U of Chicago sends letter to incoming students

[Racket_Man]

Declaring that the University will no longer offer "Safe Spaces" or "Trigger Warnings". You know the warning before TV shows of possible content that might be disturbing/not appropreiate/violent/etc. for certain viewers (something to do with reality and how the world is) that is what "trigger warnings" are on college campus's.

Have a speaker who is even slightly unsettling BIG WARNINGS go up
Have a class where the topic can be even slightly un PC (politically correct) BIG WARNINGS go up.
Might not like the subject matter of the course BIG WARNINGS go up

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-u...cA1&OCID=HPDHP

I have to say this: LIFE is not all unicorns leaping around farting rainbows with cotton candy clouds and not everything is going to be of your liking. THis is how life works. Bad things happen. Others will NOT always have the same PC opinions as you. YOU WILL get hurt by words and ideas.

[mjr]

Declaring that the University will no longer offer "Safe Spaces" or "Trigger Warnings".

FINALLY!! I just have two things to say about this:

1. GOOD!!!!
2. HALLELUJAH!!!!!!

[Kheldarson]

I have to say this: LIFE is not all unicorns leaping around farting rainbows with cotton candy clouds and not everything is going to be of your liking. THis is how life works. Bad things happen. Others will NOT always have the same PC opinions as you. YOU WILL get hurt by words and ideas.

Except they're probably putting this out in response to the incident at DePaul University rather than actually worrying about PC or not. They're saying, preemptively, that you're not going to be allowed to use "Safe spaces" as a reason to cause a disturbance.

Because if they actually were against safe spaces, they'd be banning ideological groups as well since those, by their very nature, are safe spaces.

Further, you do know what proper safe spaces are, right? Not what the alt right parts of the Internet insist? Because it's not about being PC, it's about literally being able to be somewhere as a minority that you can go and not worry about harassment. They were initially started around LGBT groups. Some campuses adopted related programs in which they train their RAs in basic therapy tricks so students would have a safe space if in trouble. If UC has such a program, will they be discontinuing that?

[Aragarthiel]

What I'm worried about is that someone will take this too far, into illegal/discriminatory territory. All it'll take is a bigoted and/or stupid faculty member. For example, a professor requiring attendance regardless of religious holidays because, as mentioned above, religion is a kind of "safe space".

[Canarr]

Further, you do know what proper safe spaces are, right? Not what the alt right parts of the Internet insist? Because it's not about being PC, it's about literally being able to be somewhere as a minority that you can go and not worry about harassment. They were initially started around LGBT groups. Some campuses adopted related programs in which they train their RAs in basic therapy tricks so students would have a safe space if in trouble. If UC has such a program, will they be discontinuing that?

I didn't understand it like that; not, "you cannot have safe spaces at all!", but, "you cannot have safe spaces everywhere!". A safe space should be something you can withdraw into, that is private -such as a private club, support group, whatever - but you cannot expect the public areas to be a safe space.

From the letter:

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

What I'm worried about is that someone will take this too far, into illegal/discriminatory territory. All it'll take is a bigoted and/or stupid faculty member. For example, a professor requiring attendance regardless of religious holidays because, as mentioned above, religion is a kind of "safe space".

Well, the law already has protection against that, doesn't it? If someone takes the idea into illegal territory, then there are options against that.

Personally, I think the reason for this letter is the opposite: that the idea of "safe spaces" has been taken too far occasionally, and a need to set a statement against the abuse of safe spaces. To draw a line, basically. We will not cancel speakers you don't like, and we will not let you disrupt lessons you don't agree with, that sort of thing.

[gremcint]

I am so tired of hearing people use safe place and trigger warning as derogatory terms. heaven forbid we show people with trauma some basic fucking compassion. it's bad enough that people are being attacked online for even using the words trigger warning it's now being used as a mocking terms in situations like this.

also some context on this school and events the asshole dean is referencing http://armenianweekly.com/2016/04/26...ty-of-chicago/

[mjr]

Further, you do know what proper safe spaces are, right? Not what the alt right parts of the Internet insist?

Wow. You're actually using "alt-right"? A phrase that was just now made up and most Democrats/Liberals don't even know the meaning of, unless Hillary tells them what it means?

And it doesn't matter what "proper" is. If they're not being used in that way, it doesn't matter, does it?

Because it's not about being PC, it's about literally being able to be somewhere as a minority that you can go and not worry about harassment.

And just where are these places located on campuses? Probably not in the place where "proper" (to use your words) safe spaces should be.

I get where Canarr is coming from. You can't just have a student say "This part of the courtyard (which is open to everyone) is a Safe Space, so you can't say/do this while people are there!"

[mjr]

I am so tired of hearing people use safe place and trigger warning as derogatory terms. heaven forbid we show people with trauma some basic fucking compassion. it's bad enough that people are being attacked online for even using the words trigger warning it's now being used as a mocking terms in situations like this.

There are reasons why. They may or may not be valid, but they do exist.

Because as Canarr stated, it seems like some are trying to make "everywhere" a safe space. The real world doesn't work like that.

And apparently everything is a trigger word, too.

Do you see the issue? When these things get expanded to beyond "Viewer Discretion is Advised", there's a reason the terms start to get mocked.

[s_stabeler]

I think I get Keldarson;s point, though- Safe Spaces are abused, but a lot of the proposed reactions to that- like banning them completely- are gross overreactions, since having a harassment-free area can be vulnerable.

I can also see some argument for somewhat greater scrutiny for things occurring near a safe space. ( basically, if - for example- the local bigots set up harassment just outside the safe space, then that isn't going to fly)

IOW, don't use the abuse of safe spaces as a reason to get rid of them altogether.

That, and some of the complaints about safe spaces sound suspiciously like trying to harass people for using a safe space, which can sort of defeat the point.

[Kheldarson]

I didn't understand it like that; not, "you cannot have safe spaces at all!", but, "you cannot have safe spaces everywhere!". A safe space should be something you can withdraw into, that is private -such as a private club, support group, whatever - but you cannot expect the public areas to be a safe space.

Actually, given what a safe space is --a place that is free from personal attack on basis of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc -- I should be able to fully expect public spaces to be like that. It's called not being an ass.

The fact that we have groups that still need private safe spaces or have work places/colleges that support safe spaces speaks more to our inability to be civil than our inability to cope.

[Shangri-laschild]

http://www.thetattooedprof.com/archives/650

Do I tell my student that, even though she was the victim of a brutal assault in her past, that she must read testimony of gang-rape survivors in my course in order to uphold the sacred values of free intellectual inquiry? Sure, Charles Murray has a right to his views. But is it OK for us to use student fees paid in part by African American students to bring him to campus, fete him, and give him a rostrum to tell those students they’re doomed by genetics to be inferior to whites?

This kind of thing is what it effects. The second half is referring to Virginia Tech students protesting Charles Murray coming to the college. And why shouldn't students be able to speak up about someone coming to the college? The letter from the Dean sounds a lot like "here's how we let everyone say what they want and here's how all of you aren't going to be able to say what you want"

[Gravekeeper]

Further, you do know what proper safe spaces are, right? Not what the alt right parts of the Internet insist?

^ Both phrases have become next to meaningless as bogeyman terms among certain circles.

Wow. You're actually using "alt-right"? A phrase that was just now made up and most Democrats/Liberals don't even know the meaning of, unless Hillary tells them what it means?

Actually, the alt right made up the phrase alt right to describe themselves. 6 years ago. If you could tear yourself away from partisan shitposting for 30 seconds you might know that. -.-

[Daskinor]

What gets me is the idea this is the idea this "trigger words" and "Safe spaces" is some kind of nefarious liberal plot.

Well its not a liberal plot, it a corporate shift.

Wait sounds crazy, right?

What is going on is we exist in a world that at any moment, you can be recorded. Public Servants, employees of any sort of business or even the random dude of the street is not immune.

Think you can get away with any kind of antisocial behavior anymore, well you can't. Business don't want those people anymore. Modern businesses do this thing called a "cultural interview" before they even bring you in to see if you can do the job. They ask you to talk about yourself just to make sure you will fit in and not crazy.

Place I work for does them so I can offer an anecdotal account. I sat in on one where the guy admitted that he only dated "Broken Women" so he could "fix" them. He was not asked back.

So my point.

Kheldarson hit it on the head;

"Actually, given what a safe space is --a place that is free from personal attack on basis of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc -- I should be able to fully expect public spaces to be like that. It's called not being an ass."

Schools are trying to enforce the idea that there are places that you can't be an ass to people. Because one slip up can be a PR disaster for anywhere. No matter how much of a feel for a potential employee from an interview, it's no longer enough. One slip up is all it takes. Seems like 'common sense' (btw I hate that term so much), but if that were the case why do people rally against the very idea.

Well the thought is some people revel in being able to feel superior to others to justify their antisocial tendencies. And now people are saying you shouldn't even think that.

And back to the idea the employer, do you want employees who think the world is hard so other people should just suck up any kind of abuse they dish out, no matter how minor it seems to them. Or that it's simply not ok as a society to do that, especially in a ‘safe space’ like work. One that has to deal with anti-discriminatory laws.

Same thing with the concept of 'trigger words', (another stupid term that is used because another group placed a negative spin on it in the popular lexicon) who cares. The reality in academia the 'trigger warnings' are things like; Today we are going to talk about this. You will be seeing images of this.

It is really no different than the “Viewer Discretion Advised” warning. People against the idea have morphed it into the notion that it's coddling.

How this translates to the real world, you need to be careful what you talk about and make sure it's appropriate to the environment. A simple task one would think, ever walk by a coworker that was talking with another coworker about something quite inappropriate because they felt safe from the consequences.

Actions by these schools are nothing more than attempts to adapt people for the world that it is changing into. A word of many cultures, faiths, creeds and self identity. They are not trying to preserve the world as it was or as others believe it should not be. Young adults are not being coddled from the harshness of the world. They are being trained to ‘not be an ass’. While the world as a whole is harsh, as time goes on, it’s becoming less and less harsh incredibly fast.

[TheHuckster]

Place I work for does them so I can offer an anecdotal account. I sat in on one where the guy admitted that he only dated "Broken Women" so he could "fix" them. He was not asked back.

What the FUCK kind of interview questions are you asking?

We do cultural interview questions, too, but never get into those kinds of details.

Same thing with the concept of 'trigger words', (another stupid term that is used because another group placed a negative spin on it in the popular lexicon) who cares. The reality in academia the 'trigger warnings' are things like; Today we are going to talk about this. You will be seeing images of this.

I'm fine with people who voluntarily do this. However, what I'm not fine with are people who make mountains out of molehills if someone forgets or simply chooses not to offer this courtesy, and demands that whoever failed to do it be reprimanded or fired for it.

[s_stabeler]

I think there really needs to be a difference between private and public "safe spaces" though. the problem is that safe spaces are pretty much inherently "no-criticism"- or at least, whenever it's come up in the media, it's been closer to no criticism. In a private safe space- where someone more-or-less has to deliberately go there- that isn't a problem. ( for instance, in someone's own dorm room, it's fair to say "don't come into someone's dorm room to criticise them) but in a public one- where people could well just be going somewhere else- the rules really need to be more relaxed, since otherwise, you risk making it no longer a public space. ( by more relaxed, I think that punishment should be different if you intentionally harass someone, as opposed to unintentionally. If you intentionally harass someone, then it's irrelevant that the safe space is public, and throw the book at them. If it's unintentional, then politely explain what the problem is, then request said person stop- with no further punishment.

Having said that, I'm not massively impressed by the protest given as the reason for the letter. Oh, they had a right to protest, but the problem is that the protest disrupted the lecture in such a way that it was literally impossible for it to occur. (basically, the problem is that the protest effectively took away the option of ignoring the protests. That means that it effectively prevents people who disagree with the protest- either because they believe the speaker has the right to at least have their say, or due to agreeing with the speaker ( and I tend to be of the opinion that the best way of dealing with people denying something like a genocide occurred is to allow them to speak, then allow someone who believes the genocide occurred to speak to offer a rebuttal to any points raised by the denier.)- from ignoring the protest. Had they protested outside the lecture, i would have said it was an overreaction by the university.

there's a reason why there's a saying "the counter to bad speech is more speech"- the best way to deal with people denying a genocide isn't to shut them up, but to point out the flaws in their argument. ( yes, you probably won't convince them, but a debate isn't about making the other side agree with you. it's about making the audience believe you.)

edit- as for trigger words, I'm in two minds. The thing is, while you shouldn't need to step on eggshells wondering if something could possibly cause offence, I am reminded of an MLP fanfic I was reading that was light and fluffy...right up until the last chapter, where, completely out of the blue, it turned into a massively dark fic ( iirc- I couldn't read it more than once- there was a sudden revelation that Celestia had been possessed since before Twilight Sparkle had known her by a massively evil villain, and the villain was explaining how he had won...then the fic ended. There had been no hint of any form of twist before then.) THAT is where complaining about trigger warnings is legitimate- where, effectively, the author has tried to trick you into reading something triggering.