe space for people who may be traumatized by having their ideas questioned.  

That isn't to say we shouldn't be sensitive to people's background and history. But not bringing something up because it might be painful or offensive is not doing anyone any good.

[dr. t]

16 hours ago, ExponentialDecay said:

I don't think it's as simple as, am I for safe spaces or against them. 

I think it really is that simple, if we circumscribe the term correctly. By my reading, the major problem with the UoC letter is that it misrepresents (to my mind, deliberately) what a safe space or a trigger warning is so that the authors might have a reason for opposing it. But contrary to the authors' strawman, having a safe space doesn't mean you can't bring a horrible racist to campus to give a speech every day. It does mean that the painting of that guy who owned the ancestors of a decent chunk of your student body can't stay up in those students' dorm. And so on.

Edited August 29, 2016 by telkanuru

[crashtest]

On 8/26/2016 at 10:56 PM, TakeruK said:

- Lobbying your school officials to cancel the event

- Staging a legal protest in such a way that your protest is loud, distracting or disruptive enough to prevent the speaker from being heard or to reduce the effectiveness of their speech. I think this is fine because 1) the speaker isn't the only person with the right to speak in a particular space and 2) if you have enough people that are unhappy, maybe there's a good reason for it. (Technically this doesn't prevent the speaker from actually speaking, it only interferes with the message)

- Talking with the providers of equipment necessary for the event to happen and convincing them to cancel their agreements (e.g. if the AV equipment is outsourced, convince that company to not rent to the speaker's event, convince the caterers to cancel their contract, convince the school to refuse to rent the space to the outside group etc.)

 

These methods run a serious risk of turning a debate into a popularity contest.  In the US an idea that I see commonly expressed is that; popular ideas don't need protection by virtue of being popular alone and the real purpose of free speech is the protection of unpopular ideas.

 

I want to use an example of something widely supported now but was extremely contentious in the recent past to put this into context.  How about interracial marriage, in the US this was an unpopular (and illegal in some states) in the 60's.  According to gallop polls in 1968 only 17% of Americans supported it.  I have no doubts that the methods you listed that I've quoted above would have been (and probably were used) very effective in shutting down some debate on this issue. Does that really tell us anything about the merits of this idea, as you implied with the "good reason for it" comment?  Or does it simply affirm the most popular idea of the moment?  

 

Fortunately, despite it's unpopularity, the supreme court struck down all prohibitions on interracial marriage in 1967.  They were allowed to consider both points of view based on their merits alone.

3 hours ago, Cheshire_Cat said:

When considering an appropriate response to individuals who disagree with you, you have to think about how you would want somebody to address your own disagreeable ideas. Do we really want to live in a world where the loudest and most annoying protesters win?

I  have grown up with the idea that universities should be safe spaces.  But not safe spaces for ones own beliefs to be coddled and confirmed, but rather a safe space for everyone, regardless of their beliefs, to share and learn from others without fear of judgement and retaliation.  And I think you have to have it one way or the other, not both.  Either the university can be a safe space for intellectual discourse and learning, or it can be a safe space for people who may be traumatized by having their ideas questioned.  

That isn't to say we shouldn't be sensitive to people's background and history. But not bringing something up because it might be painful or offensive is not doing anyone any good.

This is pretty much my point of view and I suspect that the author of the U of C letter was trying to imply this but that may be my own internal bias reading what I want to see.

[ExponentialDecay]

11 hours ago, telkanuru said:

But contrary to the authors' strawman, having a safe space doesn't mean you can't bring a horrible racist to campus to give a speech every day.

I agree that safe spaces, circumscribed properly, are a necessary thing, but how do you know that having a safe space doesn't mean that, and to whom? And who will be doing the circumscribing, and will everyone else agree?

[dr. t]

2 hours ago, ExponentialDecay said:

I agree that safe spaces, circumscribed properly, are a necessary thing, but how do you know that having a safe space doesn't mean that, and to whom? And who will be doing the circumscribing, and will everyone else agree?

I would admit that my knowledge is not, of course, comprehensive, but I've only ever seen "safe spaces" used in one of two ways: the first as I've described, and the second as the caricature present in the UoC letter. In other words, the opposition to "safe spaces" does not define the term in the same way that those who advocate for them seem to have agreed on - indeed, those opponents seem to define it so that they actually have something to object to. 

If people want to debate what the term means, I'm excited for that conversation. But I haven't seen any such thing occurring, so I'm not about to go out and create a problem where one does not exist. 

Edited August 29, 2016 by telkanuru

[TakeruK]

I think the opinions and arguments presented here are all very good. I just want to say that although I don't agree with many of them, that doesn't mean I'm not listening and rethinking. Here are some additional thoughts based on what's presented:

1. The University should be, first and foremost, a place for its students. I think discussions of difficult/unpopular/potentially terrible ideas should be allowed on campus if there are groups of students that want this to happen (even if there are groups that don't want it to happen). In my view of what a "safe space" is, these events can happen without either group feeling that they are oppressed or not listened to. 

2. I think, based on our own experiences with extreme opinions on both sides, that we have different perspectives on what free speech / safe space is? For example, most of my debates and interactions with people that are against safe spaces on my campus (undergrads mostly) seem to revolve around the fact that safe spaces prevent free speech and therefore they can say/do whatever they want on campus. One person literally told me that they felt that our school's policies infringes against free speech because they would not be allowed to spray paint a swastika on a tree on campus or wear a shirt that says something to the similar effect. 

3. In my discussions regarding safe spaces, the interracial marriage example is often used to argue for the point that what's offensive today isn't necessarily what is "wrong". I think this is true and it's a very good example. It's something I don't have a direct answer to and I think when we argue about what is "right" or "wrong", we have to keep this in mind. However, I think it is not a logical leap to go from this idea to "every idea should be discussed all the time, in all places".

---

Therefore, when I argue that safe spaces and triggering warnings are good and the University should put the needs of their students at the forefront, what I'm really arguing for is this:

The University is a place for exchange of intellectual ideas and learning. But it is also a place where students, especially young people, are developing their own identities. College can be a tough time for a lot of developing young people, and some people have had experiences that were very hard and these experiences could impact their ability to learn. It is not realistic (nor correct, according to education research, as far as I've learned) to expect students to magically and completely separate their identity from the work they are learning and doing.

Therefore, I do think some content in University materials should come with trigger warnings. And where possible, faculty should adjust their course material based on their students experiences*. In addition, safe spaces allow students to engage with these ideas in a manner they are comfortable with** and this enhances their ability to learn because they spend mental energy on the topic, instead of having to worry when the next terrible/triggering thing will pop up, or whether all of the content in their coursework means that the school is a bad environment for them, or just that the school/instructor doesn't know any better.

My main problem with people who are against safe spaces is that these people often feel that because the University is supposed an intellectual place, they should be able to engage me in any topic of discussion, no matter if I'm comfortable with it. And I don't think that's correct. But the other extreme (where nothing is ever discussed) isn't good either. In my ideal university, all ideas can be discussed in the appropriate time and place.

* Note 1: I know that in some fields this can be a lot more difficult than in others. However, I think that before anyone argues that "this is a classic work and part of the canon so we can't modify it!", I think it's worth reflecting on why it's part of the canon of your field (and who made it that way??) and whether or not we should necessarily keep it just because it was how we learned it. For an example from my field, last year, one of the first discoverers of exoplanets, Geoff Marcy, was found responsible for sexual misconduct throughout his decades-long career. He is now "retired" from the University and no longer working in the field. In classes, when discussing the first discoveries (mid 1990s), Marcy was often discussed as a great genius and wonderful person (even though he's not even the first discoverer, just the first American one). Now, when I teach the history, I still mention his name where appropriate, but I think it's reasonable for our field to stop giving Marcy such a revered status. I emphasize the work of other brilliant scientists instead. 

** Note 2: This might mean that some students might choose to never engage in certain ideas. But we also have students that choose to never do homework, or read assignments, or basically just do the bare minimum to pass. And who knows, for some people, maybe they are better off as a person if they don't have to relive traumatic events, even if they don't learn one important aspect of the field. Knowledge isn't always the most important thing, even at a University. We should let the students make the choice for themselves on triggering content.