Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

Warning to the Trigger Warning: may contain spoilers

like why are we creating a dialogue in our academic communities where we assume achebe might not be fit for every student to read? on the contrary - everyone should read achebe.

Yeah I was just about to say to Sharivari that the Oberlin guidelines sparked this recent debate, not some Tumblr.

and also, if you are too triggered to read eg Heart of Darkness (which isn't about racism but is actually racist) then maybe you're too sensitive a soul for college tbph

“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.” For example, it said, while “Things Fall Apart” by Chinua Achebe — a novel set in colonial-era Nigeria — is a “triumph of literature that everyone in the world should read,” it could “trigger readers who have experienced racism, colonialism, religious persecution, violence, suicide and more.”

i keep coming back to this. there is something so goddamn infuriating to me about the fact that they used this particular example. maybe it's the suggestion that a bunch of college students somehow 'know better,' are more enlightened, whatever, than an actual african author who was, you know, actually trying to make his readers more aware of all these awful things they so smugly act like they're the first ppl in history to know about.

It doesn't sound to me like they are trying to remove it from the course, though - just encouraging people to flag what it's about in advance and potentially not make it mandatory in the rather unlikely event that anyone feels it's too traumatic. It's difficult to see how any course on contemporary literature that isn't focused solely on white people wouldn't run into those issues at some point - i don't think the objective is to get professors to just teach books by white authors.

But what about schools who want departments to write curricula that includes alternatives?

I guess I'm also skeptical enough of the triggering thing to begin with, which isn't really under debate here, but forms some of the resistance to TW i think.

"You're allergic to lobster? Cool. Here's some mac and cheese. Read the warning label first."

like really? you can't read a piece of literature about sexism/racism/violence without having a PTSD flashback? i guess it's possible but idk. seems unlikely to me.

Surely we've all been viscerally moved by pieces of writing? If you haven't then maybe you shouldn't be studying such things. And the people who are best in a position to describe their reaction to such things are the people themselves, no?

i guess the most unfavorable interpretation of pro-TW ppl is that they lack the emotional maturity to distinguish between being upset by material and being damaged by material.

I'm reasonably sure that the majority of students who have experienced racism are going to be some of the most enthusiastic backers of courses that include works by contemporary black authors. This is about finding a considerate way to accommodate a tiny minority who, for whatever reason, do have actual PTSD.

(just a side note - it's possible to be pro-TW, or TW-agnostic, without ever feeling the need for such things oneself. I've never felt the need for such things, but if someone feels more comfortable with them, and they don't affect me, I really don't care)

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

― Mordy, Monday, May 19, 2014 1:03 PM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that they enjoy the feeling of telling someone to suck it up

hope the eng. dept at Oberlin gives 'trigger-warning: unemployment' to people enrolling their programs

i've had PTSD. triggers are things like ... smells, or if a day looks like a certain day because it's reminiscent of some traumatic time in life, or gestures or the way people hold themselves, tone of voice, etc. books never gave me any sort-of problem, i mean, you're in complete control over a book! not so much when it's a stranger and you're out in public.

i just get the feeling the people pushing this policy don't really understand the issue or even what they're doing at all. why not publicize PTSD and lead it into seeking support services? that would actually be helpful and useful for people. if i were in college and people made this trigger warning hooplah it probably wouldn't have even registered with me.

if, on the other hand, these social justice types communicated a compassionate, educational message about the issue with the aim of teaching people how to get help and support, that would actually have been helpful. this is about helping people ... right?

in all the chatter about this i've seen resistance coming from teachers themselves (self described anyway).

among professors there's an inevitable and general 'goddam kids' mentality esp. with regard to reading assignments. i think there's an institutional suspicion of anything that might allow students to get out of reading something *and still* be able to get credit for the course

that's probably the crux of 'conservative' (aside from blanket hostility to feminism or people in subject positions as a whole) is that it's being described as an opt-out from work.

xp to sharivari: well, i think a widespread if ill-defined conception is that minorities experience stress levels and symptoms akin to ptsd in virtue of their routine life experiences (the claim derald wing sue makes, tracing it back to chester pierce's work on black americans), so that the accommodations aren't intended to serve only exceptional cases but to serve equity more broadly for all minorities in higher ed. likewise with feminist approaches to 'climate'.

can you link to someone making a strong argument for that claim? (that minorities experience symptoms comparable to ptsd)

This is about finding a considerate way to accommodate a tiny minority who, for whatever reason, do have actual PTSD.

it seems like the easiest way to do this would be for someone to create an open listing of the possibly emotionally disturbing content of commonly discussed books and films, and then put the onus on the small portion of students who might benefit from a trigger warning to check it out themselves rather than requiring professors/departments to do it. on the rare occasion that a student is assigned Things Fall Apart and then checks the content listings and thinks they might be disturbed by it, then I'm sure the professor would be more than willing to come up with an alternate reading.

oh nm, i see that it's that microaggression thing. another thing i'm in love w/ xp

Do you think Wing Sue and those fighting the same corner are aiming to get works dealing with racism, sexism and colonialism taken off the curriculum just in case or trying to facilitate an understanding that people might react badly even if they haven't been in directly comparable situations and should be treated compassionately?

it seems like the easiest way to do this would be for someone to create an open listing of the possibly emotionally disturbing content of commonly discussed books and films, and then put the onus on the small portion of students who might benefit from a trigger warning to check it out themselves rather than requiring professors/departments to do it. on the rare occasion that a student is assigned Things Fall Apart and then checks the content listings and thinks they might be disturbed by it, then I'm sure the professor would be more than willing to come up with an alternate reading.

Yep, that sounds fairly reasonable - but the professors are probably still going to need guidelines on what is expected of them in that situation.

yeah mordy, you can hunt down derald wing sue's 'microaggressions in everyday life' if you do the stealing e-books thing

here's a reference to a recent study working toward the same end

http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/new-study-links-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-racism

And professors are teaching the same books year on year, rather than the student studying once, and the professor knows the works better than anyone.

something something the establishment of pathological pervasive psychodrama to the level of daily social interaction

It's all a bit "It's political correctness gone mad" to me.

among professors there's an inevitable and general 'goddam kids' mentality esp. with regard to reading assignments. i think there's an institutional suspicion of anything that might allow students to get out of reading something *and still* be able to get credit for the course

These guys are the ones posting on Facebook – the orneriest bunch. I have to resist doing the same.

oh damn, this isn't about mental health, it's about striking out against heteronormative cisgendered ableist terrorists and just using PTSD as a hook. no wonder they aren't talking about counseling.

i've clowned myself in more ways than one in this thread

idk, i studied History at A-Level and Law at university. There was a situation in which a girl who had lost family in the Holocaust had an extreme panic attack while we were being shown a documentary about the death camps and asked to be excused - which the teacher agreed to without any question. Similarly, there were huge sections of my degree that had a focus on gender violence, accidental death / dismemberment and war crimes. There was an understanding that if you didn't feel you could participate, you didn't have to. The idea that literature can be as powerful as fact in bringing up horrible reactions in people doesn't strike me as absurd. It also doesn't mean that you don't still teach it within a framework of understanding.

Oberlin College has published an official document on triggers, advising faculty members to remove triggering material when it doesn't "directly" contribute to learning goals

is this going to be like redacting documents?

I'm wondering if there's a way to do this without falling into the trap of University Admin Doing A Heavy-Handed Thing in a Tone-Deaf Way for ostensibly laudable reasons.

As a student of a major American public university in from '94-00, I walked into the Admin already trying grand gestures and missing wildly.

What about asking at the beginning of the first semester if anyone would like to talk in private about PTSD and triggering material so that the teacher can bear that in mind? Responding to the needs of individual students is what teachers should do. It's the blanket application of TWs that feels problematic because it could lead to certain texts being avoided. But idk, maybe that's stigmatising. I can see why a student might not want to start university by talking to a teacher they don't yet know about a rape or eating disorder. The only justification for blanket TWs I can see is if they've very very limited, eg the film showing a graphic rape scene.

these aren't comparable but i had to have numerous conversations w/ professors about my crohn's disease throughout college when it flared up and forced me to miss classes. it was embarrassing telling them that i had a bowel disorder, esp when i had to explain exactly what it entailed, but i figured that since i was the dude with CD i should be the one to handle it personally w/ the professors as it came up as an issue.

My university uses "learning goals" too. For everything.

senior year of high school was when my PTSD was at its worst. in psychology class we were watching Sybil and the teacher warned us that the ending had graphic scenes and we were free to excuse ourselves. i chose to do that since it related to what i was dealing with, but damn it made me feel weird as hell, and people with any brains in 'em could figure out i probably had issues with that shit.

trigger warnings do seem a little stigmatizing in a way, particularly since i feel like i'm taking a big leap in even discussing this stuff openly, so that's why i prefer people being taught coping skills over trying to carve out a special class for them and enact and enforce a university policy like this. but i honestly get the feeling this debate has more to do with identity politics than PTSD, unfortunately.

i don't think this is about censorship exactly, and most normal college instructors are standardly aware enough of how to handle individual student issues pertaining to course participation, and sensitive enough to try to deal appropriately with them when off-book (say, not foreseen in syllabus policy) issues arise.

i think it's more likely about internecine power struggles within the university (and marginally involving interested parties outside the university, or without direct authority in the discussions, like students, for whom the trend has been toward greater and greater assertion of, i guess you could call it, the right to options).

do ppl who self-harm really feel a compulsion to self-harm just by hearing about someone else doing it?

idk we seem to be veering off track here.

is there anything inherent in trigger warnings that leads to censorship? if not, isn't it just a version the sticker on a dvd box?

Well, that's a whole nother problem. Much like the Parental Advisory Explicit Lyrics stickers on early 90s CD cases, which allowed savvy consumers to buy albums with a whole lotta s words and F words, there's the danger of this attracting a creepy kind of student who specifically scans course syllabi for rape, violence, and imperialism.

Just kidding, but you know there's gonna be at least one dude.

mordy, i don't know about the evidence but i think it's kind of a werther effect deal? of course in online communities the danger involves being alone and isolated, which makes you all the more vulnerable to being adversely influenced/affected, given the issues around self-harm.

i think it's more likely about internecine power struggles within the university (and marginally involving interested parties outside the university, or without direct authority in the discussions, like students, for whom the trend has been toward greater and greater assertion of, i guess you could call it, the right to options).

i dont think this point can be overstated right now.

i wonder if the end game for this is either a) a total backlash and subsequent ridicule of the concept or b) an MPAA style ratings system for courses and book (and also "voluntarily" adopted)

if not, isn't it just a version the sticker on a dvd box?

it's like a version of the sticker on a dvd box where each individual store that sells dvds has to come up with their own film rating system and policies and then print out the sticker and put it on the dvd box

i think a broader point (for me as a wannabe english prof) is that literature courses tend to be electives for non-majors. if you are a literature major and are at risk for being triggered then perhaps another major would be more suitable. if you are not a literature major then maybe non-literature electives are more appropriate. but then can we say that a history course, a sociology course, can be triggering? and why or why not?

well, that line wouldn't fly in philosophy, because it would be regarded as exclusionary right where adapting one's pedagogy would better serve the discipline's universal aspirations.

also u can't teach contemporary continental w/out teaching trauma

if a history course isn't triggering you're obviously doing it wrong

i don't really have a problem with warning labels if that's all these are, altho i guess it does make the student-teacher experience into that much more of a customer-shopkeeper one, which, overall, is the wrong one. but that's what happens when you charge that fucking much.

it's funny though some vestigial "universal aspirations" is, i think, a small part of why some lit profs bristle at this idea. it's to forfeit, perhaps once and for all, that literature has some universal/humanist vocation.

and like i said, i think for the parties behind institutionalizing the practice, it's an equity issue, trying to make sure as few people as possible are prevented from enjoying the benefits of a university education through the institution's failure to adequately adapt to their needs