The Coddling Of The American Mind (Trigger Warning Article In The Atlantic...)

give them a medal already

hoo boy

i kept reading for the "That said..." graf but came it not

something kind of irresponsible about the scorched-earth (by academia standards) tone of that letter. there are good reasons to oppose "trigger warnings" (mostly because even restricted to their original context, that of PTSD sufferers, there are no good studies that suggest they are valuable), but the letter sounds more like the dean is settling imaginary scores than actually addressing policy questions.

yes

"If I want to take your money and give it to somebody I wish I was friends with as a massive honorarium for reading pablum at your graduation you'll STFU and like it"

There's only one group of people being coddled here.

If I had to guess, I'd put the University of Chicago low on the list of schools who have problems with trigger warnings, safe spaces, and the rest of that kind of thing.

none dare call it signaling

After seeing that thing, I want to start a thread, but this is a good place as any...

Is there literally ONE good argument AGAINST "safe spaces." I honestly don't understand why any rational, empathetic human beiung would have a problem with a group of kids getting together on their own time to hang out in a room where someone isn't allowed to scream "FAGGOT" at them or whatever

i think it's the idea that the university would sanction it, or rather would offer it. the idea is somewhat counterintuitive if you think one of the main functions of higher education is to engage multiple perspectives.

Can you create a safe space? I thought students chose those spaces.

I mean, I'm not sure an administrator saying, "This space is YOURS" works.

I dunno, maybe the thought pattern is "safe spaces = political correctness = not able to name things correctly = not able to fight evil things, because naming is critical to targeting = evil or morally lax for not fighting evil"?

Mix in with a lot of the standard modern aggrieved entitlement that bristles or just explodes when someone not a tribally accepted authority tells them not to do a thing. Similar to fuckheads freaking out of Michelle Obama's efforts into improve youth nutrition and exercise levels. Ressentiment fucks with a lot of people's heads.

I mean, I assume a "safe space" is like a conceptual thing, like Here's where the trans students or rape survivors or whatever can meet for an hour after class and have a conversation; not like a LITERAL CHALKED-OUT TERRITORY where you can't repeat a Sarah Silverman joke if you step in its boundaries

i think some colleges have actual rooms though, don't they? like, actual real places. i think i read that somewhere. maybe i just dream this stuff now...

http://www.greatvaluecolleges.net/20-great-value-colleges-safe-spaces/

The main purpose of a Safe Space program is to visibly mark people and places that are “safe” for LGBT students. This is usually accomplished through a sticker with a pink triangle, rainbow flag, or other recognizable LGBT symbol on it. When students and staff put stickers on their lockers, backpacks, binders, or office doors, it stands out as an affirmation of LGBT people and lets others know that they are a safe person to approach for support and guidance.

https://www.sierracollege.edu/student-services/support-programs/safe-space.php

I thought the issue was that sometimes it's not just "a group of kids getting together on their own time to hang out in a room", that students are demanding that the whole university should be a "safe space" and this is antithetical to studying/debating certain concepts and ideas?

the woke version of "why can't the whole plane be made out of the black box" sounds apocryphal to me

"Safe spaces" seem very different than banning "unsafe" opinions from campus altogether. The fact that UChicago conflated them there undermines their whole point -- an environment that was truly welcoming of all perspectives wouldn't be afraid of like-minded students gathering in a way they choose. I guess this is the price of being a hard as fuck tuff guy college administrator

And University of Chicago was the Number One Safe Space school on the thing skot posted :O

http://www.greatvaluecolleges.net/20-great-value-colleges-safe-spaces/

The Office of LGBTQ Student Life at the University of Chicago offers a Safe Space program fosters an inclusive environment that challenges oppression and provides support for LGBT students. “Safe Space creates welcoming physical spaces on campus where LGBTQ students can have a conversation with students, staff and faculty knowing that they have a basic understanding of the challenges these students face in developing their identities.”

The university launched its Center for Identity + Inclusion as the home of the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs (OMSA), LGBTQ Student Life and now Student Support Services, a new office focused on supporting first generation, low-income and undocumented students. The Center’s mission is to create intentionally diverse and inclusive communities to bring together students and members of the campus community of call backgrounds.

ugh that all sounds so horrible, imagine gay kids getting together to have a CONVERSATION with someone who has UNDERSTANDING, i'm gonna fucking puke

lol whiney

mostly because even restricted to their original context, that of PTSD sufferers, there are no good studies that suggest they are valuable

maybe i'm misunderstanding you, but this seems like kind of a weird standard to which to hold an instructor. like, you're trying to find what seems like the right way to run your classroom, the one that produces the most helpful and healthy educational environment... pretty sure most of the things you're gonna do aren't backed by 'studies' but that doesn't mean you get no results with them or that going "well, hell, i'm just going to try and trigger PTSD in everybody in sight" is going to be a good idea either. are there studies showing that it's valuable to go around on the first day and ask everybody what name they prefer to go by, or their favorite food from back home as an icebreaker? i dunno? but i've been trying it?

If I had to guess, I'd put the University of Chicago low on the list of schools who have problems with trigger warnings, safe spaces, and the rest of that kind of thing.

they have a deep strain of conservatism, or multiple strains, on the campus tho. i haven't read much about this but it seems the opposition could stem from that in any number of ways.

Yes, that's what I was getting at--that its conservatism probably doesn't attract a large enough, vocal opposition to warrant a pre-emptive strike against Triggers and Thought Police or whatever it is they are imagining.

I haven't seen any sourcing of this letter past this initial tweet or any communication from U Chicago referencing it. John (Jay) Ellison is the dean for sure - he's from Harvard and has been at U Chicago for two years. Not wanting to get all jet fuel can't melt steel beams on this but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this was a hoax/prank/shop, the bit about "canceling invited speakers" is so r00sh-y that it feels like a giveaway.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/25/u-chicago-warns-incoming-students-not-expect-safe-spaces-or-trigger-warnings

i try to not be too bitter about the u of c on the internet, but let me just say that the tone of that letter reeks of that institution to me

xp I know, but the image is the initial tweet. I don't think anybody's reported receiving such a letter - on twitter or elsewhere - besides the Maroon, the U Chicago publication that tweeted the picture used in that article. Not saying "it couldn't be" -- it could! -- but it's weird that there's just the one source, not a number of students/people saying "I got this letter." The people who got it would be 18/19-year-olds - not exactly too green to be putting up "I got it, too" on Twitter/Tumblr/etc. NB I did not go to U of C and defer to horseshoe's gut feeling here.

i don't know; bitterness can distort one's perception of reality

not saying journalists are incapable of being hoaxed, but jaschik is an experienced, professional journalist, so

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-university-of-chicago-safe-spaces-letter-met-20160825-story.html

i think it may be in the u of c bylaws that all missives must contain the word "rigor" or "rigorous"

on the other hand this guy seems like just the dude to do it

https://storify.com/WormMD/my-lunch-with-john-jay

also, this has nothing to do with the thread (or maybe it does?) but can we just looooool at the university of chicago:

https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2016/06/07/new-research-center-becomes-first-focus-wisdom?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=aug2016

wtf

that's not really a thing, it's just research-funding driven innovation ('nobody has really studied…') in standard stuff on practical rationality and moral psychology that is bolstered by up to date social scientific findings. boring af

it's just the name that makes me laugh

has any rapper used "trigger warning" for a mixtape title yet?

i think Lil Poopy has.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPLE92mBOjc

i'm lying. i just like typing the name Lil Poopy.

https://twitter.com/tylerbkissinger/status/768938663120109570

V good storm

I have to assume the Lambdas and the African-American Greek squads at UT Knoxville got pretty fucking good at making safe spaces on that fucking territory. I saw them pull it off. Us weirdoes with mood disorders and such did ok with turning WUTK 90.3 FM's basement offices into our living room after hours, and there was always Melrose Hall.

But none of that was formal, not in the same way the white greeks got to have houses, or claim whole floors of dormitories, and put up signs and have parties and shit dedicated to their own amazing privileged herdness. When I was there a few folks tried to start a mix frat - yes of course this was a necessary thing in the late 90s in the great state of Tennessee, a frat that explicitly included brown people - and it was met with doom, because reasons.

What I can surmise from those experiences is that "safe spaces" are what you have to establish and formalize after the Lambdas and the black greek and mixed greek groups try to get "too big for their britches" according to the establish campus societies, who then start to feel threatened and lash out. So yeah, if the UC is against safe spaces, then it should start out by eliminating the privileges accorded the dominant all-white societies, greek or otherwise, or in other words, pick on somebody your own size.

BLUF if you don't have the sack to tell your existing white kid clubs to stop holding exclusive parties then fuck the fuck off about "Safe Spaces" for everybody else

mostly because even restricted to their original context, that of PTSD sufferers, there are no good studies that suggest they are valuable

maybe i'm misunderstanding you, but this seems like kind of a weird standard to which to hold an instructor. like, you're trying to find what seems like the right way to run your classroom, the one that produces the most helpful and healthy educational environment... pretty sure most of the things you're gonna do aren't backed by 'studies' but that doesn't mean you get no results with them or that going "well, hell, i'm just going to try and trigger PTSD in everybody in sight" is going to be a good idea either. are there studies showing that it's valuable to go around on the first day and ask everybody what name they prefer to go by, or their favorite food from back home as an icebreaker? i dunno? but i've been trying it?

― Silence, followed by unintelligible stammering. (Doctor Casino), Thursday, August 25, 2016 12:27 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i think you might be conflating the therapeutic concept of 'triggering,' which was developed by psychologists working with people with PTSD, with the common-sense concept of giving students a heads-up if there is to be something potentially disturbing in a book or screening. the original concept of 'triggers' as i understand it is that particularly sensory events (like a certain quality of light, a certain noise, a certain smell) could 'trigger' a flashback to a traumatic episode and/or a panic reaction among people suffering from PTSD. the therapeutic idea was to inventory those 'triggers' and seek to avoid or manage them. people who come in contact with the PTSD sufferer--like a boss, or a family member, or an instructor--would be made aware of the range of triggering events and might be asked to be on the lookout for them.

there's been a kind of drift, both in the application of the concept of the 'trigger warnings' by faculty and students who claim to be both for and against them, and in the media discourse about contemporary american universities, were this therapeutic model of trigger warnings -- which applies specifically to people suffering from PTSD, and involves not necessarily /representations/ of disturbing or controversial things but rather fairly idiosyncratic/personal sensory experiences -- is kind of collapsed with the commonsense (i think) idea that barring some very solid pedagogical reason, you should kind of let students know what they are getting into.

i get the sense that the chicago dean isn't really responding to the reality of either 'trigger warnings' on the U of C campus or the aforementioned commonsense pedagogy, but rather reacting to a sensationalized discourse about 'coddled' college students etc. his letter seems unbecoming of an academic dean to me -- sounds more like he wanted to write a thinkpiece for a blog or something.

oh, and to clarify, my (admittedly limited!) understanding is that there haven't been many proper studies of the clinical concept of 'triggers' among PTSD sufferers and the value of trigger warnings -- but i'm speaking about the more narrowly-defined version of TW here. maybe that was the confusion.

i should say the CLINICAL (not "therapeutic") concept of 'triggers' for PTSD sufferers.