U of Chicago sends letter to incoming students

[s_stabeler]

not to mention that a "safe space" where you don't offend someone no matter what makes vastly more sense in a dorm room- provided it is limited to that person's own dorm room- than somewhere public. ( the rule of thumb I would go by is that you can't offend someone inside their own dorm room- and try not to make noise audible from other dorm rooms- but in common areas, the rule is "no harassment/bullying" not "no offense whatsoever. ( to illustrate the difference, if you are willingly visiting a muslim student's dorm room for some reason, and they are of a culture that requires women wear a hijab, then it's probably better to wear one. If you are merely resident in the same dorm building, then they would just need to put up with it.)

oh, and to make an obvious point: an RA/ whoever is nominally "in charge" of the dorm building should largely stay out of disputes between residents, with one exception. If there has been an attempt to resolve the issue by the residents themselves, which has failed, then the RA stepping in is not only fine, but arguably required. ( I'm thinking of cases like one resident not fairly sharing a communal bathroom- say, using the shower for an extended period when other people also need to take a shower, to the point that other students are forced to choose between skipping having a shower, or being late for class- or, for that matter, hogging any communal cooking facilities in such a way to effectively deny them to other students, albeit that is likely to be less of an issue, since most colleges offer meal plans that allow you to eat in the cafeteria/canteen to at least get 3 solid meals per day.

[Canarr]

Normally I would agree but with the current climate in the US I'm not entirely sure some college/uni group wouldn't invite someone that shouldn't be allowed out of a basement cell never mind speaking to other human beings. -.-

Probably. But allowing the oppression of free speech doesn't seem like a good alternative to that, don't you think? Whatever happened to, "I disagree with everything you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it?" Now it seems to be more like, "I don't wanna hear anyone disagree with me!"

"Safe spaces" aren't afforded anymore powers or rights over any other student group. There's nothing official about the term.

As long as you define "safe space" basically as, "don't be assholes to each other", that's fine. However, there have been cases where things went beyond that. And I think that *is* a problem, because once you start restricting *some* people's right to free speech, or free assembly, it gets hard to stop.

And, to conclude on a somewhat lighter note, the Onion.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'm glad the University of Chicago is standing up to this new idea of "trigger warnings" especially when they are used so rampantly. Like the school in Georgia that had safety issues from other students writing "Trump 2016" on the sidewalks. "Genuine pain" from seeing something written in chalk? Now, if it was a true racist remark or a real threat (ie: I'm going to blow up Smith Hall at 2pm) yes, have "pain". But, just because "Trump 2016" is written on a sidewalk? Call Grounds Maintenance and see if they will wash it off.

OH NO! There will be off duty cops staying in unoccupied dorms during the RNC convention. Let's freak out because cops have guns. The students tried to make the school send the police elsewhere because they didn't feel comfortable.

I think issues like the two I linked to are what UC is attempting to do away with.

[s_stabeler]

um, slight point: the students didn't demand the police be housed elsewhere. what they actually wanted was:
1. police required to store their weapons offsite ( not unreasonable, though the university should probably provide somewhere for them to store their weapons)
2. police to be required to stay out of anywhere not their assigned residence hall ( again not unreasonable- the uni is just housing the cops, they aren't effectively becoming a hotel.
3. alternative accommodation provided for anyone uncomfortable with living alongside cops ( again, not unreasonable- if a student is genuinely worried about an increased police presence, then it is unfair to force them to remain around said increased police presence.)

it comes down to students made uncomfortable by recent police shootings- and since the halls are, in fact, there for the students, it is reasonable to expect the university to work around any problems the students have.

I agree about the sidewalk chalk, however.

[Gravekeeper]

But, just because "Trump 2016" is written on a sidewalk? Call Grounds Maintenance and see if they will wash it off.

I agree about the sidewalk chalk, however.

Not sure its quite that simple. Seeing as it was written all over campus in the middle of the night on the steps of the areas where black and latino students gather. Thats a little beyond political campaigning given Trump's rhetoric and the behaviour of some of his supporters. Plus it's against campus policy ( not the message but the chalking itself ).

However, all that aside, the students did not demand any action. They just protested. So your point is moot if not a little hypocritical. They are exercising their right to free speech. You're complaining that you don't like their message. A message which is just them complaining that they don't like a message.

And just as a final point to illustrate how much this silliness is blown out of proportion as a PC bogeyman: This is a university with 15,000 students. There were 40-50 protesters.

[Rusty Shackleford]

um, slight point: the students didn't demand the police be housed elsewhere. what they actually wanted was:
1. police required to store their weapons offsite ( not unreasonable, though the university should probably provide somewhere for them to store their weapons)
2. police to be required to stay out of anywhere not their assigned residence hall ( again not unreasonable- the uni is just housing the cops, they aren't effectively becoming a hotel.
3. alternative accommodation provided for anyone uncomfortable with living alongside cops ( again, not unreasonable- if a student is genuinely worried about an increased police presence, then it is unfair to force them to remain around said increased police presence.)

it comes down to students made uncomfortable by recent police shootings- and since the halls are, in fact, there for the students, it is reasonable to expect the university to work around any problems the students have.

I agree about the sidewalk chalk, however.

1 - yes, unreasonable as the weapons are the officers' personal property. What happens when there is a situation at the RNC that requires the off-duty officers immediately?
2 - So, while Joe Blow can walk through campus and through any of the common public areas (Quad, any restaurants on campus, etc) the officers would not be able to use those facilities, which could help make the school money in the case of a public dining hall or restaurant?
3 - Those students need to grow up, or at the very least pay for their own alternate housing.

[Gravekeeper]

1 - yes, unreasonable as the weapons are the officers' personal property. What happens when there is a situation at the RNC that requires the off-duty officers immediately?
2 - So, while Joe Blow can walk through campus and through any of the common public areas (Quad, any restaurants on campus, etc) the officers would not be able to use those facilities, which could help make the school money in the case of a public dining hall or restaurant?
3 - Those students need to grow up, or at the very least pay for their own alternate housing.

1. Er, what? I wasn't aware being a cop was BYOG ( bring your own gun~ ). Also, cops don't just roll out of bed, rummage around for a gun and show up when there is a situation that requires an officer.

2. You're going to make a "you lost a customer" argument? Nevermind one that weighs a few days of extra customers vs pissing off your students and faculty ( you know, your actual customers and staff ).

3. The students paid for this housing. I wouldn't be happy to be told I'd suddenly be living in the midst of 1700 American cops, 200 soldiers and their guns either. Not sure if you've noticed but US cops don't exactly have the greatest reputation.

Being a cop is a job, not a god ordained title everyone needs to fawn over.

[Kheldarson]

3 - Those students need to grow up, or at the very least pay for their own alternate housing.

Students pay for room and board of they're on campus. It's not free (unless you have a scholarship, but that counts as income for the student).

So they're tenants. And tenants do have rights when it comes to their living conditions.

[s_stabeler]

oh, if there are public facilities- that is, facilities open to anyone not either a student, or university staff- cops have as much right to use them as anyone- and students weren't asking for the police to be banned from those areas. Just those areas normally restricted to people attending - or employed by- the university.

if there is a situation at the RNC that requires the off-duty cops immediately, then considering they still have to get to the RNC, I highly doubt retrieving their guns from somewhere nearby will make much difference

as for charging the students for alternative accommodation: why? the students paid for the use of their halls, and due to something the university has done, they feel unable to use them as they have paid for.

as for the students needing to grow up, there have been high-profile cases of police shootings that seem to establish the principle that if a police officer feels threatened in the slightest, they can respond with lethal force ( or that is the impression given off- which is the important part here) and so, since students are rarely strict conformists, it's not unreasonable for the students to fear that someone will get shot. Under such circumstances, if the students were in another country, they would have a reasonable case for refugee status ( fleeing in legitimate fear for their lives) so why on earth should they be expected to meekly accept it?

Ultimately, the issue is does a landlord ( the university in this case) have the right to force someone to live in a situation that makes them feel unsafe in their own residence? I would say no, quite frankly.

edit- Oh, to make one thing clear: I'm not being a hypocrite, either: if a hotel was renting to a police convention, then said police convention would have a legitimate complaint if they booked in a BLM convention at the same time. There is an extremist wing of BLM that would be willing to attack cops, so the cops would have a legitimate fear of attack.

[mjr]

1. Er, what? I wasn't aware being a cop was BYOG ( bring your own gun~ ).

In many jurisdictions, yes. Google "do police have to buy their own guns".

Many will often buy a 9MM, a .40 cal, or a .45 cal. Glock or Sig Sauer, I believe.

[mjr]

I'm glad the University of Chicago is standing up to this new idea of "trigger warnings" especially when they are used so rampantly. Like the school in Georgia that had safety issues from other students writing "Trump 2016" on the sidewalks. "Genuine pain" from seeing something written in chalk?

Dude, that's nothing. I saw a video recently that apparently University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee apparently has a "group" that has some words that they basically don't want people saying...for that reason.

Things like "man up", "big deal", "lame" (as in "uncool", "bad", or "sucky") and others.

No, I'm not making that up. Google it for yourself.

In fact, here, I'll provide a link:

http://kdvr.com/2016/08/25/list-of-p...sin-milwaukee/

And there's also this (yes, I realize this is generally considered a conservative source) from 2015: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...y-can-succeed/

Have these people never read 1984? The lessons in that book are profound.

We can't even (reliably) use the "pics or it didn't happen" anymore, with photo/video editing software, and people with agendas.

[Gravekeeper]

In many jurisdictions, yes. Google "do police have to buy their own guns".

Many will often buy a 9MM, a .40 cal, or a .45 cal. Glock or Sig Sauer, I believe.

That is alarming to say the least. Though I see they typically get an equipment allotment to purchase said firearm. But I see that taking your service weapon home with you is optional and in a few jurisdictions not permitted. I also see that we have Bush 2.0 to thank for this.

Dude, that's nothing. I saw a video recently that apparently University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee apparently has a "group" that has some words that they basically don't want people saying...for that reason.

The subject is quite a bit more nuanced then you're presenting it and you're seizing on the worst examples to present as universal. But what else is new.

And there's also this (yes, I realize this is generally considered a conservative source) from 2015:

The article is citing Free Republic. So its safe to assume its a bit more than "generally".

Have these people never read 1984? The lessons in that book are profound.

Have you ever read 1984? Because there's no parallel between asking people to not be dicks to each other and an Orwellian police state. You're coming dangerously close to "Its only free speech when we do it".

[mjr]

The subject is quite a bit more nuanced then you're presenting it and you're seizing on the worst examples to present as universal. But what else is new.

Hey, I learned it from you.

Have you ever read 1984? Because there's no parallel between asking people to not be dicks to each other and an Orwellian police state. You're coming dangerously close to "Its only free speech when we do it".

I have, indeed. I have to wonder, though, if you have. Because you can claim that I'm dangerously close to "It's only free speech when we do it", but that seems to be non-conservatives who are saying that.

Not only that, but if you've read 1984, you're familiar with Newspeak. What was it's intended purpose? "Correct" thought.

[Rageaholic]

The idea of words being problematic in any context is ridiculous, especially the "ablest" ones. saying that someones idea is crazy is not the same as saying that a person is crazy. And even saying that someone is crazy as an insult is usually not meant literally.

I'm not going to go as far to say that words can never hurt someone, but that context and tone matters.

[Gravekeeper]

Hey, I learned it from you.

"I know you are but what am I?" is becoming your go to rebuttal now is it? -.-

I have, indeed. I have to wonder, though, if you have. Because you can claim that I'm dangerously close to "It's only free speech when we do it", but that seems to be non-conservatives who are saying that.

Not only that, but if you've read 1984, you're familiar with Newspeak. What was it's intended purpose? "Correct" thought.

Its purpose was to reduce the English language to a state so simplistic that "incorrect" thought was difficult to have or express in the first place. Mainly by stripping the language of meaning and nuance. Censorship in service to an authoritarian state.

Now, please tell me how someone telling you what a word means to them is an attempt by the state to control your thoughts? Keeping in mind that the point behind Newspeak was to strip language of as much meaning as possible. Not add more meaning.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence and consequence is not censorship. Telling you that you're being insensitive for saying "nigger" around campus is in no way infringing on your rights nor is it a prelude to 1984.

College students are always, have always and will always be coming up with sociopolitical ideas they think will solve society's problems. Its part of being young, stupid and inexperienced. Pretending like this is any different, let alone that them composing lists of what hurts their feelings will bring about the end of freedom as we know it, is completely absurd.