Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

a lot like "check your privilege" I think the debate is whether it's an idea that can exported from it's original context (internet based communities?) or pragmatic intent to the world at large (particularly education).

goddamnit I swear to god I know the difference between "its" and "it's".

xp

I also don't like how quickly a concept has jumped from online safe spaces (communities you choose to get involved with and adhere to the standards of) to the university.

'All potentially triggering posts must carry TW' is one good rough and ready axiom to have in place if you want a discussion forum that isn't going to be full of horrible stupid shit - it's fine. But for a university seminar?

You see, we thought alike

But if a group of people say it's a problem for them I don't see why it's such a big deal.

It only becomes a big deal if the person who sees the warning and decides not to read the material insists that they should receive the same credit as someone who did read the material. If they drop the class rather than risk being triggered, then I see no harm in the warning. If they want credit for something they did not do, then that opens a huge can o' worms. You'd either see a massive increase in people claiming they have triggers in order to avoid course work, or else instructors will be forced to erase vast swaths of material from academic settings.

more on this:

Warning: The Literary Canon Could Make Students Squirm

Colleges across the country this spring have been wrestling with student requests for what are known as “trigger warnings,” explicit alerts that the material they are about to read or see in a classroom might upset them or, as some students assert, cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of rape or in war veterans.

The warnings, which have their ideological roots in feminist thought, have gained the most traction at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where the student government formally called for them. But there have been similar requests from students at Oberlin College, Rutgers University, the University of Michigan, George Washington University and other schools.

...“We’re not talking about someone turning away from something they don’t want to see,” Ms. Loverin said in a recent interview. “People suddenly feel a very real threat to their safety — even if it is perceived. They are stuck in a classroom where they can’t get out, or if they do try to leave, it is suddenly going to be very public.”

The most vociferous criticism has focused on trigger warnings for materials that have an established place on syllabuses across the country. Among the suggestions for books that would benefit from trigger warnings are Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” (contains anti-Semitism) and Virginia Woolf’s “Mrs. Dalloway” (addresses suicide).

Also, Vox recently did a Q&A with the author of a Nation piece on the 'anti-liberal left':

Vox: To be basic: What do you mean by anti-liberalism on the left?

Goldberg: A belief on certain parts of the left that liberal values like free speech and tolerance for differing opinions should be jettisoned when they get in the way of social justice… I think you can see echoes of that in that famous Harvard op-ed from earlier this year, which basically says that research should be jettisoned if it's not going to promote social justice.

This is an old idea. In American politics, leftism and liberalism are often taken as synonymous, but they're really not. There is a long, long tradition of "liberal" being used as an epithet by people on the left to mean a sellout, a person who's more concerned with the ideas of abstract justice and rights that work to ensure the continuation of the existing order. So this is an old, old division…

You often see this phenomenon when Democrats or liberals are in power. That allows people on the left to direct their ire about continuing injustice onto the failures of liberalism as opposed to the successes of conservatism.

And so obviously you saw it with [Lyndon B. Johnson], and the rise of the Weathermen and other groups that came out of the fracturing of Students for a Democratic Society. You saw it — to a much lesser extent, and to a much less serious extent — under Bill Clinton, which was the heyday of political correctness and Naderism. And I think you're seeing it again now.

There is a long, long tradition of "liberal" being used as an epithet by people on the left to mean a sellout, a person who's more concerned with the ideas of abstract justice and rights that work to ensure the continuation of the existing order. You often see this phenomenon when Democrats or liberals are in power. That allows people on the left to direct their ire about continuing injustice onto the failures of liberalism as opposed to the successes of conservatism.

and we see it here on ILX (hello Dr. Morbius).

obvious solution is just don't teach these books/authors, maybe don't teach these classes period.

it'll all be "technical writing" soon enough.

very real

This TW on books at university thing sounds eerily similar to 'Christian family review websites'

It's interesting to see where one's thresholds lie though because I don't know what side of this the me who started this thread wd have been on

It isn't strange to me at all that many people find some literature frightening and disgusting. It would be much stranger if no one did.

There's also a sort of emotional extortion racket going on here:

“Be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression,” the guide said. “Realize that all forms of violence are traumatic, and that your students have lives before and outside your classroom, experiences you may not expect or understand.”

I don't think 'realize' used as a command has any place in the university tbh and the idiotic snarky vibes of 'you may not expect or understand' are not very chill imho

If YOU teach your class of adults this book, YOU are going to give them traumatic flashbacks

But hey, we're just asking you to be aware of students emotional state. What could possibly be wrong with that?

A cranky liberal reporter who sounds an awful lot like a Tea Partier these days posted the NYT article. I wrote this on his wall:

At first I was on your side; it's my instinct to avoid balking from the demands of literature. But a friend who's a college student and a fellow professor both posted on my wall last month and explained it doesn't sound so bad. The latter said he routinely warns his students about graphic material, years before the introduction of "trigger warnings" (terrible jargon, by the way). Not so he can offer alternatives, mind, but to give students an idea what to expect. I tend to think students can Google titles on a syllabus and read synopses before choosing whether they can handle the course.

rateyourtriggerwarnings.com

man all I want are chili peppers

I want an outrigger warning on tv shows with plot points that will never be explained

I don't think 'realize' used as a command has any place in the university tbh and the idiotic snarky vibes of 'you may not expect or understand' are not very chill imho

this is why the movement into institutional policy is significant, it's a push to raise, let's say, ideas, discourse styles, and practices (related to consciousness-raising circles, survivor groups, etc.) which make sense or work in certain contexts to the level of official practice. but the contortion of 'realize' (… 'the extremely general and unargued proposition that all violence is traumatic'…) suggests that it takes some moral oomph to get the translation to take. it imagines that an institutional policy could tell you how to conduct yourself in something like the same way, and with the same force, as a person you are confronting but not listening to or not fully acknowledging. when what the establishment of an aim in an institution's policies really seeks is that you normally conduct yourself as directed without the need for confrontation.

of course, a more cynical reason to establish policies is that their establishment automatically warrants their use as sanctions against nonconforming conduct.

i'm a little mixed on this. this trigger warning debate, and the whole "social justice warrior" thing, seems like a bizarre authoritarian crusade against the fact that life can suck pretty bad sometimes, and we're pretty damn powerless to change much about it. so we get people who conduct these misguided battles against reality itself. outside of this issue, "checking your privilege" isn't going to do jack shit for anyone about anything. teaching people how to cope and manage in a world with privilege would probably be more useful imo. but that doesn't have the same satisfying taste of vengeance, or the illusion of power you get to wield over others as a consolation prize for your own bitter take on life.

i've had PTSD most of my life. trigger warnings have been appreciated in some circumstances, but the times i was triggered in high school ("triggered" as in literally couldn't leave my bedroom for a month) helped me to face the hard truths about what was going on around me and inside of me. protecting people like this isn't going to help them in the long run. teaching people how to cope with what's triggered is far, far, far better than campaigning for "trigger warnings". misguided compassion via authoritarianism. kids are weird these days.

i guess "trigger warnings" and "checking your privilege" belong to a victim mentality that puts responsibility for your personal comfort in other peoples' hands, yet gives you a sort-of negative power over them if they fail to do this. so it's passive aggressive, too.

The word 'art' or 'literature' surely is a trigger warning in itself - and certainly genre terms like 'tragedy', or 'elegy'

spectrum, i think the idea is that other people share a contributory responsibility where issues of privilege and oppression are involved, and the structures that sustain them cannot be 'dismantled' without awareness of them

sounds like an idea cooked up by a bunch of privileged kids with no experience whatsoever in the harsh realities of life.

"c'mon gang, if we can convince 10 joe schmoes they're privileged, we can rebuild the community center!" "yeah!

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/44/db/12e8c6e543340a7e9d9a0a.L._V192535042_SX200_.jpg

lol check out this idealistic child

http://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bell-hooks.png

what a dumbshit teen with no experiences in the harsh realities of life

http://bw.edu/news/mcintosh/mcintoshphoto.jpg

god, grow the fuck up

alfred's professor friend seems to handle it the way i would: put a couple of disclaimers in the syllabus, and let the students decide if they want to take the class or not. even this is a bit silly to me, but if it makes people happy, i don't see the harm

xp didn't bell hooks recently call beyonce a "terrorist" for making some stupid sexy music video? that's friggin' george w. bush talk.

i guess "trigger warnings" and "checking your privilege" belong to a victim mentality that puts responsibility for your personal comfort in other peoples' hands, yet gives you a sort-of negative power over them if they fail to do this. so it's passive aggressive, too.

― Spectrum, Sunday, May 18, 2014 1:11 PM (6 hours ago)

THIS, and ILX provides many helpful examples in action

need a trigger warning for this thread, tbh

alfred's professor friend seems to handle it the way i would: put a couple of disclaimers in the syllabus, and let the students decide if they want to take the class or not.

This seems perfectly reasonable. English Lit is unlikely to be more harrowing for students than criminal law or 20th century history but potentially more likely to take them by surprise if they aren't aware of the content in advance. There are two elements - flagging books that you can reasonably imagine might get a strong adverse emotional reaction from a small number of students and being able to deal with that reaction if it occurs (not making a scene if someone leaves the room, not flunking students if they explain that they don't feel they can participate in a class, etc). Neither seems particularly onerous.

^

yeah, reasonable middle ground is reasonable

Ilx, have any of you had any classmates or friends who have had bad reactions to material presented in lit courses? I mean, from the articles I've read on this topic have focused on student groups who want to implement trigger warnings and the reactions of teachers and administrators to those requests. I really don't have any idea about the student victims in this.

I've never known anyone to have anyone to have negative reactions. But I've also never know anyone to complain when a lecturer or tutor has warned about racism or rape in something to be studied. To me it seems like such a non-issue. If some people have a problem, in what way is anyone else put out by such a warning?

It seems unpleasantly tied into 'anti-PC' thought.

i don't have a problem with teachers telling their classes that something they're about to see or read has potentially traumatizing content, i've had a number of profs who did that. the specific complaint that sparked the santa barbara thing -- a student who was upset that a teacher had shown a movie with a violent rape scene without warning the class -- seems completely reasonable to me. otoh the trigger warning guidelines are so broad that i can't imagine they'd be all that effective, seems like every single book would need a trigger warning.

a english professor friend of mine posted the following on facebook: "Dear Students, If you aren't disturbed by what we read this semester, you prob haven't done the reading. Love, Prof"

The widely quoted Oberlin (iirc) guidelines did this issue no favours. If you ask people whether a teacher should warn students before showing a film including a violent rape most will say yes of course. If you show them the guidelines about Achebe most will find them foolish at best and dangerous at worst. I'm fine with asking teachers to bear potential triggers in mind but as soon as it gets codified it looks terrible. Likewise the Tumblr that was cited in a few places with the epic list that includes "slimy things", the word "stupid" and "Death or dying".

It's just pretty amazing that anyone could wander into a college literature class any time after their Charlotte's Web years and not be braced for trauma.

The Tumblr list people (including The Guardian) were linking to is a two-person operation that hasn't been updated in over a year. I'm rather suspicious of the intentions of anyone going out of their way to find marginal interpretations to ridicule the concept as whole.

I see your point but this one of the first dozen Google results for "trigger warnings". You don't have to go out of your way. Nor have most of the articles I've read ridiculed the whole concept, only its application in academia rather than feminist blogs and other "safe" spaces.

what's the least charitable interpretation you can give for ppl who ridicule trigger warnings? that they're not empathetic enough?

that they are elitist?

really? i mean, anything can have elitism in it but that seems more like the uncharitable reading of pro-trigger warning ppl than anti.

they have experience with the harsh realities of life